The stupidity of anarchism

[Encara]

Anarchism is an ideal, belief that hierarchies of power enslave the man, and knowing the proverb power corrupts, it understands that the larger the hierarchy the more corrupt it would be so anarchist conclusions draw to small social bands that govern themselves members choose which band they wish to be part of thus giving a man more freedom in life, as opposed to being born under a predefined rule by some authoritarian figure(s) obviously as with every system it has it's flaws, but it is an ideal based around freedom, so for you to state anarchism is shit would equally say you believe freedom is shit. If you dislike anarchism, you should give reasons, like how until the world is at peace and men don't hunger for power over another it would obviously turn into a tyrannical warlord scenario in which the people you hoped to give freedom would have to choose a lesser of two evils for safety as opposed to picking a small society that fits their own ideals. (that's what a proper arguement looks like) but again, anarchism is a valid ideal just hard to properly see to fruition.

Anarchical ideals involve the concepts of mutual cooperation and morality. That doesn't mean its a logical and applicable form of government, however.

States exist because human history and its genetic relation to primates show that people seek the rule of legitimate leadership. This is the reason why people government and state are established, the reason why people are elected into public office, the reason why people choose to abide by government's policies, and the same exact reason why struggles and revolutions against a government subsequently conclude in the formation of a new mode of government instead of a complete eradication of its application in general. The same argument goes for the concept of the "alpha-male" in primate sociology, whereby competition between male gorillas allowed for the general society of gorillas to determine which is capable of protecting and leading the security of the aggregate.

Our genetic predisposition and akin societal beliefs of authority derive from the fundamental concept of competition in the natural world. Actual and undying cooperation between the masses does not exist because nature strives for individual and/or associative success and struggle at the unavoidable expense of others.

spoken like a true capitalist, why as humans should we strive to be better than apes... Unfortunately otherwise I do agree with you entirely, our world is vastly shaped today by our big swinging alpha dog desires, but alternatively our self awareness, our intelligence, compassion and reasoning has already led us to nearly total diversion of Darwinism and hopefully one day lead us passed the necessity for protection against testosterone driven warlords and robber barons who only wish to live above the rest. Equality and freedom has had enemies since their birth but hopefully will outlive them.

[Camelza]

heheh
Now seriously,explain why do you thing anarchy is shit...

As my companion here said, it would be a huge step back for humanity. So say goodbye to healthcare, law and order, safety and space and say hello to war, famine, disease, death and the prospect of dying in agony. That is what anarchism advocates, no government, no law, no anything. I believe you are intelligent, but I will never understand why someone who is intelligent can like (or even comprehend liking) anarchism.

As I said earlier I am not an anarchist ,but,anarchism isn't what you think it is as what you think anarchy is,is actualy chaotic capitalism...
You should propably read Kropotkin's and Bakunin's works in order to understand what anarchy is,however,since that would take time I'll explain it to you the basics of it:Anarchy is more or less a stateless society were the people do have laws but govern themselfes through participatory democracy and voluntary associations while forming frequently conferences for serious decisions etc,most of anarchists also advocate a classless society were everyone is equal under law.

[Euronion]

Ah yes "Actual Anarchists". 98 % of which are angsty 1st world teenagers who think it's cool to fight the power.

"yeah!! Fight the power man!!" "Freedom to the people!!" yeah, I'd like to see how the spotty little kids get on in real anarchy, I'd certainly like it more than them.

Well I think they'd be shot because eventually someone would get so pissed about their ranting that they would take advantage of the fact that no laws exist to take them out. Yet again though, there would be no educational institutions or teachers because there would be no government nor would there be any internet so they couldn't rant on online chat rooms. They'd scatter and their organization would topple along with the amount of people logging into Twitter and Facebook. They'd be hard to track down, but I'd imagine someone would make it there mission, if not a native citizen, definitely a foreign government if they care to occupy.

[Encara]

Valid point, I must admit. Isn't "fighting the power" a universal for every political ideology imaginable...?

Oh God I have sparred with fellow classmates over Anarchism, they always respond with the argument "but it will never be like that because everyone will be good and happy, we can take care of ourselves, we don't need anybody." I don't think "fighting the power" is a driving factor behind all political ideology. Conservatism for one seems to be more like "preserve the status quot." the only ideologies I've seen claiming to "fight the power" are Fascism, Communism, and Anarchism which all have the same effect, just different paths of getting there.

Umm say what? Fight the power? Fascism is a super nationalist stance almost always inclined to dictatorship, I don't think wanting a supreme ruler in charge is a fight the power that's a support superpowered nonsense give up your freedom ideology. Communism is also a heavy government control regulating everything to promote equality again typically but not always enforced by a superstate. I've rarely heard either promote fighting the power, unless by fight the power you mean wanting a revolution to change to one particular type of government over the other... In which case any political or economic system aside from status quo are fighting the power which still gives your arguement no basis.

[Encara]

"yeah!! Fight the power man!!" "Freedom to the people!!" yeah, I'd like to see how the spotty little kids get on in real anarchy, I'd certainly like it more than them.

Well I think they'd be shot because eventually someone would get so pissed about their ranting that they would take advantage of the fact that no laws exist to take them out. Yet again though, there would be no educational institutions or teachers because there would be no government nor would there be any internet so they couldn't rant on online chat rooms. They'd scatter and their organization would topple along with the amount of people logging into Twitter and Facebook. They'd be hard to track down, but I'd imagine someone would make it there mission, if not a native citizen, definitely a foreign government if they care to occupy.

Without getting too pop-culture, watch Sons of Anarchy, now imagine walking into a biker gang and shooting one of their members. Doesn't end well for you does it? Nope. Anarchy doesn't mean the lack of law or social ties, although laws would be a bit more subjective you fail to realize why most civilized cultures establish very identical laws, not often are you going to find countries where rape, murder, incest, kidnapping, assault, vandalism and general chaos are acceptable norms (with exception of some religious extremists) this is because people actually do dislike having there easy day to day lives screwed with and don't permit atrocities that easily. Thusly even if power is on a micro level of small bands of groups violence would be limited to what it's always been fought over, resources.

[Norstal]

I remember how Natapoc got angry when I tried to explain what states are.

Communists are so open-minded.

Yes, intentional ignorance used to make me angry. Now I just laugh.

I don't see how explaining political science terms is being ignorant. I'm not the one who's ignoring an entire field of academic studies here.

[Encara]

Boys can we keep a pissing match from an old thread from pouring into this one? If you like to post in the nationalism threads some more I'd be happy to see who gets last post...

[The USOT]

Human nature

Eurgh this again? By no means am I an anarchist, but it always gets me groaning whenever the "human nature" argument is thrown around willy nilly.
It would be hilarious if it was not so annoying, but seriously human nature is used to justify everything.
On this forum it has been used to justify religion, fascism, anarchism, capitalism, socialism etc. Its such a buzz word that it has become meaningless and (to me) a sign that a post is not well thought out but preachy.
That isnt to say that a valid human nature argument could not exist. I seem to recall sociobiology (a member of this forum) fairly often making valid arguments from conditions which are actually relative to human nature (sorry if I have got the wrong person =p); but in general use like the US with the word communist, people like you have utterly ruined it and devalued it as any form of intelligble word.

Once a community takes on that role then it is by definition a government. Seriously it baffles me how any person can be an anarchist. What are your thoughts on it?

Now for something interesting. See this was always puzzling to me, for it seems in many ways modern anarchism (from which I mean proudhorn onwards) has some new phenomena of recognising a state in a way which societies just didnt do in the past. Its not oft talked about, but even in Plato`s dialogues it is a common occurence for a "state" to refer to a group of merely 5 people +. Even Thrasymachus who plato uses in the republic as the brutish nitpicker doesnt contest this point, nor have I heard any contention by other individuals at the time.
So this idea of states not being small groups is a new phenomena.

[Galborg]

The State must be destroyed because it was set up by Bosses and Bankers to oppress the Workers.

Anarchism is when Workers organize our own comites and take Power.

We do not object to Power we object to Bankers having the monopoly of Power.

[Encara]

The State must be destroyed because it was set up by Bosses and Bankers to oppress the Workers.

Anarchism is when Workers organize our own comites and take Power.

We do not object to Power we object to Bankers having the monopoly of Power.

That's not necessarily anarchism, many socialist myself included, and communists feel this way, usually you'll only find a capitalist defending the merit or utter lack there of banks and insurance companies.

[Sobaeg]

Depends on the populations level of education, it wont work in nations where financial education and morals are low. But would probably work well in more evolved states, like perhaps Switzerland.

[Natapoc]

Yes, intentional ignorance used to make me angry. Now I just laugh.

I don't see how explaining political science terms is being ignorant. I'm not the one who's ignoring an entire field of academic studies here.

On the contrary. You get so caught up in your preferred definition that you forget there there are is actual meaning behind the terms and that actual meaning is more important than the term itself.

And that when anarchists use the term they use it in a way that has a specific meaning. Different words have different meanings in different contexts. You pretend to be unable to figure this out but I have long ago concluded you simply enjoy semantic disputes, even when there is evidence that a term is used in a certain way to mean a certain thing by millions of people in an internally consistent way.

Internal consistency within a philosophical framework is ALL that matters. It does not even matter if you are right or wrong about the definition of "state" within whatever non anarchist framework you're speaking of. It means something specific in the philosophy of anarchism and refusing to consider that meaning simply because you have another preferred meaning you would prefer anarchists use is the height of silliness. It even has a name: The fallacy of equivocation.

Some people need to understand that words have many meanings. Now this does not mean that one can invent as many meanings to a word as one pleases or that one can rightfully take a term that is used to mean one thing in a certain context and attempt to make it mean something different in that SAME context or framework.

There are things that make a definition more likely to be legitimate: One is historical use.

Of course, I've already spent far more time explaining these things than you deserve since you tend to ignore the substance of anything people type as historically you have no interest in genuine conversation so rather than finish this I'm going to go get some work done and let the reader fill in the blanks.

[Threlizdun]

Well I think they'd be shot because eventually someone would get so pissed about their ranting that they would take advantage of the fact that no laws exist to take them out.

Anarchism is not opposed to the existence of laws.

Yet again though, there would be no educational institutions or teachers because there would be no government nor

Lack of hierarchies does not mean lack of government.

would there be any internet so they couldn't rant on online chat rooms.

Where in the hell are you getting this?

They'd scatter and their organization would topple along with the amount of people logging into Twitter and Facebook.

I don't quite understand what organization you are talking about here. Are you presuming that a select few would be handling things in a society defined by its absence of power hierarchies?

They'd be hard to track down, but I'd imagine someone would make it there mission, if not a native citizen, definitely a foreign government if they care to occupy.

You appear to be offering the power vacuum arguement, stating that someone will attempt to take control. What you must remember though is that a single individual cannot oppress millions, they must have support. In such a society, everyone has an equal say in affairs, and has access to the resources they desire. When one is told by another that they could join them so that they will once again be oppressed and would once again be subjected to slavery in order to survive, how likely do you believe it is that someone would jump at this offer?

[Zweite Alaje]

Anarchical ideals involve the concepts of mutual cooperation and morality. That doesn't mean its a logical and applicable form of government, however.

States exist because human history and its genetic relation to primates show that people seek the rule of legitimate leadership. This is the reason why people government and state are established, the reason why people are elected into public office, the reason why people choose to abide by government's policies, and the same exact reason why struggles and revolutions against a government subsequently conclude in the formation of a new mode of government instead of a complete eradication of its application in general. The same argument goes for the concept of the "alpha-male" in primate sociology, whereby competition between male gorillas allowed for the general society of gorillas to determine which is capable of protecting and leading the security of the aggregate.

Our genetic predisposition and akin societal beliefs of authority derive from the fundamental concept of competition in the natural world. Actual and undying cooperation between the masses does not exist because nature strives for individual and/or associative success and struggle at the unavoidable expense of others.

spoken like a true capitalist, why as humans should we strive to be better than apes... Unfortunately otherwise I do agree with you entirely, our world is vastly shaped today by our big swinging alpha dog desires, but alternatively our self awareness, our intelligence, compassion and reasoning has already led us to nearly total diversion of Darwinism and hopefully one day lead us passed the necessity for protection against testosterone driven warlords and robber barons who only wish to live above the rest. Equality and freedom has had enemies since their birth but hopefully will outlive them.

Humanity cannot be better than apes because we are apes. There will always be those that seek to rise above the rest, but it is whether those that do have the interest of the self or the interest of the whole at heart.

Not only that, but people will always need protection from the selfish and the corrupt, and thus the state shall remain a reality in human existance.

[Threlizdun]

Humanity cannot be better than apes because we are apes. There will always be those that seek to rise above the rest, but it is whether those that do have the interest of the self or the interest of the whole at heart.

Which they would need the backing of others to do, and in a situation in which the only thing that could be gained is slavery, then the proposal would not be in any form appealing.

Not only that, but people will always need protection from the selfish and the corrupt, and thus the state shall remain a reality in human existance.

Anarchism is a natural choice for the egoist. It is in a selfish individual's best interest to ensure such a society is maintained.

[Norstal]

I don't see how explaining political science terms is being ignorant. I'm not the one who's ignoring an entire field of academic studies here.

On the contrary. You get so caught up in your preferred definition that you forget there there are is actual meaning behind the terms and that actual meaning is more important than the term itself.

And that when anarchists use the term they use it in a way that has a specific meaning. Different words have different meanings in different contexts. You pretend to be unable to figure this out but I have long ago concluded you simply enjoy semantic disputes, even when there is evidence that a term is used in a certain way to mean a certain thing by millions of people in an internally consistent way.

Internal consistency within a philosophical framework is ALL that matters. It does not even matter if you are right or wrong about the definition of "state" within whatever non anarchist framework you're speaking of. It means something specific in the philosophy of anarchism and refusing to consider that meaning simply because you have another preferred meaning you would prefer anarchists use is the height of silliness. It even has a name: The fallacy of equivocation.

Some people need to understand that words have many meanings. Now this does not mean that one can invent as many meanings to a word as one pleases or that one can rightfully take a term that is used to mean one thing in a certain context and attempt to make it mean something different in that SAME context or framework.

There are things that make a definition more likely to be legitimate: One is historical use.

When you want to change the entirety of my government,the politics and inner workings of an institution such as these, you don't get to pick and choose the definitions. You don't get to call it a philosophy and then refuse to ignore arguments against it. If you're for the philosophical definition of anarchism, fine, but don't try to destroy my state, or any other states for that matter. Don't advocate for political actions in the guise of freeing people. Because when you do that, you're not in philosophy anymore. You're going into politics. And when we go to politics, we're going to use political terms and its definition.

Of course, I've already spent far more time explaining these things than you deserve since you tend to ignore the substance of anything people type as historically you have no interest in genuine conversation so rather than finish this I'm going to go get some work done and let the reader fill in the blanks.

Why do people do this? It just makes you look like a dick.

[Zweite Alaje]

Humanity cannot be better than apes because we are apes. There will always be those that seek to rise above the rest, but it is whether those that do have the interest of the self or the interest of the whole at heart.

Which they would need the backing of others to do, and in a situation in which the only thing that could be gained is slavery, then the proposal would not be in any form appealing.

Not only that, but people will always need protection from the selfish and the corrupt, and thus the state shall remain a reality in human existance.

Anarchism is a natural choice for the egoist. It is in a selfish individual's best interest to ensure such a society is maintained.

I'm not a fan of Egoism, I'm not interested in the individual, only the whole. Anarchism is merely glorified selfishness like Capitalism.

[Natapoc]

When you want to change the entirety of my government,the politics and inner workings of an institution such as these, you don't get to pick and choose the definitions. You don't get to call it a philosophy and then refuse to ignore arguments against it.

I do none of these things.

Why do people do this? It just makes you look like a dick.

Because you consistently make pseudo-arguments such as the above in which you fail to address anything meaningful proving again and again the futility of attempting to have a dialog of any kind with you.

I don't care if you want to have a state. Have it and enjoy it. I don't care what you want to call it. When your argument is purely semantic (especially when you have no basis for your side of the argument and consistently ignore evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint) it becomes boring and pointless to me.

The ONLY reason I even reply to you is so that others do not believe that I somehow admit to or agree with your Libel.

[Norstal]

When you want to change the entirety of my government,the politics and inner workings of an institution such as these, you don't get to pick and choose the definitions. You don't get to call it a philosophy and then refuse to ignore arguments against it.

I do none of these things.

Why do people do this? It just makes you look like a dick.

Because you consistently make pseudo-arguments such as the above in which you fail to address anything meaningful proving again and again the futility of attempting to have a dialog of any kind with you.

I don't care if you want to have a state. Have it and enjoy it.

So all those times you pandered and preached about anti-government rhetoric is...what do you call that really?

My old argument was that if you break up this nation into smaller communities is that all you've done is creating smaller states. And when I explained that, I remember you got angry about it. You don't even try to refute it. You just get angry. And now your entire argument is based on changing the definition of "states" to fit your definition.

And once more in this thread, you have called anarchism a political system. Not a philosophy. If you call it a political system, then it is a political system where the nation is stateless, which means there is no monopoly of force and coercion. If it's a philosophy, then I don't care. That's the thing. IF you treat it as a political system, then you have to accept the universal definition of anarchism as being stateless.

I don't care what you want to call it. When your argument is purely semantic (especially when you have no basis for your side of the argument and consistently ignore evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint) it becomes boring and pointless to me.

So...stop posting then. If everyone reading this knows I'm wrong, then they'll know I'm wrong.

The ONLY reason I even reply to you is so that others do not believe that I somehow admit to or agree with your Libel.

Oh, so it is just a dick-measuring contest to you. If you truly do have more "important work" to do, then I suggest you do them and finish this later.

[Natapoc]

I do none of these things.



Because you consistently make pseudo-arguments such as the above in which you fail to address anything meaningful proving again and again the futility of attempting to have a dialog of any kind with you.

I don't care if you want to have a state. Have it and enjoy it.

So all those times you pandered and preached about anti-government rhetoric is...what do you call that really?

My old argument was that if you break up this nation into smaller communities is that all you've done is creating smaller states. And when I explained that, I remember you got angry about it. You don't even try to refute it. You just get angry. And now your entire argument is based on changing the definition of "states" to fit your definition.

And once more in this thread, you have called anarchism a political system. Not a philosophy. If you call it a political system, then it is a political system where the nation is stateless, which means there is no monopoly of force and coercion. If it's a philosophy, then I don't care. That's the thing. IF you treat it as a political system, then you have to accept the universal definition of anarchism as being stateless.

You are a very confused person. I've never said that anarchism has a monopoly on force. You are claiming that I've said things that I've never said and that's what gets a little frustrating.

It's YOUR argument that is dependent on changing the definition of state, not mine.

Of course anarchism is stateless. I've never claimed otherwise.

The annoying thing about arguing with you is that you are under the mistaken belief that I've claimed things I've not and you never let it go.

Let me be clear: Anarchism is stateless. I've never said otherwise.

Let me also be clear that anarchism is stateless under the definition of state you use above.

If you define state as: a political system where there is a monopoly of force and coercion (as you did above) then anarchism is stateless!

I've never claimed otherwise!

The frustration is that you seem insistent on putting words into my mouth that I've never uttered.

Yes I do and have refuted your argument again and again but you refuse to consider anything except your straw man of my beliefs.

[Norstal]

So all those times you pandered and preached about anti-government rhetoric is...what do you call that really?

My old argument was that if you break up this nation into smaller communities is that all you've done is creating smaller states. And when I explained that, I remember you got angry about it. You don't even try to refute it. You just get angry. And now your entire argument is based on changing the definition of "states" to fit your definition.

And once more in this thread, you have called anarchism a political system. Not a philosophy. If you call it a political system, then it is a political system where the nation is stateless, which means there is no monopoly of force and coercion. If it's a philosophy, then I don't care. That's the thing. IF you treat it as a political system, then you have to accept the universal definition of anarchism as being stateless.

You are a very confused person. I've never said that anarchism has a monopoly on force. You are claiming that I've said things that I've never said and that's what gets a little frustrating.

It's YOUR argument that is dependent on changing the definition of state, not mine.

Of course anarchism is stateless. I've never claimed otherwise.

The annoying thing about arguing with you is that you are under the mistaken belief that I've claimed things I've not and you never let it go.

Let me be clear: Anarchism is stateless. I've never said otherwise.

Let me also be clear that anarchism is stateless under the definition of state you use above.

If you define state as: a political system where there is no monopoly of force and coercion (as you did above) then anarchism is stateless!

I've never claimed otherwise!

The frustration is that you seem insistent on putting words into my mouth that I've never uttered.

Yes I do and have refuted your argument again and again but you refuse to consider anything except your straw man of my beliefs.

Alright then, I'll concede.

[Natapoc]

Alright then, I'll concede.

Okay thanks. Did you really honestly believe that I've claimed there is a monopoly on force under anarchism?

[Norstal]

Alright then, I'll concede.

Okay thanks. Did you really honestly believe that I've claimed there is a monopoly on force under anarchism?

No, I made that claim. Because my problem with anarchism is that states can exist in some form or another.

[Natapoc]

Okay thanks. Did you really honestly believe that I've claimed there is a monopoly on force under anarchism?

No, I made that claim. Because my problem with anarchism is that states can exist in some form or another.

States cannot exist within anarchism but an anarchist society could not necessarily stop the emergence of a state. However the emergence of a state is not necessary under anarchism.

If a state were to emerge from an anarchist community then that community would no longer be anarchist however I do not see this as a "bad" feature of anarchism because it's also a feature of any other form of human society.

There does not exist a type of society from which a state cannot emerge. Anarchists would want to attempt to organize in such a way as to reduce the chances of a state forming or to reduce the impact or power of any state that could form (so anarchists could escape it and defend against it )

[Augarundus]

I don't understand the OP. Of course (most) anarchists don't believe anarchy would be a utopia. We just believe that an alternative to a monopoly state is preferable to a state.

I'm not even going to pretend that this thread is anything more than a poor flame.