Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

[Aurielius]

@Imperistan

As the sole proponent and advocate for this illusory from of desirable existence, whenever pinned down you redefine the dictionary definition in favor of your own labels and 'self' created explanations of concept, state that people do not know what they are talking about or do not truly understand the concept. Basic scientific method for detecting a consistent error in a experiment is to examine the variables involved. In any experiment in which there is one constant among a host of variables the logical surmise is to look to the constant as the causal factor not the variables. I submit that this idea as you put it forward is a delusional non existent entity which only you believe in, if we put it to a vote (such a non anarchistical thing to do) it would stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus. As I previously stated only ideologues and opportunists want anarchy, so the kindest explanation is that you are a committed ideologue but not a realist.

 

'If all fools, wise men, rich men, poor men, greedy men, humble men, selfish men, altruistic men, and neutral men in the world were killed, anarchy might actually be able to exist."

- Philip Musial

Edited February 18, 2012 by Aurielius

[Lisnpuppy]

@Imperistan---

 

First of all you realize that organized anarchy is an oxymoron, right? :biggrin:

 

All I have to say is....1) Stop reading so much Kant 2) Anarchy will eventually fail, even in its most organized fashion, as people ultimately WANT to be lead and have someone in which to follow...why? Because then there is always someone upon which to place blame when things go arse over elbows.

[Nintii]

well what if they said "The richer you are the more freedom we'll give you" ... would the world become a place of crime or a place of ingenuity ?

 

Crime. If a worthless concept like wealth is going to determine your level of freedom then only those who can cheat, lie, steal, kill, and do whatever else they can to achieve their wealth will actually be able to obtain any significant level of freedom.

 

And besides, you're little hypothetical is terrible anyway. That's a terrible dystopia is what that is.

 

[

 

You are way to easy ... because the fact that you actually took that ridiculous idea and ran with it exposes the true intent of your angle ... arguementative without substance.

And you ask me to back up what I am saying ... I don't need to, your ideas on independance from authority are a guaranteed failure.

No one here sees it - and if anyone does then it's in the minority - as a workable idea, now imagine it outside in the real world.

 

The fact that you have not backed up anything you have said with facts and rely soley on baseless criticism is a sure sign of a faith in a recognisable failure.

As Winston Churchill once said and I quote,

 

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

 

Directly after my "sure" foundation of family is work ... here there is guaranteed to be structure ... are you going to give into this as well like you did to family ?

If so, it seems that your theory of anarchy is going to become terribly watered down ... because directly after that I'm going to talk about security as in "your" anarchistic world

view of nations ... or are we all suddenly going to be so free and friendly that we now all love one another, hold hands and sing kumbaya.

 

Wait a minute while you're at it, let's not forget that the infrastructure of our cities will fail because organisation means authority and authority is local government and so we cannot have that right, so out goes city maintainence.

And while we're at it let's all pray to the god of anarchy and hope that he or she throws money out of the sky whereby each person - now so independant and caring of his neighbor - will immediately go out and buy materials to repair the rail system, the roads, education, etc. etc etc. because taxing people and then collecting those taxes to pay for those things

would mean an authority of some kind and then to organise people into teams to repair those things would d mean more structure.

 

And if there was a group who did those things by whose "authority" would it be and who would ensure that they did their work correctly ?

It seems to me that getting such a body into existance would be through some sort vote and then who would monitor their work ?

A governing body ... I'd like to be present at a meeting where a couple of hundred thousand people all stand up to talk - because there are no representatives because that would mean structure - and all talk at the same time.

 

And of course no one in your world would be involved in crime ... we hope to high heaven not, because that would mean a police force to deal with it and that would mean authority

I can go on about hospitals and education, water treatment plants etc etc etc ...

 

Clearly you have no concept of business and how it works.

 

The way I see it is your world is going to be terribly structured like this one ... so let's not waste our time and let's just reject your idea and keep what we have.

Better the devil we know than the one we don't.

 

I have a friend from Texas and he once told me that "that dog aint going to bark" ... seems like I can finally use that in a sentence.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Nintii

[imperistan]

As the sole proponent and advocate for this illusory from of desirable existence, whenever pinned down you redefine the dictionary definition in favor of your own labels and 'self' created explanations of concept, state that people do not know what they are talking about or do not truly understand the concept.

 

My definition has always been constant and the dictionary definition does not describe what is being discussed.

 

This:

 

an·ar·chy   [an-er-kee]

noun

1.

a state of society without government or law.

2.

political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3.

confusion; chaos; disorder:

 

Is not this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

 

The first is being constantly referred to by my apparent opponents in this discussion to the point that it is replacing what is actually being discussed, so I am constantly having to establish and reiterate the massive difference between these two.

 

As I related earlier, I've had to deal with people who had literally zero knowledge of what they were arguing against. Those people confusing chaotic anarchy with that of anarchism, or organized anarchy, was one of the biggest problems. And I'm seeing it repeated here.

 

I submit that this idea as you put it forward is a delusional non existent entity which only you believe in, if we put it to a vote (such a non anarchistical thing to do) it would stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus.

 

If we were to put it to a vote here in this forum, it would fail because I'm the only one on my side of the argument. If we were to put it to vote nationally, it would fail not only because anarchists are in no sense whatsoever a majority, but also because anarchism is unfeasible at a national level comparable to that of the United States, and especially so if its to be expected to instantly be able to manage the massive population.

 

You can't build a house without a foundation. If there is no foundation and you start throwing extra levels onto that house then it will collapse. That is why you must start from the ground up. You cannot build a house from the roof down. In the same way, you cannot create an anarchistic society by putting onto it the responsibility of over 300 million people before it can even set itself up to be functioning.

 

And while my ideas may not be able to be found on Wikipedia, that does not make them any less valid. I've had the good fortune (and enlightenment) of having spent time in several different anarchist movements across the globe, their seriousness varying from the level of hipster to near the level of literal revolutionaries one step below terrorists and on to that of actual, modern day practitioners. (though sadly for that last one their town has been degrading as of late. The legality of certain drugs within their own borders compared to the illegality of those same drugs in its host state conflicting and all that) My ideas are based on the actual issues plaguing the world-wide anarchist movement and the philosophy its based on. I've seen my ideas work on a small scale and I know logically that with proper progression and the right form of establishment that it can grow to remain functional on larger scales.

 

My ideas have transcended what you can find in books or the vast majority of the internet, because I have never officially written on them in such a way that would garner such attention. I only bother to discuss this now, when I've completely abandoned anarchism myself, in favor of autarchism, because it keeps my mind working and passes the time.

 

First of all you realize that organized anarchy is an oxymoron, right?

 

Its not. See above.

 

2) Anarchy will eventually fail, even in its most organized fashion, as people ultimately WANT to be lead and have someone in which to follow...why?

 

Anarchy does not exclude the existence of leaders. Only rulers, and ultimately leaders do not have to be rulers to still be effective. An easy analogy to make is a religious leader like a pastor or a rabbi. An even easier analogy can be found in Skyrim, in the form of the Harbinger.

 

You are way to easy ... because the fact that you actually took that ridiculous idea and ran with it exposes the true intent of your angle

 

Sorry if your tragically emotional writing style didn't clue me in as to whether or not you realized that that particular statement was ridiculous.

 

And you ask me to back up what I am saying ... I don't need to, your ideas on independance from authority are a guaranteed failure.

 

Okay. Your opinion is devoid of any worth and fails to prove me wrong. Goodbye.

 

As for the rest of your silly post, I defer you to my past posts. I've already explained why the assertions you make are not right and as far as I'm concerned if you're not going back yourself up with anything nor actually acknowledge what I've already said then I have little reason to respond to whatever you post next.

 

 

 

Note to mods: Sorry if I'm "talking down" again, but I find it difficult to express my frustration against someone asserting that I'm wrong and they are right without backing themselves up, while ignoring my past posts that already respond to their assertions, and is generally just trying to effectively end the discussion for little reason in any other way than that. If she doesn't want to discuss this then she's free to leave the topic alone. Whether or not it wastes anyone's time is their problem, not hers.

Edited February 18, 2012 by imperistan

[Marxist ßastard]

imperistan: Could you please just give some practical examples of what you're supporting, and how it's different from an ordinary liberal state? You claim to have participated in several functional anarchies – how did they do things?

 

You've only really been on the defensive so far, talking endlessly about what anarchism isn't – maybe things would turn out better if you describe what anarchy is.

 

Also, can we all please refrain from doing the whole reply-to-each-sentence-individually thing? It's very high school–ish and makes posts difficult to read.

[Aurielius]

"My ideas have transcended what you can find in books or the vast majority of the internet"

 

My apologies MB but this quote so precisely defines the intellectual hubris of imperstan that it screams out to be cherry picked. It says it all..he's a legend in his own mind dropping his Olympian pearls of wisdom to us poor drones if we only had the intellect to appreciate his self evident genius.

[imperistan]

You've only really been on the defensive so far, talking endlessly about what anarchism isn't – maybe things would turn out better if you describe what anarchy is.

 

I have been.

 

My apologies MB but this quote so precisely defines the intellectual hubris of imperstan that it screams out to be cherry picked. It says it all..he's a legend in his own mind dropping his Olympian pearls of wisdom to us poor drones if we only had the intellect to appreciate his self evident genius.

 

So are you going to say anything or are you just going to sit there?

[Marxist ßastard]

imperistan: I can see you have reason to be annoyed here. People aren't reading your posts. But you aren't really making it easy – it's very hard to sift through a pages-long post of one-sentence rhetorical belches, each in reply to a single sentence of an unidentified post.

 

Could you please just devote a couple of paragraphs to explaining positively what anarchy is, how you've seen it practically implemented, and how it's different from an ordinary liberal state?

[Moveing]

Anarchism and pure capitalism are nearly the same thing. Provided people have some common sense about natural rights to freedome, live and liberty.

 

 

The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

A death of a king is a shockwave trough all organs of public administry. ,,Anarchy" and Chaos follows because the peasants have some open bills with the administry.

For example, the renaissance was possible because most of the elites died and the peasants and people were free from exicutive and stupid laws which ristrikt Science, Art and Speech.

 

 

2) Anarchy will eventually fail, even in its most organized fashion, as people ultimately WANT to be lead and have someone in which to follow...why?

That doesn't mean Anarchy must fail. Anarchy fails if people which want to follow a leader FORCE others to do also.

 

 

Humans don't do real anarchy full stop, Somalia is an excellent example of this. Humans are social animals, we naturally form into groups and those groups have leaders. The absence of government in Somalia hasn't led to true anarchy, people have become part of groups, groups with leaders.

Remindes me in something.

Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

[Nintii]

@ Imperistan ... PIe in the sky is all you bring to the dinner table ... here's a hint, try bringing something substantial, something practical other than theory ... something I can analyse, take apart and put back together ... or does your theory only operate in the "we wish and hope that this stuff actually works" realm ?