Anarchy, It doesn't sound like what I'm told.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

But what about "no rules". How the hell is an anarchist society going to provide law enforcement?

Anarchy has rules. Anarchy is order.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by JCC

Anarchy has rules. Anarchy is order.

I think Albert is confused with the idea that in an anarchistic society, he can do any action that pops up in his head, despite how much that action goes against his own good nature and reason.

[JCC]

I have 1,984 posts!

I want to preserve this moment forever!

Please continue with the discussion.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

They really do.

There you go. If I'd have known that, I'd have seen where you were coming from.

[JCC]

It's true that fact would help you come to terms with calling it 'oppression', but remember that from an anarchist viewpoint, even a great government that helps its citizens dramatically, redistributes wealth, eliminates poverty, still roots in oppression.

One of my favourite things is when people make the argument that in anarchy there would be a revolution of power-hungry bastards who would kill dissenters and seize control.

They sum up where government comes from and why I don't like it.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

We'd adapt. It's simply survival of the fittest. You know the average cavefolk life expectancy was supposedly around 16? That's how it is. Life would be hard, but people would survive.

So that's a selfless society, where people just live to eat, drink and breathe, live to 16 and get eaten by the next predator? You actually believe that?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Allow me to remind you of hurrican Katrina.
I already have said this I think twice.
Hurricane Katrina; one of the most recent disasters.
The government was slow to act, and in some cases not only were they not helping, but they were in fact prohibiting the victims from leaving their area so as not to cause a damage in the economic infrastructure of the neighboring safe regions. This means that the government effectively let hundreds, if not thousands, without food and without shelter, all in the name of 'order'. This is not suprising; the government first defends itself and then its constituents.
It was anarchists, particularly Food Not Bombs, who went to their aid. They kept the people clothed and fed as best as they could, which was surprisingly a lot.
This is because anarchists don't have to wait for permission to be good with their brethren.
It was not only after the people were safer was it that the government intervened again, and it even arrested several anarchists for the horrendous crime of helping.

Great... What the hell did you think I was talking about when I mentioned "certain natural disasters in recent years?" Of course I was talking about Katrina, you blithering fool! Didn't I imply that the government dropped the ball? I'm not trying to defend the failings of the U.S. government.

The anarchists you mention are living in, and benefiting from, a capitalist system. We have no way of knowing what they'd do in a system other than the one in which they live. Your "evidence" is no fucking evidence at all. It's based on conjecture, pure and simple. Shoddy conjecture, at that.

Also, as I've said before, just because there were anarchists involved in the relief effort does NOT make the entire effort an anarchistic one.

How do you keep conflating the two? Where do you get the idea that the mere presence of anarchists makes something inherently anarchistic?!

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

How do you keep conflating the two? Where do you get the idea that the mere presence of anarchists makes something inherently anarchistic?!

He's not. There's two agendas:

1. The Anarchist relief effort was decentralized, entirely democratic and entirely voluntary. Anarchic.

2. You said that an Anarchist community wouldn't know what to do and wouldn't be able to react to such a situation. That Anarchist community (and they are a community, albeit a small one) did.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

He's not. There's two agendas:

1. The Anarchist relief effort was decentralized, entirely democratic and entirely voluntary. Anarchic.

2. You said that an Anarchist community wouldn't know what to do and wouldn't be able to react to such a situation. That Anarchist community (and they are a community, albeit a small one) did.

So you're going to extrapolate, from the actions of a tiny, tiny political minority, a justification for how the world at large should work? Why not all just go live in a fucking hippie commune, then? Honestly, do you even THINK about the repercussions of such a change in the sociological current of events?

How many people would starve in the mass transition from our current system to anarchy? How much rioting, looting, and violence would take place once authority was decentralized? Who would stop all of that violence? Lack of medicine? Destruction of transport and national infrastructure? All of it, how would your "society" cope? What about the people who don't share your ideals? What do we do about them?

You seem to be, de facto, advocating a sacrifice of many, many people simply to see your own ideal, decentralized agenda put into place. After all, if anarchy reigns, and we revert to some fucking ridiculously narrow regional economy, thereby destroying the network of infrastructure that ties the world together, what could possibly result but mass death and suffering?

Are you sure you want all of that to come to pass? Think carefully, because if you answer "yes", I'd like to know how you're different from any whacked out dictator with delusions of grandeur that came before you.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Oh, I forgot to say this: FUCKING LUDDITE.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

As for the idea of Emergence, what, exactly, is it? Are you saying that the result of collective thought will be more than the sum of its constituent parts? That, somehow, with people coming together, they're going to magically start thinking alike and acting in concert?

It occured to me that someone might get thrown off by that, and I apologize. If you look at the comments to the video you'll find one from me about two months ago criticizing the idea. The reason for that is that given some of the quotes in there, technically the video is about "strong" emergence, which I think is bunk. That's the idea that complicated systems have properties not reducible to the lower level characteristics. It is indeed a form of rank magical thinking which I have been alarmed to see gain something approaching a foothold in science.

OTOH hand "weak" emergence, which is simply order arising from a complex pattern of interactions without central planning, is an obviously real phenomenon, as shown rather dramatically by the swarm insects 3 minutes into the video. There is no leader-bug in that swarm, any more than there is a command center in your brain in which your conciousness hides and pulls strings attached to all the other parts. Most of life works this way - bottom up (another reason to doubt that it was "intelligently designed", BTW).

The idea is to extend this to politics. Actually, we already do, especially in economics, but it's only a start. Of course, insects, neurons, markets, etc., do all of this reflexively, and we do not see humans erecting utopian societies reflexively - at present, anyway. So it's not like we're looking at a magical solution, as you suggest. The point is that it's the right kind of solution. The questions then become, what is it about human relations, history, or whatever that has caused society to develop the way it has, rather than some better way, and what if anything can be done about it?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Hmm. That is an interesting question. Can this sort of thing be extended to a body politic?

You cite similarities between nature and economics. There, I completely agree with you, and I feel that statisticians and economists can learn much from just observing the environment.

But as far as politics and society goes, I think that is a much tougher sell.

Complexity is relative. The movements of a flock of birds or swarm of insects, acting by instinct and without any centralized leadership are, indeed, complex, but not nearly so much as human thought patterns. Emergence may be inherently ingrained in the thought patterns of lower life forms, but that doesn't take into account the X factor of human will.

If someone were able to extend the idea of weak emergence from natural phenomena to humankind, that would be extraordinary. It would also make that person, or group of people, exceedingly powerful.

I fear that this is all beyond me, but it is certainly something worth thinking about.

[HellforgedX]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

I must admit, that I find it funny when people use that line that humans are by nature, selfish and evil. If so, then what miracle happened to you to make you, the individual, NOT selfish and evil?

...and...

Forgive me for extending the courtesy to suspect him to be at least a decent human being.

Thank you, Kontan, for trying to assume the best in people in general, if not me.

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Konton is hardly a moron. :/ And what he said is in line with the conversation, unlike your rather unnecessary insult.

Thank you, Tam, for backing him up.

Anyways, this discussion has been very lively & stimulating. I enjoyed everyone's reactions to various posts of mine and others, and yes, JCC, I agree with you on the fact that my thoughts are just opinions and I should not have phrased them as "insider information". You continue to provide intelligent contributions, and I thank you as well.
The fact of the matter is that no government is perfect, and they all do work to varying degrees, and that each government depends on the people that make it up. In my opinion, I feel that an anarchic society would be more prone to failure based on the composition of too many individual desires conflicting with the desires of the many. Should those many all agree on the same things, so much the better, assuming those things are good for the society as a whole. Democracy, representative republic, monarchy, communism, fascism, these all work as well, depending on the dispositions of the leaders and the society's mood towards those leaders.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Know what? It might look like a copout, but PSPH sounds like such a bourgeois that I'm wondering why I keep spending my time with him.
If he cares about something, it seems to be the perpetuation of the state. Doesn't matter if it's fascist or social democratic or anarchic. If it doesn't last, it's not worth shit.

That's the perfect statist mentality. No wonder we can't convince him about anything. The perpetuation of the state as more important than its constituents? Fuck that.

In THIS society half of the world goes hungry. Under STATIST revolution did millions starve to death. In THIS capitalist society 80% of the world makes less than two dollars a day.
If someone can't see how it's good to try to constantly and insistently push for a world in which those that build mansions don't live in stables, then how can I even talk to them?
It seems like they're putting themselves as the example that people are inherently evil, just to win this argument.

PSPH, you said several times that the numerous anarchist actions that were big enough to be considered by history were too insignificant to be relevant.
Well, guess what:
Empires fall.
The spirit of rebellion doesn't.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Know what? It might look like a copout, but PSPH sounds like such a bourgeois that I'm wondering why I keep spending my time with him.
If he cares about something, it seems to be the perpetuation of the state. Doesn't matter if it's fascist or social democratic or anarchic. If it doesn't last, it's not worth shit.

That's the perfect statist mentality. No wonder we can't convince him about anything. The perpetuation of the state as more important than its constituents? Fuck that.

In THIS society half of the world goes hungry. Under STATIST revolution did millions starve to death. In THIS capitalist society 80% of the world makes less than two dollars a day.
If someone can't see how it's good to try to constantly and insistently push for a world in which those that build mansions don't live in stables, then how can I even talk to them?
It seems like they're putting themselves as the example that people are inherently evil, just to win this argument.

PSPH, you said several times that the numerous anarchist actions that were big enough to be considered by history were too insignificant to be relevant.
Well, guess what:
Empires fall.
The spirit of rebellion doesn't.

I love you, I really do.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Know what? It might look like a copout

Correction: it IS a big copout. Just trying to offend a little, which was unnecessary. But I still stand for what I said, sans ad hominem.

[KontanKarite]

*shrugs*

Hell of a way to put an end to the discussion I suppose.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

*shrugs*

Hell of a way to put an end to the discussion I suppose.

No kidding.

Jill, I'm thinking of writing some kind of book, a manifesto if you will, for Anarcho-Communism. I'm going to research my arse off before I start, but I want to ask now if you'll help me edit it and so on. Same goes for JCC and you Conner.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's the perfect statist mentality. No wonder we can't convince him about anything. The perpetuation of the state as more important than its constituents? Fuck that.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

PSPH, you said several times that the numerous anarchist actions that were big enough to be considered by history were too insignificant to be relevant.
Well, guess what:
Empires fall.
The spirit of rebellion doesn't.

You can't convince me because your arguments are illogical and zealously ideological. You don't take realpolitik into account. You don't think about the ugly truths of revolution, nor about whether or not the revolution you preach is worth dying for. Or, for that matter, if killing the people that will invariably be killed, both intentionally and unintentionally, will be a price worth paying.

Does that make me statist? Maybe to a hot-headed zealot. I, however, don't see it that way.

[Drake Dun]

This would probably have been a better video to present on emergence:

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoN...A24E01&index=0

It's on the dreaded NYC server, so it takes time to load.

I chose the other one first because it was more beautiful. This one is a little more in depth, has better footage, and is free from "strong" emergence mysterianism.

Maybe at some point I'll go read this huge hullabaloo you guys have created and shoot my own mouth off as well. Wouldn't want to be accused of leaving well enough alone. If nothing else, I'd like to expand upon the relevance of emergence to all this.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Give us hell, Drake. I mean, we're here, after all, and that says that we're gluttons for punishment. If we didn't want to scrap, then we could just turn off the computer.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

No kidding.

Jill, I'm thinking of writing some kind of book, a manifesto if you will, for Anarcho-Communism. I'm going to research my arse off before I start, but I want to ask now if you'll help me edit it and so on. Same goes for JCC and you Conner.

Jillian has an idea for his own branch of Anarchism which I agree with to a pretty good extent. I was thinking if the four of us sort of poured our ideas into it and refined it we could make leaflets, distribute them and spread the word a little. Anarchism has a really bad habit of preaching to the converted.

[stolide]

Can you (or preferably Jillian) describe this new branch of Anarchism for me?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

I'm interested, quite interested.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Actually, so am I.