Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-28-2008, 08:16 PM   #26
dre bin laden
 
dre bin laden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: boston
Posts: 72
godslayer jillian- i am politically retarded. i don't understand anything about government or the economy or politics or anything. i like reading emerson and that's about as far as it gets. you may think im a FUCKING IDIOT for this post, but im very curious and need to say this.
if you feel like my post is too utterly dumb to reply to, then please tell me and i will completely understand. i didn't check out those books because i have no money and i have a lot of school right now. ok. here it goes.
i don't even get anarchy. does it mean no rules? like, if i were an anarchist, and i wanted to kill you, could i do it? if i did it, would someone punish me? who would decide how to punish me? what about smaller crimes, like a&b, or even just speeding? are there no traffic laws? what if people die a lot because the road is so dangerous? is there no property? isn't that communism? are people prosecuted? is anarchism just a lack of a set system? won't someone create a system out of human need for orgainization? won't some sort of higherarchy (sp?) transpire? if it does, and someone gets rid of it, isn't getting rid of it following a system (of not having a system)? im sorry if i have the most warped and naive understanding of this that youve ever seen. politics just make me really confused, and i feel like an ass. also, you mentioned a connection between anarchy and real democracy. are you referring to ancient greece? if so, please explain. do you know of any ancient greeks who were into anarchy?
dre bin laden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:00 PM   #27
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
I won't sugar-coat it, so yes, your questions are pretty dumb.
I don't dislike you nor I think you're an idiot, but your questions really are, one might say, pretty fucking dumb. I'm not personally attacking you. Your questions just are what they are but they are dumb only because you still don't know a lot about the subject. What it comes down to is that your questions tell me you've never known about anarchism before, but you're genuinely interested in learning about it, and that's all that matters.
So I'll answer each and every one of the question separately rather than giving you a concise preface on anarchism.

does it mean no rules?
A dictionary definition of Anarchy is pretty much that, and that's how most people will understand it. Anarchists don't go with that definition - anarchism is not just a word, it's a philosophy. But allow me to be an anarchist apologist and defend the world itself too. Anarchy comes from 'a/an', which means 'without', and 'archos', which doens't mean 'rules' - it means 'ruler'. With that you have already changed the whole context in its entirety.

if i were an anarchist, and i wanted to kill you, could i do it? Technically, yes. But not because you're an anarchist: it's only because you can. You can kill anyone in any system, but you have to face consequences. But leaving aside the philosophical connotations of free will, anarchism does not mean that you're allowed to do anything and everything. If you have already accepted that anarchy is "no rulers" rather than "no rules" I'm sure you can see why murder is not acceptable.

if i did it, would someone punish me? Society as a whole or an individual, depending on the level of organization a community has.

hat about smaller crimes, like a&b, or even just speeding? Most crimes are created because of how the system works or how it effects individuals. Ideally, and quite empirically many times, big crimes don't happen in anarchist communities and small crimes tend to be non-existent because there's no arbitrary rules. However, anarchist communities do have certain norms, and the community just acts like our society when they're broken: not much is officially done about it but it does stigmatize a person. I hope you don't read this as saying that Anarchism demands conformity, but anarchist communities also have certain norms that people choose to follow to make their society works, so someone that shuns these norms which are always minimal is inherently showing that they're not a part of the community. In Catalonia, collectivized cities provided for farmers that wanted to keep their lands. These farmers did not give to the collective and got nothing from the collective, but they could still interact if both were ok with it.

is there no property? Anarchism as a philosophy is a form of socialism, so no. Now, just like socialism and communism, modern anarchism is traced back to the First International. This is why anarchists, communists, and socialists (that come from the left rather than the center) tend to speak a similar language. So let's use the Marxian and Proudhonian definition of property, which is not a private possession, but rather an individual access to a means of production. In this sense, there's no private property.
Depending on the anarchist philosophy, private possessions are allowed or not. In most cases of anarchism you're allowed to have your own toothbrush but never your own bank, for example.

isn't that communism?
Communism and Anarchism, as I said above, are just philosophies of Socialism. A good analogy is comparing them to Christianity and Islam. They come from the same place but are different enough to be incompatible many times. There is, however, anarchocommunism, which is more anarchic than communist and its name just describes its regard to private property. The differences between communism and anarchism is first that communism is statist, demanding a centralized system, and second, that there are some forms of anarchism that are not as egalitarian as communism. (for further reference, I'm not talking about anarchocapitalism; that one has nothing to do with anarchism save for its suffix)

are people prosecuted? That depends on the community. I acknowledge the middle-class idiot's fear that anarchism can sometimes indeed be simply mob rule, but that's even more farfetched than the idea that with capitalism the second richest man will eventually starve, but they with their double standards refuse to believe that as a possibility of capitalism.
Anyway, going back to the question, this one entirely depends on the community. Anarchist nations that have worked tend to banish dissenters. In Asturias they would not have been killed or locked up, but taken to a territory dominated by the Republicans.

is anarchism just a lack of a set system?
Ideally yeah. Laws should be subjected to the people, not the other way around. In anarchism there is still organization, but it's pragmatic organization, not fetishist organization where there can be no change that conflicts with the past, like with constitutionalism.

won't someone create a system out of human need for orgainization?
Anarchists don't despise organization. If anything they're the ones that are the best organized, as each individual in the community has the same voice in the decisions everyone takes as a whole.

won't some sort of higherarchy (sp?) transpire?
Not if human freedoms, economic equality, and communal fraternity are emphasized above production. Hierarchy only happens in two instances: when a human submits another human, which will never happen if people have the same power; and when a division of labor is created to maximize progress, but why is progress so important? We've lived for ten thousand years and the world will exist for several hundred millions more at the least - why are we in such a hurry?

isn't getting rid of it following a system (of not having a system)?That is just a riddle caused by semantics which I hope is irrelevant with what I said above

you mentioned a connection between anarchy and real democracy. are you referring to ancient greece?
Not at all. Ancient Greece's democracy is far from being a real democracy. Not even ten percent of the people in society were considered citizens. It was a branched out oligarchy.
Anarchy is closer to real democracy than any other philosophy in the history of humankind. Anarchy does not always have to be a direct democracy, but a perfect direct democracy is always inherently anarchic because all decisions are based on consensus, so there's no hierarchies. The only problem with a real democracy is that hypothetically, 49% of the population could suffer for the sake of the 51%, but a direct democracy in anarchism is a method, not an ideal.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2008, 09:31 PM   #28
blackwater1110
 
blackwater1110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Between firing synapses
Posts: 350
Recipes for disaster is a gret how-to idea book. If you look around on the net, you should be able to find a lot of the stuff mentioned here.

The anrchists were defeated due to the subversion of the Communist party--their reputed allies in the government--by the Comintern, linked back to the USSR under Stalin, whose goals were totalitarian, not anarchist. There were also problems with the expropiation of lands among smaller farmers who felt that they were getting the short end of the stick. Not to mention Franco's military support from Hitler and Mussolini. Good places to start on the anarchist role in the Spanish Civil War are "The Spanish Civil War" by Antony Beevor and "Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell.
blackwater1110 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2008, 04:29 PM   #29
BLEED REBELION!!!
 
BLEED REBELION!!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nagoya, Aichi, Japan
Posts: 1,679
I just started reading "What is property" and WOW can that guy fit allot into one paragraph..

I completely dig it.... Thanks for the reading list.
__________________
"Yo tengo la empanada empinada"
- Me


" I love 4play! Its the best thing I've ever done"
- My Boyfriend
BLEED REBELION!!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 05:37 PM   #30
dre bin laden
 
dre bin laden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: boston
Posts: 72
thank you jillian! i need to read this more before i can form an opinion and actually reply....
dre bin laden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 06:23 PM   #31
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
I think the one thing that's really weird about trying to convince an anarchist that anarchy doesn't work is that essentially, you're kinda saying that this person isn't willing to live in that kind of society.

I mean, sure, you could not be willing to do it, but those that consider themselves anarchists have made that choice already.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 06:34 PM   #32
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
Precisely. That is actually one moral argument I use.
People say it's too utopian, that people would take advantage, that they would kill, that they would **** (let's not mention the fact that it's this kind of society that condones and feeds these types of behavior)
Then I ask people "So you're telling me if there was nothing to hold you back, you don't trust yourself enough to not commit theft and murder?"
I haven't had one person that doesn't feel offended by my question regarding their own claims.
Then I tell them "Great, then you can live in a perfect society; why do you care if others wouldn't so long as you can?"
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 07:19 PM   #33
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian
Precisely. That is actually one moral argument I use.
People say it's too utopian, that people would take advantage, that they would kill, that they would **** (let's not mention the fact that it's this kind of society that condones and feeds these types of behavior)
Then I ask people "So you're telling me if there was nothing to hold you back, you don't trust yourself enough to not commit theft and murder?"
I haven't had one person that doesn't feel offended by my question regarding their own claims.
Then I tell them "Great, then you can live in a perfect society; why do you care if others wouldn't so long as you can?"

Yeah, it does seem to be the greatest way of arguing your point. Stop worrying about the semantics and just drag them into your world because they can't disagree with you unless they confess that they're naturally a murderous raging rapist.

I've met people who HAVE claimed that the law keeps them from doing things, but then I have to remind myself that they're reacting exactly as this society dictates. So it's not the player's fault but the way the game is played.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 08:12 AM   #34
Breathless Horror
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian
People say it's too utopian
This phrase reminds me of perhaps my favorite quotation, shamelessly stolen from a CrimethInc. article: "People's greatest fear is that they have the power to make all their dreams come true."

I never understood why you wouldn't shoot for a utopian society. Even if you fail to reach that utopia, surely what you ended up with would be better than what you started with?
__________________
Harry

A prank a day keeps the dog leash away - Jello Biafra

I want your skulls! I NEED your skulls! - Misfits
Breathless Horror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2008, 08:37 PM   #35
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Who was it that said "If you can't trust one person to rule themselves, how can you trust one person to rule the millions?"
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2008, 12:54 AM   #36
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
I think a lot of you guys would like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN76VscZUSo

It's an excerpt from the previously mentioned book Days of War Nights of Love, and an excellent explanation of why I do not find my politics boring and why I can find fulfillment - even artistic fulfillment - in it.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2008, 09:09 PM   #37
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
I have just remembered a quote. I smiled when I read it, because it's true.
So this one goes to all those who think anarchism wouldn't work because humans are inherently selfish:

Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.

Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 12:55 PM   #38
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
legitimate question here. If it's been answered elsewhere in this thread, then I must have missed it or misunderstood it. My question is, what protects an anarchist society from being overtaken by outside forces? Unless the entire world's population, or at least the majority of the world's population, felt the same and lived by the same principles, what would protect you?
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 01:50 PM   #39
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
That's the million dollar question. Not because it doesn't have an answer, but because that exact problem was the one that made anarchy fail seventy years ago.
Anarchism doesn't have to be pacifist, but it indeed a very fragile society because, due to its low popularity - or high popularity in a successful but small region - if it were to come to an armed conflict, then it would be hard, if not impossible, to try and beat an invading enemy, especially if the idea of anarchy still means 'chaos' to the first world.
In Spain in the 1930's, to defend themselves from the fascists, anarchists and marxists allied themselves with the Republicans and lost all the voice in their ideals, as they were coerced to obey the much bigger Republic in their fight for anti-fascism.
Just like Trotsky would have said about communism, anarchists in here failed mainly because after they were liberated, so to speak, they stopped trying to make anarchism appealing in other regions in Spain.

But then again, the question is not a problem inherently in anarchism, but one that all new alternatives and dissents have to deal with in a world that demands compliance with the established order. A fresh example is how South Ossetia can't get its independence because NATO would not want to make one of its newest allies (Georgia) angry.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 01:56 PM   #40
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
I see. Thanks for responding. I agree with aspects of anarchy, but from what I've been reading here, it seems there is a sense of "whats mine is yours". Is that correct? If so, I'm not too sure I agree completely with that. but maybe that just means I'm selfish.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:07 PM   #41
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
Anarchism properly is another branch of Socialism, so there's a big deal of collectivized living in it. It's not just a lack of government; most mainstream anarchists dislike anarcho-capitalism for that reason.
However, as I've mentioned before, there's a difference between property and possession. If property is to be understood as the privatization of a means of production (which in turn is to be understood as virtually anything that is not shared that would give an unfair economic advantage to an individual at the expense of the community) and possessions is understood as a material asset that serves only for your needs or in some cases wants, then that makes the whole difference.
There's no problem with having your own jacket or toothbrush, but you would be doing a disservice to a brotherly community if you started a business and didn't allow your employees to have a voice in it.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:21 PM   #42
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
that makes more sense. so everyone would have to be cooperative. isn't that, in a sense, a form of government?
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:33 PM   #43
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
How do you define government?
Authority or organization?
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:43 PM   #44
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
I like that, Jillian. Great point.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 02:45 PM   #45
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
isn't it a combination of both?

Among a small group of people, chance of having everyone pretty much on the same page is decent. But the more people you add into the equation, the more individual opinion you allow for. so either you don't get anything accomplished due to too much disagreement over what should and shouldn't be, or you have a set of rules that have to be followed, which suddenly introduces authority into the equation, which is what you're trying to avoid to begin with.

Are there any successful businesses that have no form of management?
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 03:01 PM   #46
Godslayer Jillian
 
Godslayer Jillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: El Paso, Texas/ Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
Posts: 9,203
Actually that's how everything in Spain worked: through a network of unions and independent businesses that provided for the whole region (roughly the northern half of Spain). Not only was there more equality, but - at least according to the writings - those that privately owned the lands didn't have much of a dilemma in giving them away as that gave them a place in the new society. Also, people in fact began to have a higher level of commodity and literacy rates rose from virtually zero to virtually a hundred percent (which proves that Marx's lack of faith in the proletariat is not well founded after all)

As for what government is: sure, it's both organization and authority, but not because organization can only occur with a government.
Organization is always necessary in human society. It's just a more objective and impersonal way of saying cooperation. That much will always happen among people.
But when a government imposes itself with authority, then people begin to accept as if it were true that it is government which brings order, but just as Thoreau said "no law has ever made man a whim more just" [paraphrased]
Government brings organization because it's one of the things it wants to monopolize, but organization would happen even without a government, therefore it is not something intrinsic of governments.
__________________
"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world.

I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."
-Mikhail Bakunin

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
People who say they don’t care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don’t care what people think.
Godslayer Jillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 06:52 PM   #47
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
wouldn't it have to be something that took place gradually though? If we were to remove our government right now, in the name of anarchy, it would cause so much chaos, how would anything but control by another government (either from within or without) bring any swift order? Even then, I don't think another government would find it very easy to establish order without a lot of power and playing the fear card on everyone, just to gain control. Which, in turn, would put us right back where we started, just with a different set of rules.
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 06:57 PM   #48
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
How was the government removed, and how was anarchy declared? Anarchy can only be true anarchy if its what the people want. If the government was removed today anarchy would not be established unless everyone wanted it.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 07:09 PM   #49
x-deviant-x
 
x-deviant-x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 332
I have no clue.
How was it removed in other examples? And how successful were they?
x-deviant-x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2008, 07:21 PM   #50
JCC
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,678
Anarchy is brought about revolution, or it could in practice be carried out by an anarchist 'government' redistributing wealth and so forth in a dictatorship of the proletariat and then deferring control completely to the people.
JCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:29 PM.