Gnet templates

[dead_dreams]

Regular without a face.

[TheBloodEternity]

Slightly annoying regular without a face.

[gothicusmaximus]

I love what a colossal straw man PAPH constructed in his response to me. He devoted much of his post to denigrating the feasibility of "my anarchist philosophy", despite that I never once said that I was an anarchist or offered any opinion on the viability of anarchism, and was merely correcting his deeply flawed conception of the political school.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I wanna make you an anarchist, GM. You'd be 20% more awesome.

[Madarame]

I agree but we would need to somehow acquire a castle for him.

As for pinstripes your understanding of anarchism is abysmal, I've only been interested in the subject for a few months and even I could've pointed out most of the flaws in your argument.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

THE definition of an anarchist is this. Don't start using any others, because then you're the one in the wrong by speaking shit about something we're not even talking about.
Granted, you did not say thatidiotic cliché. However, you did say the idiotic cliché that anarchists don't have organization and try to "survive by his or herself"

I wasn't aware that you had the power to define words for the English language. This is a small point, but need I remind you that the definition provided by gothicusmaximus was the third? So, apparently, someone, somewhere, feels that there are other definitions of anarchy.

I didn't realize that your mohawk was actually a horsehair crest. I'll keep that in mind, should I cross any of your other edicts.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Anarchist don't want a government, so you blame them because governments are shitty?

Anarchists don't want a government? What about gothicusmaximus' claim that they want a government that isn't direct or coercive? You two need to sync up if you're both going to lay claim to a universal definition of anarchism.

I never blamed anarchists for bad government. I blame morons like you for claiming to be experts on a form of government that does not exist, and cannot exist. Go ahead, quote Noam Chomsky all you want! It doesn't change the fact that anarchism is a PIPE DREAM. Better men than you have tried, and better men than you have failed.

I'm not saying don't try for improvement, I'm just saying that you're barking up the wrong fucking tree.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

With that you're blaming all non-imperialistic governments. "Fuck real democratic governments; at one point or another, an imperialistic nation, whether capitalist or fascist, will come along and kill them"

I never said that. First, true democracy doesn't really exist. What we have in the U.S. and in other nations are Democratic Republics. Second, imperialist nations will generally destroy the sovereignty of your so-called "real democratic nations". But they don't have to do it with force; economics is the modern Maxim gun. Maybe you should familiarize yourself a little more with actual governments, rather than touting hypothetical ones.

Originally Posted by Godlsayer Gillian

That has nothing to do with the people within the system; therefore, you're making a red herring. You were first talking about how anarchism is impossible, and now you're just talking about how anything can be stomped by authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, if you're talking about people WITHIN the system trying to seize power, you're contradicted by the very successful: Christiania, Makhnovtchina, Catalonia, Asturias, WWII Italian antifa, the free schools, Lacandona, the Paris Commune...

Did someone not seize power in all of those instances? Were governments not created? How does this have "nothing to do with the people in the system"? And how have I ignored successful revolutions? I said that anarchists cannot have a country without a government because people will always fill the power vacuum.

You yourself claimed that anarchists "don't want a government", but here you spout examples of non-anarchistic governments. Is this somehow supposed to prove your point?

[quote=Godslayer Jillian]Yes they have [come closer to recognizing their goals].

Where? In what nations have they? What government was overthrown by anarchists and ended up as a land without a government?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

Ever fucking read Bakunin? Proudhon? Goldman? Kropotkin? Durruti? Malatesta? Chomsky?

No. Perhaps you can enlighten me. You seem to be an expert, so distill for me their main points. After all

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

Where the fuck do you get that anarchists don't recognize one goal?

... here you say that all anarchists have one goal. What is that goal, and where has it ever been implemented? You earlier said that it has been, so, please, explain. I want to know WHAT the goal is, and WHERE it's been achieved. You don't need to elaborate. You can dumb it down for me.


Yes they have.
Explain further, because this system is even more naive.
Dude! Do you even fucking know what you're talking about? There's not one part of this you just said that is right.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

Marxism is a systematic theory. It's capitalism and then pure communism. The transition between these requires, according to Marxist theory, a VIOLENT overthrow of capital (so you have just failed in one of the pillars of Marxism).

Where does Marx advocate a violent overthrow? He does say that different means need to be used in different nations, but seeing as though he had expected the nineteenth century overthrow of imperialist capitalism to take place in a "civilized" and industrialized nation (ie, Germany or England, and not Russia), one can assume that the political complexity of such a nation would negate the need for extremes of violence.

Here's a bit from the Communist Manifesto:

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. (my emphasis, not Marx's)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."


Now, Marx here does not expressly say "don't violently overthrow the government," but it's safe to assume that, in an advanced country, violence would not be necessary.

After all, he and Engels weren't envisioning Imperial Russia as the test-bed for their political thesis.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

You're the one that can't possibly think how society without a government (i.e. a vanguard party) can work, so why are you dissing out Lennin?

I'm not dissing Lenin. All I said was that he wasn't Marx, and that his revolution was violent. On both counts I am correct.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

The revolution was so successful that most soviets were already self-sufficient. Case-in-point, the Makhnovtchina, a successful anarchocommunist society with two million people that would have made both Marx and Bakunin proud.

And then what happened? Need I drag this out further? We shall see.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

Lenin, however, didn't want the Marxist end of an eventual anti-authoritatian world, and perpetuated the cetral state as long as he could.

So, then what happened? THE RUSSIANS INSTITUTED THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY! NEP! Do you know why they instituted NEP? Because Russia could not function without elements of capitalism, which is why NEP, economically speaking, was more similar to a Social Democracy than it was to Communism.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Gillian

Anyone here would be expecting me to answer to your **** of Marxist thought. I merely didn't because I considered GM's explanation very good. But you seem to not understand it, so here I am. The fact that you think I was piggybacking furthers my assumption that you just answer before understanding in this site.

You're going to need more than empty rhetoric, the theory of failed attempts, and a few isolated examples to convince me.

End result: Humanity will not allow an anarchistic society as you (rather shoddily) define it, and will always resort to some form of government, even if it be only a big man with a stick clubbing down dissent.

I'll grant that you know seem to know more about anarchist theory than I, but what good will that do you? I know enough about realpolitik to see that anarchism is a fucking joke, and will not work.

Further, you yourself said that anarchists "don't want a government", so why bother with Lenin and Soviet Russia when we know for SHIT SURE that they had a government, and therefore weren't anarchistic.

Although I would like to see you quote some Marx and show me where, exactly, he expressly advocates a violent revolution.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I seem to have hit the wrong button.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Madarame

As for pinstripes your understanding of anarchism is abysmal, I've only been interested in the subject for a few months and even I could've pointed out most of the flaws in your argument.

You know, I'm sensing a pattern here. I get told that "man, you just don't understand!", but no one seems to be able to define what anarchy is supposed to be.

Go ahead and define it.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

I don't know the references exactly, but I recall seeing Jillian making several references to the south of spain, especially Catalin, where anarchism worked; but this feat has been glossed over because they took sides in the Spanish civil war.

Glossed over, or rightfully neglected by larger, far-reaching histories? General histories don't have time to devote to miniscule segments of a population that didn't last very long.

Honestly, if you're a specialist and want to study small, isolated groups practicing a specific political theory, that's fine.

But, for the rest of us, camps of dissidents living in the south of Spain that were quickly either trounced, absorbed into a larger body politic, or both, do not constitute credible evidence of the viability of said political theory. I'm sorry, but it didn't work then, so why would we accept it as proof of anarchism's viability now?

Interesting? Perhaps. Damning evidence? Not a chance.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

That should be "west of Spain." I had the locations of Catalonia and Andalusia switched in my head. Sorry.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Further, you [Godslayer Jillian] yourself said that anarchists "don't want a government"

I may have made a mistake in saying this. Perhaps you weren't saying this, but rather were accusing me of saying it. If I made this mistake I do apologize.

Still, an anarchist government that does not interfere in the lives of its citizens, or coerce them, is effectively the same as having no government at all.

[HumanePain]

So it appears the debate is no longer the definition but rather Jillian defending it as a worthy ideal whereas PAPH says "give it up" (essentially).

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Essentially. Also, I'm sorry to have ignored you earlier HP. How goes?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Essentially. Also, I'm sorry to have ignored you earlier HP. How goes?

Sorry? For what? No offense taken, one doesn't survive for over two years on Gnet by taking offense to mere slights.

It goes well. I wish I had your intellect and memory for history. I can barely keep up with you people! But quite enlightening to watch from the sidelines.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Well, it seems that GJ and co. have me outgunned as far as anarchist doctrine goes. I, however, don't think that their collective knowledge of theory makes up for the fact that what're they're defending simply isn't viable.

But, if we're going to go back to the original purpose of this thread...

Paternal guardian of Gnet, and supporter of the endeavors embarked upon by its members.

[gothicusmaximus]

It's lucky that PAPH, having learned what anarchism is just yesterday, happens to feel that actual anarchism is just as much of a fucking joke as the fictitious political school to which he previously attributed the term.

Originally Posted by PAPH

I wasn't aware that you had the power to define words for the English language. This is a small point, but need I remind you that the definition provided by gothicusmaximus was the third? So, apparently, someone, somewhere, feels that there are other definitions of anarchy.

In this context, the third definition is the appropriate definition. In the dictionary, the first definition of can is the verb: "to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to", but if you're, say, denouncing a political theory before you even know what it is, and I tell you to "can it", that's obviously not the meaning I intend to evoke. So too must you assume that proponents of anarchy are followers of the thoroughly developed political theory and not some vague notion of lawlessness.

Anarchists don't want a government? What about gothicusmaximus' claim that they want a government that isn't direct or coercive? You two need to sync up if you're both going to lay claim to a universal definition of anarchism.

I feel that the dictionary, from which I pulled that definition, was being generous in regard to what is considered government. Anarchy certainly doesn't call for government in the conventional sense, but people resolved to cleave to certain laws, which is certainly allowed by anarchist doctrine, could be perceived to be 'governing themselves'.

I never said that. First, true democracy doesn't really exist. What we have in the U.S. and in other nations are Democratic Republics. Second, imperialist nations will generally destroy the sovereignty of your so-called "real democratic nations".

... Athens? ...Switzerland?

Did someone not seize power in all of those instances? Were governments not created? How does this have "nothing to do with the people in the system"? And how have I ignored successful revolutions? I said that anarchists cannot have a country without a government because people will always fill the power vacuum.

This is just a silly way to dismiss Jillian's examples. All governments fold and are replaced in time. "Want evidence that imperial societies are doomed to failure? Where is the Roman Empire? Huh, huh?"

Now, Marx here does not expressly say "don't violently overthrow the government," but it's safe to assume that, in an advanced country, violence would not be necessary.

That's an interesting, and I suppose technically not invalid inference, but given the Communist Manifesto's emphasis on the brutality of class war I personally found it difficult to envision a Marxist revolution without violence. The notion of capitalist oppressors simply abdicating their power without a fight is a difficult one for me to wrap my head around.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I wanna make you an anarchist, GM. You'd be 20% more awesome.

I'm too outrageously selfish and avaricious to pledge myself to a political system that involves any level of communist economics or wealth redistribution. However, if bribed with a castle and a vast store of fine wine I may aid a revolutionary effort.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

It's lucky that PAPH, having learned what anarchism is just yesterday, happens to feel that actual anarchism is just as much of a fucking joke as the fictitious political school to which he previously attributed the term.

I still fail to see the real difference between what you claim that I thought anarchy was, and what you claim it to be. A government without the power to interfere in the lives of its citizens, to coerce by any means, is no government at all. So, does this mean that anarchist's touting the idea of a government without any powers of enforcement is really advocating for no government at all? Seems like it.

What the fuck is the government supposed to rely on in this hypothetical anarchist society? Good will? Fucking PLEASE.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

In this context, the third definition is the appropriate definition. In the dictionary, the first definition of can is the verb: "to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to", but if you're, say, denouncing a political theory before you even know what it is, and I tell you to "can it", that's obviously not the meaning I intend to evoke. So too must you assume that proponents of anarchy are followers of the thoroughly developed political theory and not some vague notion of lawlessness.

If the definition you used is correct, then why do you say...

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I feel that the dictionary, from which I pulled that definition, was being generous in regard to what is considered government. Anarchy certainly doesn't call for government in the conventional sense, but people resolved to cleave to certain laws, which is certainly allowed by anarchist doctrine, could be perceived to be 'governing themselves'.

That's a copout. If it's not the definition that you use, don't fucking post it as though it is. Backpedal a little harder, won't you?

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

This is just a silly way to dismiss Jillian's examples. All governments fold and are replaced in time. "Want evidence that imperial societies are doomed to failure? Where is the Roman Empire? Huh, huh?"

Also a copout. By this reasoning, we should give the same weight to the historical significance of the British Empire as we do to Hawthorne's commune. There are areas on the spectrum between the extremes, you know. The shit that GJ quoted cannot be weighted as equal to any significant form of government, ancient or modern.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

That's an interesting, and I suppose technically not invalid inference, but given the Communist Manifesto's emphasis on the brutality of class war I personally found it difficult to envision a Marxist revolution without violence. The notion of capitalist oppressors simply abdicating their power without a fight is a difficult one for me to wrap my head around.

This completely ignores Marx's intent: that of the revolution taking place in MODERN nations like England or Germany. Imperial Russia was backward when held up in comparison to Western Europe. No surprise that it degenerated into violence. And this doesn't account for GJ being wrong about Marx advocating violence.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

I still fail to see the real difference between what you claim that I thought anarchy was, and what you claim it to be. A government without the power to interfere in the lives of its citizens, to coerce by any means, is no government at all. So, does this mean that anarchist's touting the idea of a government without any powers of enforcement is really advocating for no government at all? Seems like it.

What the fuck is the government supposed to rely on in this hypothetical anarchist society? Good will? Fucking PLEASE.

Actually, yes. Thoughts on feasibility or lack thereof aside, an anarchist society is theoretically composed of people dedicated to the political philosophy of anarchy, who believe that anarchy is the ideal societal system, and who wouldn't jeopardize that ideal system in a 'bid for power'.

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

If the definition you used is correct, then why do you say...

That's a copout. If it's not the definition that you use, don't fucking post it as though it is. Backpedal a little harder, won't you?

I didn't say the definition is wrong. The fact that you read what I said as "oh, that definition is wrong" is baffling to me, I have difficulty reconciling the idea that you could assert so idiotic a misconception and the idea that you know when to capitalize your 'I's. This is what I said: The dictionary, erring on the side of caution, might be using 'government' more leniently than Jillian or others do.

Also a copout. By this reasoning, we should give the same weight to the historical significance of the British Empire as we do to Hawthorne's commune. There are areas on the spectrum between the extremes, you know. The shit that GJ quoted cannot be weighted as equal to any significant form of government, ancient or modern.

How do you measure the 'success' or 'weight' of a society?

This completely ignores Marx's intent: that of the revolution taking place in MODERN nations like England or Germany. Imperial Russia was backward when held up in comparison to Western Europe. No surprise that it degenerated into violence. And this doesn't account for GJ being wrong about Marx advocating violence.

I doubt wealthy landlords, corporate barons, and captains of industry in England, Germany, or the US would be willing to hop onboard the Marxist bandwagon peacefully. In a world in which violent Marxist revolt isn't necessary and the whole of the population and government is willing to cooperate, Marxism is totally obsolete, because if everyone is fucking onboard, we can move directly to capitalism to a classless, stateless utopia. The intermediary phase, in which the lower classes SEIZE CONTROL and restructure society through dictatorship, can be cut out, which results in an idea pretty close to anarchy.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Well, I'm not sure to what part of this conversation I should jump in, so I'll make an all-encompassing post.

This whole argument began because JCC said that despite so much badmouthing about politicians there don't seem to be a lot of anarchists around. JCC is an anarchocommunist. Anyone that had been here about a week would have probably known this.
You weren't talking about real political anarchism; it's up to you to sync up with the person you're trying to argue with.
If I were to talk about existentialism, after all, why the fuck would you start speaking about Ayn Rand just because she wanted to name her philosophy existentialism? Am I talking about her? Are you not going off in a tangent?

As for the points of anarchism, there are goals to it: anarchism is a socialist theory, they desire an end to unjustified authority for the sake of liberty which brings egalitarianism. The methods to this vary a little. There's anarchocommunists that feel without an authoritative government the community itself could democratically allocate resources according to their wants and needs. There's anarchosyndicalists who give all the fruits of their labor to the workers, and through union federations, no place in the country goes in want.
Before you say this is Utopian, these two theories were applied to societies with over two million people. Their demise was when they were murdered, not when they failed.

And stop trying to stretch the definition of government as if that made me a hypocrite. I haven't had that piece of rhetoric applied to me since I was in Christian school. I say I have no religion; they say that I believe in humankind, therefore that is a belief, therefore that is a religion. Did that make me any more religious? No.
Obama says "spread out the wealth". They call him a socialist. Does that make him more of a socialist? Does that change in any way his ideals and their merits? No.
So stop trying to say anarchists are actually statists, because it means nothing. By your stretching of a definition, a family is also a government unit, and what value does that have?
If we're going to talk about this, then let's set a definition to government that is what anarchists want to abolish: It is an authoritative and centralized power that exists as a priori - fuck the 'social contract', my forefathers signed it so it also applies to me - that has a monopoly on power, violence, justice, and order. Any person that is born in one government, without a choice, is assigned a place in the government, and despite the liberties an individual is 'given' (as if freedom is a gift by the state) these liberties end where the government begins

It still baffles me that you don't know that Marx talked about a violent revolution, both in action and in ideals:
"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with
traditional property relations; no wonder that its development
involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the
working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling as to win the battle of democracy."
"If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to
organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it
makes itself the ruling class"
(These quotes directly from Proletarians and Communists)
And, of course the whole Epilogue:
" The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workers of the world, Unite! "

And finally (for now), I really liked GM's question to you. How do you measure the success of a society?
The British Empire was the largest empire in the world. It was oppressive, elitist, racist, sexist, colonial, and only the top tier of this empire enjoyed any benefits out of this expansion (which goes on to prove that the State is not for the benefit of all within the State, but to the few that have power in it)
Catalonia had two million people, half of them living in perfect poverty before the revolution. After the collectivization of property, everyone finally had access to basic resources and more. And it didn't end in simply resources.
In Barcelona, in just one year in 1936, the literacy rates went from 7% to 100%!! This because the workers had a reason and a passion to excel personally and socially to be a part of a community that gave them a legitimate voice.
The social conditions of the city were exceptional, as you can read in Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, and Orwell was even a MArxist, not an anarchist.
And the industrial conditions were even better. Not only were they safer, but the production improved so much that by the end of the Civil War, the anarchist part of Spain was virtually funding the war by itself against the fascists. They manufactured virtually all of the weapons for the Republic. They cultivated most of the rations. They provided most of the troops! The only reason they lost was because United States not only stopped helping the Republic, but in fact began to supply the Nationalists in exchange for Franco to remove himself from the rest of World War II.
Hell, anarchist Spain was the most important faction of the Spanish Civil War. You still learn about the civil war, don't you? Only the Nationalist and Republican sides. They don't pay any attention either to Marxists or Anarchists. Hell, anarchist Spain did more in WWII than France. Yet France is important in history books.

[HumanePain]

Wow! To quote: "I love us."
I learn so much from you people my head will burst.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Equal parts Justified Elitist and Nice-to-everyone.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I wanna make you an anarchist, GM. You'd be 20% more awesome.

Social Democracy is where it's at. It's 30% cooler than Anarchocommunism. Except for the lack of will to revolt, anyway.

True story.

[JCC]

Social democracy?

Sure it's alright, if you want absolutely no change whatsoever.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Like I said, Social Democrats just need the balls for revolution, and then it's all good.

[TheBloodEternity]

Umm now and then cool guy