Anarchism: What it is

[Real Korimyr #9]

Is it too late to say that anarchism is inherently foolish since it always devolves into a government of some sort?

It's never too late. I say it all the time, but there's little point in it. You'll no sooner convince them that government is both inevitable and necessary than they'll convince us that it is unnatural and wrong. We all have our ideologies.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I don't see what the point of that was. Obviously we don't agree, but you don't have to be condescending either.

I am not trying to be condescending. I just think the quote is going for the "awwww" factor, and not necessarily the "that's interesting" factor.

Not every person. Just enough people so that capitalism would not be needed or wanted. Those who do want capitalism can have it, but they will probably never get it because who would want to be owned?

If Capitalism is the parasite that the anarchist thinkers such as Miss Goldman,бакунин, and others believe then it would subjugate the opposition... even if it is the oppression of the majority.

 

[FinnMacCool]

If Capitalism is the parasite that the anarchist thinkers such as Miss Goldman,бакунин, and others believe then it would subjugate the opposition... even if it is the oppression of the majority.

If the capitalists and statists feel like they are being oppressed, then thats ok because what they want to do is oppress the majority if they got into power. In other words, who cares?

 

[Arch Enemy]

If the capitalists and statists feel like they are being oppressed, then thats ok because what they want to do is oppress the majority if they got into power. In other words, who cares?

Oppression comes by way of force and power. Power and force come by way doing what you would not normally be doing. In this scope, by not allowing the Capitalist and the Statist to enact their wills onto the world, then they would be oppressed. There is no way around it.

If you think that Goldman and other Anarchist thinkers that that it is vaguely plausible that the Capitalists and Statists could be allowed to survive in a post Capital majority realm, then you need to re-read their works.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Oppression comes by way of force and power. Power and force come by way doing what you would not normally be doing. In this scope, by not allowing the Capitalist and the Statist to enact their wills onto the world, then they would be oppressed. There is no way around it.

If you think that Goldman and other Anarchist thinkers that that it is vaguely plausible that the Capitalists and Statists could be allowed to survive in a post Capital majority realm, then you need to re-read their works.

I think I agree with you actually, but regardless I don't believe they should be killed. I'm not a seer though, I can't predict the future.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I think I agree with you actually, but regardless I don't believe they should be killed. I'm not a seer though, I can't predict the future.

Glad we could come to an understanding.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Glad we could come to an understanding.

Could it be possible that we were operating under different definitions of oppression?

 

[Arch Enemy]

Could it be possible that we were operating under different definitions of oppression?

What is your definition of oppression?

Mine was stated previously, as disallowing one to do what one wants to do.

 

[FinnMacCool]

What is your definition of oppression?

Mine was stated previously, as disallowing one to do what one wants to do.

I agree with your definition. Maybe I should take a step back. Anarchists are against oppression that is unjustifiable.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I agree with your definition. Maybe I should take a step back. Anarchists are against oppression that is unjustifiable.

Ehhh. Try again. Justice is a proponent of Government organization. Who is to write what is and isn't justifiable if there is no unique code?

 

[FinnMacCool]

Ehhh. Try again. Justice is a proponent of Government organization. Who is to write what is and isn't justifiable if there is no unique code?

Anarchism does not mean no rules, simply no rulers. These rules could be agreed upon democratically. In a sense, anarchists believe in a highly decentralized government system, but not a state.

But I'm getting tired. Will continue this debate tomorrow.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Anarchism does not mean no rules, simply no rulers. These rules could be agreed upon democratically. In a sense, anarchists believe in a highly decentralized government system, but not a state.

But I'm getting tired. Will continue this debate tomorrow.

Democracy is the rule of the majority. There will ALWAYS be rulers. You cannot get around it, sir.

 

[drz-400]

Democracy does not necessarily mean rule of the majority. Under a constitutional democracy it means equal status for all citizens. By claiming a majoritarian rule is a necessary condition for democracy you are begging the question, since what the majority supports may or may not be democratic (giving equal status to all) in the first place.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Democracy does not necessarily mean rule of the majority. Under a constitutional democracy it means equal status for all citizens. By claiming a majoritarian rule is a necessary condition for democracy you are begging the question, since what the majority supports may or may not be democratic (giving equal status to all) in the first place.

What would be a good example of this constitutional democracy?

Regardless, someone wrote the constitution to which all people are ruled by.

 

[Phantom]

I agree with what you said in your opening post, but just a few points I would like to make. Anarchy can be done in a capitalist way or a socialist way.. It isn't limited to socialism. The problem however, is anarcho-Capitalism would most likely turn into corporatism in the long run.

 

[drz-400]

Our government is an example of constitutional democracy. It is not necessary though, in theory, for the government to be what we surrender our sovereignty to. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had his own theory of an individualist social contract which does not rely on the majoritarian premise and does not rely on surrendering some of our power to a state.

 

[Phantom]

I'd also like to add that socialist Anarchy could very well be turned into CCCP style "communism" too where the political elite rule and oppress society.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Our government is an example of constitutional democracy. It is not necessary though, in theory, for the government to be what we surrender our sovereignty to. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had his own theory of an individualist social contract which does not rely on the majoritarian premise and does not rely on surrendering some of our power to a state.

Our government is elected by a majority vote (50%+1). It is pointless to argue that the US Constitution overrides all decisions; it appears that the opposite is true that the constitution is walked upon in the name of stability.

An individualist social contract? Care to explain what in the world this could possibly mean and whom it is between?

 

[Arch Enemy]

I'd also like to add that socialist Anarchy could very well be turned into CCCP style "communism" too where the political elite rule and oppress society.

The difference between China's bureaucracy and America's is that they rehearse Marx and Mao, as they fill their pockets.

 

[Panache]

anarchism works on the idea that private ownership of land, capital, and property are cancelled. So if some guy is a capitalist and says "Hey guys, how about you guys build stuff for me and I'll give money to you so you can buy other things. But don't forget, I own everything you make!" If it was an anarchist society, people would think he's either crazy or something.

If someone tries to take over, they would have to do so by force. In which case, they would be justified in defending themselves.

These seem somewhat contradictory to me. If no one owns the land, and dude A does all this work plowing and planting and farming on it, then dude B comes along and eats all the stuff that dude A produced, you are saying then that dude A is somehow justified in defending his crops against thieves even though they aren't really his crops?

What if dude A spends all this time planting and farming to grow corn on some land that isn't his, and then dude B decides that growing corn is stupid, and decides to build a movie theater on the land that dude A was farming? Is dude A justified in defending land that isn't his then?

Please elaborate on this concept of no one owning the land, yet being justified in defending their use of it by force.

 

[Goshin]

This thread is still on the first page and already it's making my head hurt.

Threads on anarchism tend to be like that... you know, kind of...anarchic.

At least Agnapostate isn't still here, he could give Einstein a headache. :mrgreen:

 

[Goshin]

These seem somewhat contradictory to me. If no one owns the land, and dude A does all this work plowing and planting and farming on it, then dude B comes along and eats all the stuff that dude A produced, you are saying then that dude A is somehow justified in defending his crops against thieves even though they aren't really his crops?

What if dude A spends all this time planting and farming to grow corn on some land that isn't his, and then dude B decides that growing corn is stupid, and decides to build a movie theater on the land that dude A was farming? Is dude A justified in defending land that isn't his then?

Please elaborate on this concept of no one owning the land, yet being justified in defending their use of it by force.

Well, now you did it. Ask 40 anarchists that question and you'll get 42 different answers. :mrgreen:

 

[drz-400]

Our government is elected by a majority vote (50%+1). It is pointless to argue that the US Constitution overrides all decisions; it appears that the opposite is true that the constitution is walked upon in the name of stability.

An individualist social contract? Care to explain what in the world this could possibly mean and whom it is between?

Our constitution overrides the majority in some situations too, so its pointless to argue the majority overrides all descisions.

I believe the economic system prouhdon had in mind was mutualism, but I am no anarchist so I do not know a lot about it. I just disagree that democracy = majority rule.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Our constitution overrides the majority in some situations too, so its pointless to argue the majority overrides all descisions.

I believe the economic system prouhdon had in mind was mutualism, but I am no anarchist so I do not know a lot about it. I just disagree that democracy = majority rule.

No, democracy is by definition majority rule.

 

[drz-400]

No, democracy is by definition majority rule.

No, that is begging the question.

Democracy is government by the people. In order to achieve this it requires equal status for all citizens. If a majority voted to ban nazism would that be democratic? No, because that would not be democratic in the first place. On the contrary, a constitution or a judge would be upholding democracy by not letting the majority impose its will upon the nazis.