Who were the Anarchists? (Part 1)

[ilaughatrightwingers]

Run time: 05:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP_Nu4TSmWg   Posted on YouTube: December 05, 2010 By YouTube Member: SecularNumanist Views on YouTube: 128   Posted on DU: December 06, 2010 By DU Member: ilaughatrightwingers Views on DU: 959

 
Watch and learn.

[pnorman]

1. Three Basic Principles of Anarchism:

1). Self-organization
2). Voluntary Association
3). Mutual Aid

[ilaughatrightwingers]

4. SOMEONE gets it

:)

[pnorman]

5. I had copied that out verbatim from a pamphlet I had around the apt.

It struck me as apt, so I made a few fridge magnets of it. If I can locate the pamphlet again, I'll cite the author properly,

A while back, I had made a posting about Anarchism, in the Socialist Progressive Forum at here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=395x671 Although that Forum seems near moribund, one guy was ready to vote me off the island. But although he professed to be an admirer of thev "Swedish Model", he had NO problem with any of the Stalinist stuff that adorned that Forum elsewhere!

[gtar100]

2. In a world of 6 billion people (and rising exponentially), anarchy is as suicidal as totalitarianism

Limited resources for so many people - even the oceans can't meet our demands for fish nowadays - and anarchy would be no different than the dog-eat-dog world of totalitarianism espoused by right-wing fascists. After all, for the fascists it's just anarchy at the top anyway.

The primary reason it wouldn't work is because there are too many people in this world willing to let others suffer for their own personal gain. We live in a natural world in which a symbiosis in nature is achieved through a balance of give and take between all species. However, 6 billion people is the world of humanity out of balance - way out of balance. If we are going to even attempt to meet the needs of all people as well as the needs of all earth's creatures, there needs to be cooperation and understanding between people.

I'm saying it won't happen naturally, like supporters of anarchy want, so there needs to be some regulations and governance in order to avoid the catastrophies that would upset the balance. There needs to be a choice of values made through a governing body and those values need to be protected. That is, after all, what governments do. We just haven't installed the right set of values to protect, in my own opinion.

If you think 6 billion people can come together and create a natural order, just remember that the Koch brothers are in that mix too. So are all the Saudi princes and every other schmuck willing to enslave others for their own personal gain. Anarchy would be fine in a world of 1 million people but 6 billion and there is little room to escape those who bully their way into power and rule through brute force.

[ilaughatrightwingers]

3. That's crap

The problem of lack of resources comes from CAPITALISM and private property. We have more than enough food on this earth to feed everyone, the problem is food is created for capitalist profit and not human need.

And just because there's no state and everything is de-centralized doesn't mean that there won't be personal responsibility. Human beings lived in anarchy for most of their existence. The only reason the state came into being was because private property was created. Go ask an anthropologist.

[gtar100]

8. I don't disagree with what you say (except the "That's crap" part).

I just don't believe that anarchy is the way to go in a technologically advanced civilization with billions of people. Decentralized, yes, that sounds reasonable. Private property being problematic, yes. More then enough food? Yes, but let's discuss meat consumption with that. And that there are various levels on which we live, one of which is our one-to-one relationships being anarchistic in nature (or at least should be), yes I get that and understand that.

But as a way to balance the needs of billions of people, no, I disagree. Too many narcissistic megalomaniacs walking around surrounded by admirers and people willing to do their dirty work for a fee. You need to get rid of them and then let's talk about a direct transition to anarchy. Until then, we need to collectively protect ourselves from them. This is another reason for a collective, aka, government. And when I say it's necessary to protect ourselves, I'm not talking about a military.

There is more than one reason besides protection of private property. Regulations and enforcement of those regulations, standards, a system of justice for dispute resolution and protection of our rights, and many other functions that fall under the heading of civics. It's all a matter of the values that are upheld by the system in place. I'm not saying what we've got now is good. It isn't. Capitalism has corrupted it. But anarchy? We aren't at a level of consciousness that could sustain anarchy for long at all.

[liberation]

6. "Anarchism" does not mean what you think it does...

I am not defending anarchism, since I agree with Ferris Bueller that isms are bad. However, at the very least you should inform yourself about the basics regarding anarchism before you go on a tirade about how it can not possibly work.

This reminds me about the tirades from people who had no background in physics whatsoever making all sorts of arguments about how using this invisible thing called "electricity" to light up a room were preposterous given that no wood, was, coal, or gas were involved at the lamp's end, which is the only way god intended to make light at night.

[gtar100]

7. Nice try. I have had long conversations with someone who believes in it fully.

I understand it enough to know I don't want it.

[civilisation]

9. So which is it "you don't want it" or "it will never work" ?

The Eeyore argument is weak, and shows a lack of understanding. Consider;

"... an evolutionary approach to creating a new society. It emphasizes the importance of peaceful activity in building alternative social institutions within the existing society, and strengthening those institutions until they finally replace the existing statist system. As Paul Goodman put it, "A free society cannot be the substitution of a 'new order' for the old order; it is the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life.""

and the selfish argument is just fearfull clinging to the 'known' system,. sad really.

[liberation]

13. Ah, OK...

... you "talked to somebody" that like changes every thing then.

LOL.

[AlbertCat]

11. This reminds me about the tirades from people who had no background in physics

So to read up on anarchism.... try THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.


These engineered societies were everyone acts civilized and fair.... :eyes:

[liberation]

14. Why would I do such a thing...

... given that the French Revolution HAPPENED ALMOST A CENTURY BEFORE THE ANARCHIST MOVEMENT IN EUROPE?

[SkyDaddy7]

10. I agree...I can't believe so many think otherwise.

[sulphurdunn]

12. Anarchism wouldn't work

in a mass society anymore than Utopianism. Mass societies are vertically integrated, like pyramids. This is because they produce agricultural surpluses. The production of surpluses permits specialization. Specialization permits authority to reside in the hands of those with a "will to power" as Nietzsche and Machiavelli noted. None of that is going to change. There is no evidence that the hierarchical structure of civilization has ever been otherwise. The only question is how much power the base is willing to exert upon the apex of the pyramid. When the base is wiling to restrain and influence the apex then the possibility of democracy and representative government exists.

In our society, only a fraction of the base produces much anymore. Its primary function is to consume the surplus. As that need recedes, large parts of the base are rapidly becoming surplus themselves. Considering the type of people who inhabit the top of the pyramid that condition should be cause for great alarm.

[liberation]

15. Plenty of societies did not have "agricultural surpluses" and still had pyramidal structures

See, the problem with passing opinion as fact to be used as the basis of an argument, is that said argument meanders inevitably into fallacy territory.

Not that I have a personal opinion whether or not anarchism would work, since well... it has never been really tried (at a significant scale any ways). Thus claiming the invalidity of things without actual experimentation/proof is nothing more than a conjecture, and as such way too subjective to be taken as being validated.

[sulphurdunn]

16. Which ones?

I posited an inferential argument predicated on historical evidence. The statements about surpluses and hierarchical society are fact. My reasoning was entirely valid. Forms of anarchism have been attempted for centuries by small, closed groups of people reacting against agricultural civilization. They have had very limited success. It is logically unlikely that large scale attempts would be more successful.

I don't know where you got the notion that validity is only attainable through experimentation. Obviously, you suffer from some cognitive dissonance when attempting to distinguish between logical reasoning and its application to the scientific method. You should work that out before taking the sophomoric tone you took in your post.