my curiosity has peaked. i want to know what all of these supposed "anarchists" definition of anarchy is and why they think its so great, grand and wonderful.

quote:

Africa is not a capitalist system. No one dies in america of starvtion or malnutrition, and if they do, they have no excuse because of all the socail safety nets set up.

Yes it is, Africa is a huge part of our global capitalist economy, it's the part that gets to eat shit and sells it's resources cheap so we can live in excess.
From now on I'm going to ignore you because you lack the necessary knowledge and perspective to be involved in this discussion ok?

quote:

You presume that in our current capitalist economy this doesn't already happen and that's not true. How many people die because of malnutrition daily in Africa?

Africa is not a capitalist system. No one dies in america of starvtion or malnutrition, and if they do, they have no excuse because of all the socail safety nets set up.

quote:

What you describe then isn't anarchy. It's communism, or if you want, anarcho-communism. Anarchy can be a wide range of things, but is simply defined as a system without an organized government. Don't go switching definitions around to fit your needs.

I'm not, collectivism doesn't imply government. You associated it with communism, and anarcho-communism(which happens to be my particular flavour) but it doesn't necessarily have to be so.
The definition is vague on purpose because there are many anarchies and their common trait is the lack of government.
This can range from anarcho-primitivism, the complete destruction of society and law and a return to a supposed "uncorrupted" natural darwinist society where everyone has to manage for himself, to anarcho-communism, which essentially is communism without a piramidal power structure.
Also, people tend to exagerate the no government issue. It is accepted in most anarchist circles that there is a need for administrative functions to be carried out by someone, but unlike modern democracy, these administrators do not have an elevated legal status that gives them and their decisions priority over others.

quote:

As is extreme collectivism. Consider this scenerio: You have a town of 100 people. Unfortunately, there have been several years of poor harvests, and a hard winter ahead where many people in the town, say, 60-70 may starve or die of exposure.
What is the "collectivist" response to this situation?

You presume that in our current capitalist economy this doesn't already happen and that's not true. How many people die because of malnutrition daily in Africa?
You also presume that I believe collectivism is a perfect system and I most definitly dont.
Anarcho-communism merely represents an equal distribution of wealth and resources so that infront of a crop damaging draught everyone has equal resources and thus equal chances of survival. Anarcho-communism wouldn't be applicable currently in most african countries because their low level of technological development makes them too dependant on agriculture, and thus on factors completely out of their control like precipitations.
Even so, in the hypothetical situation you describe the solution is simple, ask for help from any other commune that has surplus. And why would anyone else want to help? because in the future the situation may be reversed; the more prosper all the communes become the greater the chances of collective survival.
Now let's suppose that all the communes have bad harvests, what do we do? if for reasons outside our control a huge region suffers freak weather and their whole agricultural produce is destroyed there is nothing we can do because no one has surplus food, but, capitalism doesn't provide a solution either because the resources that are needed are non-existing just the same.
So on the one hand we have a hypothetical society that strives for prosperity through colaboration and a non-competitive attitude, and on the other we have an extremely competitive one that doesn't strive for prosperity on a whole, rather on an individual basis. Both have similar problems and similar ways of dealing with them, but in one socieety every individual has acces to equal resources, whereas in the other a huge part of the population doens't have any resources at all.
Also, from a genetic point of view, the more prosperous and less competitive a society is the greater the chances of any one individual of perpetuating his genetic code.

quote:

Furthermore, small collectivist units like this are entirely incapable of taking on large projects that have resulted in many of our modern advances. How can you run an effective railroad that transports goods across the nation? How can you, for example, bring together all the chemicals, let alone the processing facilities, to manufacture a cancer drug?
Still further, how can you train and educate the researchers who make those drugs without organized universities? Is each communal unit going to have thier own colleges? If not, who decides who goes to the colleges that do exist?

You're situating your current issue with the one above. The issue you described above could only happen in africa or another very underdeveloped and arid region, likewise, the one you describe currently could only take place in Europe, the US, or Japan, areas with well developed infrastructure(notice I'm neglecting China, southeast Asia, and Australia/NZ because their population density is lower, and large parts of the countries are uninhabited or underdeveloped).
There is nothing that prevents the use of previously existing infrastructure if it is beneficial towards surivial and achieving prosperity. Two or more communes may reach a mutual agreement and decide to build a road or a network of roads because this will facilitate the movement of population and resources, and like I said above, increase the chances of achieving goals of all parties involved.
Again, this proces doesn't require a central governing body, it merely requires a little common sense. If one commune has the resources to produce penicilin and another has acces to a large ammount of iron ore the two communes will decide that a road is mutually beneficial because they will be able to share valuable resources, thus the people will work on the project and build the road to enhance their personal wellbeing in the future.
The fundamental difference is that in a capitalist society resource sharing takes the form of an auction, where only the highest bidder will have acces to the resources he needs, whereas in an anarcho-communist society the trade relations that are established are not profit motivated, thus everyone will be able to gain acces to needed resources as long as they are beneficial to the community as a whole.
This proves that, contrary to what many people believe, collectivism isn't a cushioned system that allows people to sit on their asses and live off the work of others. If the comuniy is to survive(and thus the individuals that form it), everyone must partake in the tasks that will allow it's survival.

quote:

History has proven that it's simply out-competed by other forms of societies.

Anarchy is utopic as of now, and could only function on a global scale. This doesn't mean it is flawed, it merely means that the current circumstances don't allow for alternative forms of social organization.
Ideally, a perfect capitalist society would be one where everyone is prosperous and rich, as it would be am extremely competitive society, but voila, a society where everyone is rich and prosperous is the same as an anarcho-communist society, where equal wealth distribution and collaboration result in everyone benefiting in the long run. Paradoxical isn't it?

quote:

Man Speed, taking you a while to reply to this one.

Got other things to do, if you check my posting history you'll see that often I'm absent for a time and then come back and post for a few days straight.
You should take it as a compliment, I also take longer to answer when someone makes a well thought out post. Most of the time I don't really need to put much though into my replies, you actually managed to make put some effort into this one.

quote:

Alright, I'll just assume you'd be totally ok with some dude going up to your house and spraypainting "FUCKTARD" in four foot letters across your front siding.

I wouldn't, it would bother me, but if I thought you -whoops, SOMEONE- where a fucktard I'd do the same so I'd just live with it and wash it off if it really bothered me.

At least he knows when he's beat.

Man Speed, taking you a while to reply to this one.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:
And you just proved you understand nothing about the subject, anarchy relies completely on collectivism. On communities of people that help each other on a non-profit basis to increase their own chances of survival.

What you describe then isn't anarchy. It's communism, or if you want, anarcho-communism. Anarchy can be a wide range of things, but is simply defined as a system without an organized government. Don't go switching definitions around to fit your needs.

quote:

Speed posted:
Anarchy isn't about the individual as much as it promotes individual freedom, like I said, extreme individualism is unsustainable and counter-productive towards one's survival.

As is extreme collectivism. Consider this scenerio: You have a town of 100 people. Unfortunately, there have been several years of poor harvests, and a hard winter ahead where many people in the town, say, 60-70 may starve or die of exposure.

What is the "collectivist" response to this situation?

• Distribute the remaining food equally, possibly weakening everyone and increasing the death rate.
  
• Pick out the individuals most likely to benefit the community and strengthen them to ensure survival, while likely condeming others to death.
  
• Pick out individuals by random lottery to ensure thier surivial, while again, likely condeming others to death.
  

Now, in the first choice, everyone has about a 2/3 chance of dying.
In the other two choices, you're asking some people to basically willingly lay down and die. And they also require a functioning governing body (albiet minimalist) to administer.

In any of the three situations, the need to survive will tempt people to try and increase the chances of themselves and those they care about. Eventually, after time, possibly after this scenerio has played out two, three, a dozen times over the years, the collectivist system will collapse under exterior stresses where individuals will use thier great freedom (which you seem to say is the goal of anarcho-communism) to take things from others to ensure thier own surivial.

Furthermore, small collectivist units like this are entirely incapable of taking on large projects that have resulted in many of our modern advances. How can you run an effective railroad that transports goods across the nation? How can you, for example, bring together all the chemicals, let alone the processing facilities, to manufacture a cancer drug?
Still further, how can you train and educate the researchers who make those drugs without organized universities? Is each communal unit going to have thier own colleges? If not, who decides who goes to the colleges that do exist?

The problem is, anarcho-communism may work on small scale communities with abundant resources. But this fails soon after. How do yo deal with crime or those otherwise breaking the rules of collectivism? Who determines guilt? Does a whole town of 5,000 people come together and administer justice? What happens when a traveler from another town comes to yours, is punished for a crime, but it believed to be innocent by his home collective? What happens when they take issue with that and take action against you?

And again, what happens when a more organized society with an effective government, more efficient industry, and organized, government run armies decides it wants the land your utopic collectives are living on?

Anarchy, again, is an entirely non-sustainable state, no matter if you say it's for collective gain, or individual gain. History has proven that it's simply out-competed by other forms of societies.

Also:

quote:

Yeah, so? I don't think tagging a billboard makes me some kind of uncivilized caveman.

Alright, I'll just assume you'd be totally ok with some dude going up to your house and spraypainting "FUCKTARD" in four foot letters across your front siding. Graffiti, tagging, or whatever buzzword you want is unlawful property damage, otherwise known as vandalism. You might think it's some noble gesture, but if you think it's going to do anything other than just get everyone pissed with you, you're dead wrong.

quote:

Yeah, so? I don't think tagging a billboard makes me some kind of uncivilized caveman.

Ummm, yes it does. It proves that you have no respect for other people's property rights. Just like cavemen, they did what they wanted to others and took what they wanted from others. Property rights is what gives people a sense of ownership and protection, when people like you violate those rights, they prove themselves to be uncivilized cavemen. I think society should band together and maginalize people like you.

Hi there, didn't know you where back.

quote:

You see, you just proved yourself why anarchy is a completely non-sustainable system: People band together. This is the basis for the western system of governments across the world. Groups that band together tend to outpreform other, non-consolidated groups. Likewise, a group that is more efficiently and better organized will likely out-preform one that is unorganized.

And you just proved you understand nothing about the subject, anarchy relies completely on collectivism. On communities of people that help each other on a non-profit basis to increase their own chances of survival.

Anarchy isn't about the individual as much as it promotes individual freedom, like I said, extreme individualism is unsustainable and counter-productive towards one's survival.

quote:

SPEEDO POSTED:
Common sense. Anyone's chances of survival, even a criminal, are much greater in society than in margination. If someone steals your TV your not going to want him as your neighbor, so when something like this happens the whole community will band together through common interest and throw the unesirable out, call it exile if you want.

You see, you just proved yourself why anarchy is a completely non-sustainable system: People band together. This is the basis for the western system of governments across the world. Groups that band together tend to outpreform other, non-consolidated groups. Likewise, a group that is more efficiently and better organized will likely out-preform one that is unorganized.

Now organization does not nesseccarily mean authoritarianism or centralization. For example, the basis of original American style liberalism is a government that strives to maintain the legal equality of all citizens while maximizing the individual freedoms.

However, as we can easily see, you need a strong (not nessecarily large) and dedicated government to maintain that system. If you let those controls erode, you end up with what we're seeing increasingly more and more of in the US. The powerful consolidate thier power more and more.

See, you need controls to maintain a good balance between freedom and equality. With absolute freedom, which existed at the begining of human history, you end up with the next form of government up the line: Despotism.

The reason anarchy does not exist anymore, is not because some big evil syndicate came along and enslaved everyone. It's because it's simply a non-sustsainable state. The American Indians were in many ways an "anarchistic" group as you describe: Small communal units looking out for thier own. They were utterly out-competed and overrun by the more organized European cultures.

The nature of man is not inherently evil, nor is it inherently good. It is driven primarily two things: Interest for self, and interest for immediate family and friends. The trend of history has proven that increasing collaboration between units, from families up to cities and nations, with a focus on individual freedom, will outproduce those groups who shun large-scale collaboration.

quote:

If you guys stopped presenting yourselves this way, there would be no reason to generalize.

Wrong, you willing to generalize shows that you're unwilling to look past the few that give us a bad image, which means you're not willing to even try to understand the issue itself.

quote:

You even admitted to being caught vandalizing property with grafitti.

Yeah, so? I don't think tagging a billboard makes me some kind of uncivilized caveman.

quote:

Yes, I do. Being female makes that fear even more intense for me.

So you don't care that your male co-workers get payed more because they are men? I mean they ARE more CAPABLE right?

quote:

Well, I actually was accosted by a creepy man, who did not want to take no for an answer, at 9am, on a crowded street car. One guy did stand up to help me, but once he left, I was on my own. Everyone just stared or looked away, while this guy was putting his hands on me and I was telling him as loudly as I could (which wasn't that loud at all, considering I was petrified) to stop touching me.

How about getting up and leaving, or smacking him. If someone see's you're terrified of them there is no way they are going to respect you. Seems you lack the self confidence necessary to stand up for yourself.

quote:

Criminals dont follow or care about rules/laws/whatever. That's what makes them criminals... What's to stop them from saying, "Fuck that!" and shooting you in the face? With no cops or laws, I'd say nothing.

Common sense. Anyone's chances of survival, even a criminal, are much greater in society than in margination. If someone steals your TV your not going to want him as your neighbor, so when something like this happens the whole community will band together through common interest and throw the unesirable out, call it exile if you want.

quote:

Is this the same case with Ghandi

Indians: Over 500 million
British: Under 5 million
Point made

quote:

Anarchy simply can't work with Homo sapiens.

Wrong, anarchy can work with homo sapiens. Anarchy can't work with our current culture because it is flawed, but anarchy isn't a form of political organization, it is a culture in itself. Thus anarchy could hypothetically be achieved through cultural evolution.

quote:

I don't give a shit about the shit I don't give a shit about. If you don't like it, I don't give a shit.

You join a conversation to post your opinion on something you don't care about, and since you don't care about it you don't care what others might answer or think of your opinion?
Get the fuck out.

quote:

And what's the point of bringing up my depression all the time?

I'm an evil criminal out to get you.

quote:

There aren't very many happy, rational and intelligent people. They tend to go crazy after a while.

No, you see, that's your depression getting the better of you again. There a tons of intelligent, rational, and happy people everywhere. Just because you can't cope sometimes doesn't mean no one else can.
Don't try to paint reality like a nightmare when your the only one who's sleeping.

Wow, another fine post by Earthgoddess. This is twice I have agreed with you today and probably all time.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:

Listen to me your self righteous depressed brat.

Lol.

quote:

First off, you made a huge generalization right there, the ammount of anarchists that actually carry out acts of vandalism and damage other people's property is small inside the movement as a whole, and if you had any knowledge on anarchist theory you'd be aware that these people are mostly hypocrits who don't deserve to be called anarchists becuase of these same acts.

If you guys stopped presenting yourselves this way, there would be no reason to generalize. You even admitted to being caught vandalizing property with grafitti.

quote:

Secondly, your whole posts stinks of fear and paranoia; you need the reasurance that you can call the police whenever something bothers you?

Yes, I do. Being female makes that fear even more intense for me. Even though not everyone is out to get me, not everyone is out to help me either.

quote:

and you can easily avoid the miniscule ammount of people that will by using simple common sense(don't take a walk in bad neighborhood at 3am in the morning).

Well, I actually was accosted by a creepy man, who did not want to take no for an answer, at 9am, on a crowded street car. One guy did stand up to help me, but once he left, I was on my own. Everyone just stared or looked away, while this guy was putting his hands on me and I was telling him as loudly as I could (which wasn't that loud at all, considering I was petrified) to stop touching me. Those people weren't bad, evil people, that is just our pyschology.

quote:

Third, even your bubble reference suggest some deep fear. There is no need for any kind of physical isolation of the undesirable, they isolate themselves with their behaviour, I thought I had made it obvious enough. An ideal(and utopian)anarchist society would consist of voluntarily formed communities, if you want to be a criminal go live out in the wildernes and see how you fare for yourself.

Criminals dont follow or care about rules/laws/whatever. That's what makes them criminals... What's to stop them from saying, "Fuck that!" and shooting you in the face? With no cops or laws, I'd say nothing.

quote:

Fourth, reiteration. There are NOT tons of potential homicidal maniacs everywhere waiting to get you. The vast majority of people are perfectly peaceful individuals who will do you no harm unless you provoke them or they feel threatened.

True. But as I mentioned before, though most people won't hurt me, most won't help me if I were being attacked by one of those bad people. Ever hear about Kitty Genovese? She was brutally murdered, and the dozens of people that witnessed it did absolutely nothing, until a couple weeks after her death. Bystander Effect, research it.

quote:

Fifth, responding to your reference to Martin Luther King. They could not be ignored because of simple economic reasons, what is more beneficial to a capitalist economy? A deeply impoverished african american minority with no rights or a surging lower middle class african american minority? Answer the question yourself.

Is this the same case with Ghandi and Susan B. Anthony and every other world changing historical figure whose names escape me right now?

quote:

Sixth, and in case you didn't grasp this previsouly, anarchy IS utopic, I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. This discussion concerned a hypothetical situation in which anarchy could be put into practice, not our current reality in which it isn't possible due to a long list of issues I'm not going to discuss.

You're the only one taking this seriously dude. I said Anarchy = Fantasy, then you go apeshit, and then you say that anarchy can't work in our current reality.... Sounds exactly like what I'm saying. Anarchy simply can't work with Homo sapiens. If we were cats, then this would be an entirely different discussion.

quote:

I'm being as nasty as possible because everytime I've encountered you in a discussion your self proclaimed depression and pessimistic worldview have become so annoyingly evident it's hard to ignore the utter bullshit you spew on it's account.

So? That's who I am. I'm an apathetic pessimist. I don't give a shit about the shit I don't give a shit about. If you don't like it, I don't give a shit. The world is not sunshine and lollipops, and I'll never in a million years pretend that it is.

And what's the point of bringing up my depression all the time? I've actually been feeling better in the last few months.

quote:

If you think the world is terrible, everyone hates you, love doesn't exist, and people want to kill eachother because we're all evil please stay away from any form of intelligent and rational discussion.

There aren't very many happy, rational and intelligent people. They tend to go crazy after a while.

Anarchy is a silly notion because thier idea that a group of people could survive with no formal organization is completely false. Maybe a group of 5 people could do fine but eventually there will be trade, and disputes and conflicts. The reason government is set up is because you allow a government entity to enforce your own natural rights (i.e. your right to property) soi that you don't have to die trying. Government is simplya asocial contract among all of the members of a society.

This is why the notion of no government would never work, nor should it.

Even anarchists have leaders and followers.

Someone's touchy.

quote:

When you dorks can find the dignity and sophistication to do something like that, maybe I'll take you seriously.

Listen to me your self righteous depressed brat.

First off, you made a huge generalization right there, the ammount of anarchists that actually carry out acts of vandalism and damage other people's property is small inside the movement as a whole, and if you had any knowledge on anarchist theory you'd be aware that these people are mostly hypocrits who don't deserve to be called anarchists becuase of these same acts.

Secondly, your whole posts stinks of fear and paranoia; you need the reasurance that you can call the police whenever something bothers you? for fucks sake the world isn't out to get you, the vast majority of the population will never do a single thing to harm you, and you can easily avoid the miniscule ammount of people that will by using simple common sense(don't take a walk in bad neighborhood at 3am in the morning). Even so, if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a potentially dangerous situation there's nothing more to it tham that, bad luck; statistics are clear enough on this matter, you will probably never be mugged, robbed, or assaulted in your entire life.

Third, even your bubble reference suggest some deep fear. There is no need for any kind of physical isolation of the undesirable, they isolate themselves with their behaviour, I thought I had made it obvious enough. An ideal(and utopian)anarchist society would consist of voluntarily formed communities, if you want to be a criminal go live out in the wildernes and see how you fare for yourself.

Fourth, reiteration. There are NOT tons of potential homicidal maniacs everywhere waiting to get you. The vast majority of people are perfectly peaceful individuals who will do you no harm unless you provoke them or they feel threatened.

Fifth, responding to your reference to Martin Luther King. They could not be ignored because of simple economic reasons, what is more beneficial to a capitalist economy? A deeply impoverished african american minority with no rights or a surging lower middle class african american minority? Answer the question yourself.
I'm not denying human empathy, but the civil rights movements achieved concesions, not advances, and if the american economy whad been threatened by the movement history would be very different.

Sixth, and in case you didn't grasp this previsouly, anarchy IS utopic, I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. This discussion concerned a hypothetical situation in which anarchy could be put into practice, not our current reality in which it isn't possible due to a long list of issues I'm not going to discuss.

Seventh and last; I'm being as nasty as possible because everytime I've encountered you in a discussion your self proclaimed depression and pessimistic worldview have become so annoyingly evident it's hard to ignore the utter bullshit you spew on it's account. If you think the world is terrible, everyone hates you, love doesn't exist, and people want to kill eachother because we're all evil please stay away from any form of intelligent and rational discussion.

And now, ban me if you want to, I feel much relieved.

quote:

That's survival.

Since when is survival not instinctive?

quote:

Huh?

Exactly what it says.

quote:

Except we don't function on a purely instinctual level, we function on a rational one. Homosexuality is proof enough that we are capable of overriding even the most