Anarchism

[villain]

Hmmm... interesting kabar. I can't say I've met any anarchists like this. Sure there is the no-work ethic but most of the anarchists i've met are very, very active. Social work, active in the community, politics, protests, some hardliners who would actually fight. It's like instead of working for some company and someone else you work for stuff that means something to you.

[KaBar2]

I've never been there, but there is a town in Italy, Carrera, which is populated by 95% anarchists. Ironically, the main activity in Carrera is quarrying marble, and their #1 customer is the Roman Catholic Church, the arch-enemy of the anarchists.

 

Carrera marble is the finest marble, the most beautiful marble in the world. Carrera is so far up in the mountains, up a winding, twisting mountain road (ever heard of the Porche "Carrera" sports car? It's named after this town) that it's sort of out of the jurisdiction of the regular Italian authorities. The anarchists are such a pain in the ass to deal with that the Italian cops generally leave them be. For one thing, they will not press criminal charges or any kind, no matter what. They will not testify in court. They will not be witnesses. So it's pretty much impossible to carry out any sort of investigation, since nobody will cooperate at all, ever. They settle problems among themselves. They hate the Mafia, and the feeling is mutual. Whenever they discover Mafia near them, they kill them. It's a small town, everybody knows everybody else. Strangers stick out. Everybody knows everybody else's business, what family they are from, etc.

The quarry is the town's largest business, and is run collectively. Men go to work there as teenagers, and immediately recieve a man's full wages, even at age 16. As they get to be older, more skilled and more mature and more productive, their wages do not increase. And as they age, and are less productive, their wages do not diminish. When they retire, and go on the Italian version of Social Security, then they are no longer paid by the quarry.

Almost all the businesses in Carrera are family-owned, and are related in some way to the quarry (welding, carpentry, automotive repair shops, trucking firms, etc.) It's a sort of compromise with capitalism. Nobody works for wages, they work for an "equal share."

 

Because the anarchists refuse to vote, Carrera's city government is dominated by the 5% of the population that is Communist Party (the right wing parties don't even bother). On Election Day, the anarchists go to the polls and stand outside with their arms folded, pointedly refusing to vote. Nobody votes but the Communists. The police are usually all Communists too, but since nobody reports crimes, there's not much for them to do.

 

Anarchists do not marry, but they do go down to the Department of Health and register their union in the genetics files, to avoid accidental unions of people who are biologically related. Since there is no marriage, there is also no divorce.

 

I heard that the anarchists have been in Carrera since the 1880's, and that during WWII, they had a resistance group against the fascists and the Nazis. After the war, they buried their weapons rather than surrender them to the Government.

 

Seems like my kind of town, actually.

[ODS-1]

The whole not voting thing bothers me a tad because alot of people died for the right for blacks and minorities to vote, and to dismiss that is lame. I saw something that said "Don't just vote". That's a great point, because people's involvement in the system that controls their lives should be more than one day in November every 4 years.

I really hope that made some sense to someone.

[KaBar2]

Anarchists do not vote for the same reason they refuse to report crimes, be a witness in a trial or imprison people. They consider voting to be the commission of a grave injustice against human freedom. Real anarchists will not even vote among themselves. They operate by consensus, and if they cannot agree upon some point, they just keep talking, talking, talking until finallt they reach a mutal agreement. It's extremely time consuming.

 

In any vote, there must be the domination of the losing side by the winner's side. To anarchists, this is akin to gangsterism.

 

They do not marry, because marriage (especially in the 1880's) was the ownership of one spouse (the wife) by the other (the husband.) Anarchists consider the foundation of the "family" to be the foundation of the State. You cannot have one without the other.

 

The same is true of The Church and The State.

 

There's a lot more to anarchy than that cute little "Circle-A" symbol (which was invented, by the way, in 1956, as a spin off of the symbol of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. The symbol of the ND movement was a take-off on the Civil Defense (CD) insignia, which was a yellow-and-black representation of three radioactive rays beaming off of a round radioactive "molecule." this symbol had three "rays" coming off of it (you may have seen this "CD" symbol on old stairwells leading to a basement.

In grafitti, the three-rays design became a simple circle with three radii going from the center to the periphery, abd the "CD" was changed to "ND." The anarchists borrowed this general idea and changed the three-legged peace symbol into both the peace symbol and the "Circle-A" symbol,

[villain]

I like this place.

[Plagiarism]

bump. kabar: tallk more please.. your posts are great!!

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by Plagiarism@Nov 28 2004, 02:44 AM

bump. kabar: tallk more please.. your posts are great!!

Quoted post

......... :hatred:

[KYU]

I agree, his posts are pretty interesting

[KaBar2]

I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.

 

Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:

 

"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."

 

And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"

 

"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."

 

"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"

 

Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.

 

I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."

 

If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?

 

I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.

 

I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.

[Plagiarism]

hey kabar: where did you hear about carrera italy. I searched on the internet for about an hour and found absolutely nothing. do you have a source?

[masaka___]

Originally posted by Plagiarism@Nov 28 2004, 03:30 PM

hey kabar: where did you hear about carrera italy. I searched on the internet for about an hour and found absolutely nothing. do you have a source?

Quoted post

 

It's spelled Carrara.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 28 2004, 08:48 PM

I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.

 

Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:

 

"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."

 

And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"

 

"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."

 

"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"

 

Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.

 

I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."

 

If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?

 

I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.

 

I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.

Quoted post

I agree with a lot of what you said. There's people that call themselves anarchists, and people that are anarchists.

[seeking]

^^and both of them are a waste of time.

 

wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.

 

anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.

 

this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.

 

anarchy is dumb.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 29 2004, 08:19 PM

^^and both of them are a waste of time.

 

wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.

 

anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.

 

this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.

 

anarchy is dumb.

Quoted post

I never said that it would work.

[villain]

Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore. Under the vast umbrella of anarchy, something entirely new could be born. Like the primordial ooze.... the endless chaos of nonestablishment.

[Guest BROWNer]

^i'm with villain.

*blah

[seeking]

Originally posted by villain@Nov 30 2004, 10:52 AM

Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore.

Quoted post

 

care to expound on this a bit? because as i see it, anarchism is just about the most far fetched, short sighted excuse for political ideology i've ever come across.

it's like communism but without a snowballs chance in hell of ever working. infact, even on paper it doesn't work.

 

 

ods,

i know, i was just ranting, it had nothing to do with you.

[villain]

well seeking.... there is no definition of anarchy per se. There are SO MANY varieties of anarchy, that good ideas abound aplenty.... it is precisely this freedom, while on the surface looks to be out of control, that allows for many various manifestations of political ideology. The ideology is that there is no ideology. So it is a blank canvas. Sure there are some who would like to trademark their ideas and call it anarchy but that is against the intrinsic nature of anarchy.

[seeking]

if it is a 'blank canvas' then it is devoid of any ideology, and therefor shares equal relivance with a bucket of fried chicken (IMO). if anarchy itself has no structure and nothign cehesive to hold it together, it will never stay together. this is where the whole thing loses me and becomes so unbelievably idiotic. as far as i can tell, anarchy relies on some 'magical' ant-colony like dilligence and adherance to the community that is unquestioned, yet at the same time born of free will. never going to happen, ever.

 

further more, the way you describe anarchy, as having so many varieties and manifestations...you might as well just be describing politics themselves, which does nothing to answer my question, and IMO, only further proves the irrelivance of 'anarchism' as anything other than a t shirt logo.

 

the idea of anarchism has been around for decades (you know what i mean) yet in all that time no one has come up with a viable 'plan' or even manifesto that is generally accepted by most 'anarchists'? and i'm supposed to think this is a system that might to govern the world as it stands now? c'mon villian, you're much too smart to even be toying with this waste of time bullshit.

 

if there is something i'm missing, i honestly would like to understand it, because the more i think about it, the more i'm begining to think that a society structured around the ideology of the care bears is more likely than one built upon anarchism.

[seeking]

actually, here. let me make it easier for you to humor me.

 

under an 'anarchist' system, how will the following be addressed:

 

hospitals.

snow removal.

food inspections.

water.

banking.

landlord tenant disputes.

auto related death.

crime.

immigration.

foreign affairs.

education.

mental health services.

'social security'.

credit card fraud.

environmental protection.

child labor.

 

actually, since i realize thats a long list (although still less than 1% of the services the government shoulders) go ahead and pick any 3 and answer them.

[KaBar2]

Unfortunately, Carerra is not famous for anarchism, it's famous for MARBLE. Try a search for Carerra marble, and try different spellings, I may not be spelling it right.

 

The Italian anarchist movement is huge. If you look for that, you'll probably eventually find something on Carerra.

 

Like I said, I've never been there. Much of what I know I heard second-hand from other people, and from British anarchist publications from about 1973-76.

[seeking]

it's also famous for it's Tia.

but that's sort of different i guess.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 30 2004, 05:30 PM

actually, here. let me make it easier for you to humor me.

 

under an 'anarchist' system, how will the following be addressed:

 

hospitals.

snow removal.

food inspections.

water.

banking.

landlord tenant disputes.

auto related death.

crime.

immigration.

foreign affairs.

education.

mental health services.

'social security'.

credit card fraud.

environmental protection.

child labor.

 

actually, since i realize thats a long list (although still less than 1% of the services the government shoulders) go ahead and pick any 3 and answer them.

Quoted post

Snow removal. People should take it into their own hands and shovel their own neighborhoods as a community effort. It would help people get to know each other and people would be doing something for thier neighborhood. I know that sounds corny.\

 

Credit card fraud. There wouldn't be credit cards under anarchism. Credit cards are given to people without any expanation of how to carefully use it, and they end up driving people into debts they can never pay off in their lifetime.

 

Immigration.

Anarchists are against having borders on a global scale. If land was claimed by one system or one particular group of people. This would eradicate wars over what land belongs to who, which is usually the cause of most wars and ethnic cleansing, which creates a large number of refugees.

 

Hospitals. Say a doctor operates on you during a four hour surgery. When you get better, you would then provide four hours of service to this doctor for saving your life. I don't really think this would work on a mass scale though.

 

Okay that's four. These are more just personal theories, and I don't consider myself an anarchist.

[seeking]

snow removal: ok, so it snows all night...6 inches or so...time to break out the shovel! now...who is going to be doing all the jobs of the people who are now forced to spend their entire day shoveling the snow from every street in the city? and how are those people going to get to those jobs with the freeways gridlocked due to bad road conditions? and who is going to do the jobs of the people who are replacing the people who are shoveling the snow? who is going to buy a salt truck with their own money (or barter for it with corn or whatever) just so they can salt the roads of their 'community?' (which is really just a collection of individual people, because 'community' implies some sort of social order or coherency, which there is none of, otherwise it might put one person in a position to dictate the actions of another, by you know....'voting' or something insane like that.)

 

 

credit cards: no credit cards under anarchism? so you're telling me that under a system without laws, there will be laws as to who can lend what, and for what price? lets say we do 'switch' over to an anarchist system, what will happen to all the credit card debt? what will happen to the investors who are now holding hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless stocks? what will happen to the stock market, which completely controls not only our economy, but a huge percentage of the entire worlds economy? all of that is run on a system of credit in one way or another.

 

immigration: i honestly cant believe you even attempted to tackle this one.

"If land was claimed by one system or one particular group of people. This would eradicate wars over what land belongs to who..."

how exactly would this group of people 'claim' the land? would they just wander around the country untill they came upon a plot of land that no one had ownership of? earth to anarchy, there is no such thing. which means they would have to take the land from someone, and if not by war, or the threat of war, then how? and would this not leave a large segment of people angry that their land was taken from them by a system they might not believe in? wouldnt that just create more war? and if anarchists dont believe in borders, then in theory there is no such thing as an 'immigrant', so really this is a trick question. but just to take it one step further, in this new borderless, policeless, lawless land, people could come and go as they pleased, doing whatever they liked along the way, because there would be no one to stop them. no one but the citizens that is. well, lets say i organize a big group of citizens who all want to take your shit, and my group is bigger than your group...i guess that makes you pretty much SOL don't it? thanks anarchy!

 

hospitals: is a landscapers 4 hours just as valuable as a dr's? if so, why would anyone become a dr. when they get no more out of it than a landscaper? sure, some people might do it 'on the love' but they will be few and far between. also, who will train the dr's? who will insure that the dr. is really a dr. and not a landscaper pretending to be a dr? obviously it will not be a panel of people elected to function as a governing body, because anarchists do not believe in governments or elections, right? so that means that anyone who wants to say he's a dr. can be a dr, because under your own ideology, no one can tell me i'm not a dr if i say i am. you ever see 'who's the man'? dennis leary would not be having me just pretending to be a dr. he wouldn't let me eat donuts over some shit like that. anarchy is shitty, donuts are good.

 

 

 

wow, that was even easier than i expected. anarchism is seriously the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. it might work on a very small, very limited scale under a specific set of conditions, but it would offer no advantages over a democracy in the same climate.

[KaBar2]

First of all, it is impossible to create a condition of "no state" overnight. Even in the places in the world where whatever minimal government theretofore existed was extinguished, "anarchy" does not reign. CHAOS is what prevails, not anarchy, and this is because what occurs when a state disintegrates is not "no government", but "many little governments," especially when all the people who have a degree of power over others desire to start up their own little dictatorship. A perfect example of this is the "Shithole Formerly Known as Somalia."

 

We cannot go backwards in time to find the State of Nature, assuming that it ever actually existed. We must start from where we are now. It is the nature of the modern National Security State to continuously expand it's degree of control and authority and power. The governments which the original anarchists fought against did not have a thousandth of the power and control that exists today. And, at the same time, many of the original goals of the anarchists have long since been accomplished, things like "the eight-hour work day," "Unemployment Insurance," "Disability Insurance," "an end to Marriage and the Patriarchical Family." (We still have families, but they are a mere shadow of the institution's former self.) They wanted to break the power of the Church, and finally to break the State itself. Capitalism adapted and transformed itself. Communism thrived until Reagan outspent them. Unable to adapt, it collapsed from within. Now we have McDonald's, Starbuck's and UPS on Red Square in Moscow. And you can buy Kalashnikov-designed rifles at every sporting goods store in America.

 

As individuals become more independent and more empowered, the power and authority of the State shrinks and shrinks. It makes more noise and smoke, but less light and heat. More and more people are choosing to live "off the grid." I think in some places, government may just become increasingly irrelevant. It will never disappear completely, I don't think, but anti-statism is a growing trend. Eventually, we may find ourselves in a state of Practical Anarchy.

[seeking]

again kabar, i think you're greatly overestimating american society based on your circle of friends. more and more americans are not 'chosing' to live off the grid. they're either being pushed off, or they're becoming completely enveloped in it. this past election is proof positive that people actually want more government with more control over us. hardly a step in any direction you're claiming.

 

the govt's the 'original' anarchists fought against didn't have a tenth of the power....ok, but the society was not a tenth as advanced or complex as it is now.

 

which group of 'anarchists' brought us the 8 hour work day and 'unemployment insurance'?

 

finally, i would hardly use the word 'thriving' to describe the state of USSR's brand of 'communism'.

[omar]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 03:41 PM

anarchy, atleast any version of anarchy that i've ever seen, is the biggest crock of shit in the universe.

i wish it would die.

Quoted post

 

 

i could not have said it better myself.

 

what i always say whenever i come across some little "Punk RAWK" bitches is that hey anarchy is cool, you think, but i can walk up to your whole family and kill them and nothing would happen (jail wise)

 

its the biggest bunch of bullshit

[omar]

yeah as far as the comments from Kabar and other "anarchists" go, you guys are going to end wars? wow, shit maybe you should run in the next election if your system can end wars and land disputes. what you think people areound teh world like Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Sierra Leone, Sudan, etc. etc. are just going to stop fighting?

 

you know what if we did actualyl swtich over, id put a fucking bullet in every motherfucking anarchists head. simple as that.

 

but hey if a doctor works on you for 5 hours, maybe you can pay him back, seeing as how you probably have no medical skills anyways. when i heard that i laughed, what are you going to do, assist him in the OR? SHovel his driveway?

 

no i stand by my point that i will kill any anarchist who tries to change my way of life

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by omar@Dec 2 2004, 12:45 PM

yeah as far as the comments from Kabar and other "anarchists" go, you guys are going to end wars? wow, shit maybe you should run in the next election if your system can end wars and land disputes. what you think people areound teh world like Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Sierra Leone, Sudan, etc. etc. are just going to stop fighting?

 

you know what if we did actualyl swtich over, id put a fucking bullet in every motherfucking anarchists head. simple as that.

 

but hey if a doctor works on you for 5 hours, maybe you can pay him back, seeing as how you probably have no medical skills anyways. when i heard that i laughed, what are you going to do, assist him in the OR? SHovel his driveway?

 

no i stand by my point that i will kill any anarchist who tries to change my way of life

Quoted post

You are quite possibly a bigger idiot than I am.

[seeking]

in kabars defense, he's not an anarchist, he's a republican.