Yeah. Look at what anarchy has brought New Orleans. When are ya gonna get off that crap anarchy bandwagon? As anyone with common sense can see, it is no good at all. Yet I am sure you will be posting it's virtues.
Printable View
Yeah. Look at what anarchy has brought New Orleans. When are ya gonna get off that crap anarchy bandwagon? As anyone with common sense can see, it is no good at all. Yet I am sure you will be posting it's virtues.
Tokosan, you have to udnersnad that certain filopohises TRANSCEND common sense. For those of us intelligent enuff 2 b anarchists ((sex pistols rock!)) we kind of see stuff you don't u know? sorry toko u'd haff to b an anarchist otherwise u'd never understand.
On a side note: Does what's going on in New Orleans count as anarchy? I mean, I know it's "chaos", etc. etc., but it's not the kind of idealistic unrealistic istic istic istic kind of anarchy that real anarchists want. ((the one's that don't like the sex pistols.))
Booted 'er in the fuckin' 'ead an' I nicked 'er wallet. Wuz real anarchy in the uk kinda feelin' ya know mate?
Sorry there lil' darlin' but I was probably listening to the Sex Pistols when you were crapping your diapers. Here's the lyrics:Quote:
Originally Posted by ADaisyChain
Anarchy in the U.K.
Right! now ha, ha
I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist,
Donâ??t know what I want
But I know how to get it.
I wanna destroy the passer by
â??cos I wanna be anarchy,
Ho dogs body
Anarchy for the uk
Itâ??s coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line.
Your future dream is a shopping scheme
Cause I wanna be anarchy,
Itâ??s in the city
How many ways to get what you want
I use the best I use the rest
I use the enemy.
I use anarchy
â??cause I wanna be anarchy,
Its the only way to be
Is this the mpla
Or is this the uda
Or is this the ira
I thought it was the uk
Or just another country
Another council tenancy.
I wanna be an anarchist
(oh what a name)
And l wanna be an anarchist
(I get pissed destroy)
Hmmmm....sounds a lil' on the salty side to me. I get pissed destroy isn't whats happening in N.O.? :rolleyes:
And one of my favorite "anarchist" songs from that era. :D
FEAR LYRICS
"I Love Livin' In The City"
I love livin' in the city [x2]
My house smells just like the zoo,
It's chock full of shit and puke!
Cockroaches on the walls
Crabs crawlin' on my balls!
Ohh, but I'm so clean cut,
I just wanna fuck some sluts!
I love livin' in the city [x2]
Spent my whole life in the city,
Where junk is king and the air smells shitty.
People pukin' everywhere.
Piles of blood, scabs and hair.
Bodies wasted in the street,
People dyin' on the street,
But the suburban scumbags, they don't care,
Just get fat and dye their hair!
I love livin' in the city [x2]
I love livin' in the city [repeat] :D
not as if this is a big surprise to some people here...but i think you've once again completely missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tokosan
A leading modern dictionary, Webster's Third International Dictionary, defines anarchism briefly but accurately as, "a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs." Other dictionaries describe anarchism with similar definitions. The Britannica-Webster dictionary defines the word anarchism as, "a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups." Shorter dictionaries, such as the New Webster Handy College Dictionary, define anarchism as, "the political doctrine that all governments should be abolished."
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/defanar.html
I think he did hit the nail on the head! Read the above...."voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs."
With a natural disaster of this magnitude this would be the time for people to pull together, instead we have looting, murders, rapists all having their fun. Anarchy is a wishfull theory, nothing more. Fact is, not all people are "good at heart" so this type of system would never work!
Read my post 7 more times. 2/7 times read it seriously. The last five times read it as if it was written by a terribly sarcastic person who thinks that plastic pop anarchy is ridiculous. You'll get a better impression of what I meant by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
"I get pissed destroy" is what's happening in New Orleans. New Orleans is operating on the sex pistols idea of anarchy, not the modern semi-intellectual anarchist's idea of anarchy.
Thank you for supporting my ideas without realizing it.
no system works BECAUSE of greed..........none. And we'de have to change our instincts on a sub conscious level or greed rears its ugly head ;)
You know, I always hate how people just dismiss anarchy because its unrealistic, idealistic, etc. Arent the Republicans idealists in some respects as well? They're always defend they're stance on gay marriage by saying that a family should consist of man and a women, despite the fact that there are so many divorces and when it comes to adopting, I think a child wouldnt mind having two loving men as parents instead of a crack whore taking care of him/her. Lets get back to reality here!
What people do in their bedroom is their own buisiness!!! Got that out! Buuuuuut, I don't know??? Depends on the part of the country you live in. I know around here it would save a lot of ass kickin's just to say momma's a crack whore! NOT RIGHT, but that's the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojavpa
as a republican,i am all for gay marriage.its the old school republicans that are against it.
You are making the common mistake of defining "anarchy" as chaos and disorder. While this is the common layman's definition of the term, it is not the ideal that is promoted by anarchists. The word comes from two Greek words, an (without) and arkhê (ruler), and means a social system devoid of rulers, that is, where nobody has the authority to limit another person's freedom to do as they wish in any way, unless that person is violating the freedom of another, in which case self-defense is justified. The opposite condition, which has been termed "archy", is the presence of rulers, and of authority, where leaders of hierarchical institutions such as corporations and government have vastly more power than the rest of society, and instruct everybody else what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by tokosan
History shows that true anarchy can not possibly arise unless the populace of a region is committed to anarchist principles. As long as people are conditioned to a world of the rulers and the ruled, they will seek to reinstate hierarchical, authoritarian social relationships even where the government is rendered unable to establish its monopoly on "legitimate" violence, such as in New Orleans. We do not see people working together to create anarchy, because there is hardly any anarchist movement there. What we see instead are gangs and individuals fighting for power over their fellow man. That is the exact opposite of anarchy.
Anarchy, in a political sense, is not a synonym of chaos and disorganization. In the past, when monarchy was the predominant political system, people used the words "democracy" and "republic" to mean disorder, but clearly democracies and republics, in the proper senses of the words, could not possibly arise without democrats and republicans. Similarly, anarchy cannot be constructed without people devoted to creating a classless, egalitarian and directly democratic network of autonomous federations. Anarchy does not mean the absence of any kind of organization in society; it is the construction of an organization without centralization of power, based on the free association of people who recognize that the well-being of the individual is based on the well-being of society as a whole. It does not mean "every man for himself". Far from it.
It's not unrealistic at all. Believe it or not, anarchistically-structured societies have existed in the past, and were quite successful at managing affairs in an egalitarian, non-hierarchical manner. They failed not because of internal chaos or inefficiency, but because they were eventually outgunned by the capitalists. See http://www.anarchistfaq.de/secA5.html for some examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by ADaisyChain
"It is often said that Anarchists live in a world of dreams to come, and do not see the things which happen today. We do see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudice that besets us." â?? Peter Kropotkin
Then how did it work for many years in Spain and the Ukraine? How has it worked for almost every indigenous people ever encountered? Of course not everybody is good at heart, but everybody depends on society to survive and the vast majority of people are willing to contribute to society even when not forced to. And there is no reason to believe that decentralized organizations can't be just as effective if not more so than centralized, hierarchical ones in dealing with the problems of murder, rape, etc. People would still have organized means of dealing with crime, it would just be organized more like the volunteer fire department than like the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
"The 92 members of the Commune (or, more correctly, of the "Communal Council") included skilled workers, several "professionals" (such as doctors and journalists), and a large number of political activists, ranging from reformist republicans, through various types of socialists, to the Jacobins who tended to look back nostalgically to the Revolution of 1789. The charismatic socialist, Louis Auguste Blanqui, was elected President of the Council, but this was in his absence, for he had been arrested on March 17 and was held in a secret prison throughout the life of the Commune. The Paris Commune was proclaimed on March 28, although local districts often retained the organizations from the siege."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
yeah... not even a hint of government or authority in there
Well, I wouldn't argue that the Paris Commune was anarchist, but some of the basic principles of anarchism were widespread among the revolutionaries, despite the fact that there were more authoritarian revolutionaries who tried to establish centers of power. A better example of an anarchist society would be Spain in the late 1930s:
http://www.anarchism.ws
Quote:
Like most people who hear about Anarchism you probably believe that "it is a good set of ideas but unfortunately it would never work. People are naturally greedy and selfish, if there was no government to look after our interests there would be complete chaos".
But there are historical examples of anarchism working. The greatest of these happened in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War. It started with an attempted fascist coup. In response to the coup the workers mobilised to defeat fascism. Popular militias were formed by the unions and workers seized factories. Peasants took over land that had been abandoned by the landlords. This marked the beginning of the revolution for the Anarchists. They believed that the Civil War had to be not just a fight against fascism but also against the capitalist system that had spawned fascism in the first place.
In the zones controlled by the Anarchists, workers self-management became a reality. In Catalonia there were at least 2,000 industrial and commercial collectives. At least 60% of "republican" Spain's agriculture was collectivised.
In the workplaces councils or "comite" elected by assemblies of workers and representing all sectors of the enterprise, were given the task of administering the collectivised factory. Collectivised enterprises in each sector of industry were represented in an Economic Federation. This in turn was topped by a General Industrial Council that would closely control the whole industry.
Here is a description of the organisation of gas, electricity and water in Barcelona.
"Each type of job (e.g. fitters) set up a section consisting of at least fifteen workers. Where there were not the numbers to do this workers from different trades got together to constitute a general section. Each section nominates two delegates that are chosen by assemblies of the workers. One of the delegates will be of a technical calibre and will participate in the 'comite' of the workplace. The other will be entrusted with the management of work in the section.
The 'comite' of the building or plant comes next. It is nominated by the delegates of the sections and consists of a technician, a manual worker and an administrator. The manual worker has to solve difficulties that might arise between different sections. He or she receives suggestions from workers in the different trades and the sections give him or her daily reports on the progress of work. Periodically the delegate calls the sections to general meetings. At these proposals and initiatives which are likely to improve production and productivity are studied as well as ones to improve the workers' situation. A copy of the deliberation is sent to the Council for Industry.
The delegates with administrative functions supervises the arrival and warehousing of materials, records requirements details with book-keeping for supplies and reserves, and keeps an eye on the state of income and expenditure. S/He also deals with correspondence and it is his/her responsibility to see that balance sheets and reports addressed to the Council for Industry are prepared.
The delegate with technical functions supervises the activities of his section, and uses every endeavour to increase productivity. To lighten the workers' burden by introducing new methods. S/He checks on production at the power stations, the state of the network, prepares statistics and charts indicating how production is developing. At the summit there are the Councils of Industry. One each for gas, electricity and water, Each is composed of eight delegates, four from the U. G. T. (the socialist trade union) and four from the C.N.T. These are capped by the General Council of the three industries, which is also made up by eight delegates drawn equally from the two unions.
This Council co-ordinates activities of the three industries; attunes the production and distribution of raw materials from a regional, national and international point of view; modifies prices; organises general administration; indeed takes and uses all initiatives useful to production and the workers' needs. Meanwhile it is obliged at all times to submit its' activities to the scrutiny of local and regional union assemblies"
On the Trams
Five days after the fighting stopped 700 tramcars, instead of the usual 600, all painted in the black and red colours of the CNT, were operating on the streets of Barcelona. With the profit motive gone safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In 1936, 183,543,516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Wages were equalised for all workers and increased over the previous rates. For the first time, free medical care was provided for the workforce.
On the Land
The countryside also saw collectivisation. In Aragon, near the front-line during the war, collectivisation took root and spread like wildfire. In February 1937 there were 275 collectives totalling 80,000 members. Three months later there were 450 collectives with 180,000 members. Often the peasants and farm labourers went further than their counterparts in the towns and cities. Not only was production collectivised but in rural areas consumption too. In many of these areas money was abolished.
Large estates were taken over by landless labourers, small holders put their land together so that it could be worked more efficiently by the use of machinery. Collectives were based around the villages and federated on a regional basis.
Usually the decision to collectivise was made at an assembly (a meeting of the entire village). It meant handing over land, livestock, tools, seed, stocks of wheat and other produce. The land was then divided into sectors, each of which was assigned to a work group of about a dozen who elected their own delegate. Produce went into the "pile" for communal consumption. Each would produce according to their ability, each would consume according to their needs.
Collectivisation did not only apply to the land. In the villages, workshops were set up where all the local trades people would produce tools, furniture, etc. for the village and also carry out repairs to the collectivists houses. Bakers, butchers, barbers and so on were also collectivised.
The lot of rural workers and peasants was improved by the introduction of machinery. Living standards rose, in the words of one collectivist "those who had less now ate more and better - no one went short". Education became a central concern and young children who had never been to school were given the education denied to them by the landlords and their system.
Women's Action
Gains were also made by women. They were present everywhere - on committees, in the militias, in the front line. In the early battles of the war, women fought alongside men as a matter of course. It was not merely a case of women filling in for men who were away at the front. They were in the militias and fought alongside the men as equals. They were organising the collectives and taking up the fight against the sexist attitudes of the past, which have no place in any real revolution. During the war abortion was legalised in the "republican zone". Centres were opened for women, including unmarried mothers and prostitutes.
From all accounts there truly were changes in attitudes towards women. One female participant in the Civil War has said: "It was like being brothers and sisters. It had always annoyed me that men in this country didn't consider women as beings with full human rights. But now there was this big change. I believe it arose spontaneously out of the revolutionary movement"
The Lessons
History is not neutral. What we learn in school is the necessity for government, rulers and capitalism. What we do not learn is that many times it has been shown that this government is not necessary. People are not inherently bad. Given the right conditions a spirit of mutual aid and co-operation can grow.
History shows us that Anarchist ideas can work. A new society can be created with the workers in control. But it won't happen spontaneously - We must organise for it.
That is why we need revolutionary organisation. An organisation that draws together all those fighting for workers control. An organisation that gives us the chance to exchange ideas, experiences, and to learn from the lessons of history. An organisation that facilitates our struggle together for a new society.
We do not need a group of leaders and their passive followers. We do need an organisation working towards mobilising the masses of ordinary people in the process of making the revolution. Find out about the anarchist organisations where you live or if there are none then consider starting one.
Emma Goldman said, about a hundred years ago,
ANARCHISM: â?? The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.
Here I thought we were on the same wave...for once. Your words "History shows that true anarchy can not possibly arise unless the populace of a region is committed to anarchist principles."Quote:
Originally Posted by ermitonto
"vast majority of people are willing to contribute to society even when not forced to"
But this is the case right now and it's not working because there is a small group of "assholes" raping, murdering, etc....
In order to control the situation you need cops or military. They need leaders in order to coordinate movements, a hierarchy is created, your screaming for Anarchy again. It's a vicious cycle when you really look at it! :D
I don't follow. Anarchism was successfully tried and maintained for several years in Spain and the Ukraine, where the "assholes" were dealt with by voluntary popular militias. They did not need leaders in order to coordinate their movements; they were perfectly capable of coordinating themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Who knows whos right or wrong but I think the first step would have to be elimination of the assholes. 100% cooperation...and least 95%.Quote:
Originally Posted by ermitonto
Don't know though? Human nature is that someone always wants/needs to be the Chief.
Then why has that version of "human nature" been absent from almost every indigenous tribe ever found? Practically every native people has been organized in a more-or-less non-hierarchical manner. You generally didn't seek power for yourself to dominate over others. For example, if you and some other hunters were dispatched to find food, and only you were successful, you wouldn't hoard up your meat and use it to make others do your bidding, like you would if you were really innately a power-seeker. You would share that food with the rest of the clan, confident that they would and will do the same for you, and deriving satisfaction out of helping your fellow man. Small nomadic communities, like the kind humans have lived in for the vast majority of their existence, cannot survive long in the wild in an atmosphere of excessive competition between factions. They need to rely on mutual aid and cooperation instead. As humans we are uniquely intelligent and social creatures. We work best when we pool our mental energy to come to collective solutions to our common problems.
P.S. That same human nature argument was used for centuries to justify slavery, you know.
Well said, ermitonto.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but this is most certianly NOT the case. The people of New Orleans are not committed to anarchist principles. To assert the opposite is ridiculous. Show me one significant organization in New Orleans that promotes anarchism, or any kind of socialism for that matter. There are none, just brutal gangs consisting mostly of statist capitalists. The gangs aren't out there urging for the end of the State and capitalism, like every anarchist movement in history has. They're just out to assert their own form of authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Why Thank you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arioch
Quote:
Originally Posted by ermitonto
Ok so.... that is exactly what is happening. Ok, there is no rulers, no authority to limit another's freedom.
Self-defense? what if you are a 70-year old crippled man, and you have to "defend" yourself against 5 men with guns?
Face it, you are so stupid to believe in anarchy. you just proved urself an idiot.
please, get off the internet
Umm, no, the 70-year-old crippled man would be protected by the community's voluntary association devoted to stopping crime (crime being the limitation of another's freedom, such as the 5 men with guns threatening the old man). Why does having a community organization for protecting people against such displays of authority necessitate a centralized, hierarchical social system? It doesn't, and if you'll look at the histories of Spain and the Ukraine you'll find the proof. As I have already explained, anarchy does NOT mean every man for himself. It means that those organizations necessary for the public good would be organized according to the principles of direct democracy, egalitarianism, free association and mutual aid.
What I mean by self-defense is the ability for the community to defend itself against violent, anti-social people. It does not mean every person is solely responsible for their own protection.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by ermitonto