Why I am an anarchist

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:36 pm

Tyrannus wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:Ok Tyrannus, how about YOU define "functions well" whichever way pleases you, and then find me a historical example of a society that does it in the absence of a state . . .


10,000 years of hunter gatherer society.


Oh, you mean when the Earth had about 0.5% of its present human population? You and your fellow anarchists are going to have to do some serious "culling of the herd" before you can get back to that.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4139
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Silhouette » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:41 pm

Uccisore wrote:I'm not a libertarian because I think society needs organization, but I think that organization just needs to be divested from the control of ego-maniacal experimenters and theorists that think they know better than how the culture has developed over time.

I think you can just as easily say "culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish to tamper with it" as "culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish not to change with it".

uglypeoplefucking wrote:Oh, you mean when the Earth had about 0.5% of its present human population? You and your fellow anarchists are going to have to do some serious "culling of the herd" before you can get back to that.

I strongly subscribe to the theory that population density (usually in line with size) is one of the most significant factors in changing social attitudes/organisation. I would totally agree that we can't go back to any hunter/gatherer tribalism without a massive "culling of the herd".

Monarchs became unable to manage populations too large, so they spread their powers to select Feudal Lords, who in turn had to spread their powers amongst Capitalists, who presumably will in turn eventually have to spread their power amongst co-operative management (and so on?). Akin to trees with their trunks, branches, twigs, leaf veins...

Living in increasingly close quarters similarly demands stronger co-operative behaviour in the social world as well as the economic, because there is no way out (with everywhere else increasingly populated too, with neighbourhoods rejecting you unless you will keep the peace and allow everyone to get on unhindered as best you can - enter the concept of negative liberty).

Anarchy just doesn't factor into historical progression except, at best, at each extreme - with hardly anyone on the planet (lone wolves), or with far too many people on the planet that leadership is too spread out too have any real significance, assuming branching out of layers of power continues infinitely.

Anarchy is just "a cool idea" - at best a thought experiment to remind us where not to end up (realised once you've thought it through sufficiently).

Co-operativism is the next stage.

Fixed Cross wrote:The elite:
I
MM
JSS
Sauwelios
Parodites
Weary Locomotive
Pezer
BigTom

Must be a bizarre definition of elite you're using there. But then mine only includes me...

Das Experiment wrote:Where do you live? And how much have you travelled to other places?

I've lived in an abnormally high number of different houses for my age, 19 so far. They span only a few English counties, though family, friends, partners and holidays have filled in the gaps in terms of my travelling experience throughout the rest of the country - though not so much the rest of the world, I've only visited 4 foreign countries across only 2 continents. So in terms of being well travelled, I am and I am not. I feel informed about the USA, despite only having visited there once - through internet contact (and only to the extent one can be through media representation of the place). My best friend grew up and still lives in the Middle East. Living where I do, I am exposed to people from all over the world in a professional environment as well as living amongst all sorts of them - so I know about much of the rest of the world through them, despite not having visited the countries from whence they came. Further, my geography is very good, and I like to read up on other cultures/ways of living.

Das Experiment wrote:I admit, I'm not a great traveller by any means but even where I live I've seen more than enough to dispel any particular notion of 'human nature'.

If I am to generalise, I would subscribe more to a notion of "human tendency relative to circumstances" than some ridiculous notion of a uniform "human nature". I know people far better than I've ever known anyone else know them, and there's definitely common ground and patterns - despite huge numbers of individual differences and variations.

Das Experiment wrote:What you say may well be true, but I'd argue that those who squander their abilities are politically insignificant. Not in a 'let's pack them off to happy camps' kind of way, more in a 'they were never going to do anything anyway' sort of way. The people who do give a shit, give a shit.

I regard people who squander their abilities as highly politically significant, despite their lack of knowledge about what they're doing. They vote in vast numbers for other reasons than political curiosity and knowledge. They keep the same old parties in power, and these parties know this.

Das Experiment wrote:most people who call themselves anarchists are dipshits. But I'm seeking to define anarchism as something else on this thread, however limited and futile you might see that endeavor as being.

Most people who call themselves Socialists are also dipshits. I seek to define Socialism as what it actually is, rather than what it's made out to be - however futile others might see that endeavour.

Das Experiment wrote:Also, I'm anti-state, not anti-government. One could have something that looks a bit like government in an anarchic society as I see it.

I'm neither anti-State nor anti-government. To me, that's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". They are here and aren't going to suddenly disappear forever just because some Anarchists got together. These institutions need to be transformed into something that brings out more favourable conditions (ironically ones that Anarchists would most likely wish would happen immediately without any transition). Socialism is simply more realistic - though I would identify more as a Co-operativist, because even Socialism asks for too much at once.

Das Experiment wrote:Tell me, what in your life has inspired you to be creative, funny, compassionate and so on?

Not a simple answer to that one for sure. But to force one, I would say emotional/chemical reward due to a certain set of experiences.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:34 am

Silhouette wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:I admit, I'm not a great traveller by any means but even where I live I've seen more than enough to dispel any particular notion of 'human nature'.

If I am to generalise, I would subscribe more to a notion of "human tendency relative to circumstances" than some ridiculous notion of a uniform "human nature". I know people far better than I've ever known anyone else know them, and there's definitely common ground and patterns - despite huge numbers of individual differences and variations.


Really? How do you measure that?

But OK, what is this human tendency, as you see it?

Das Experiment wrote:What you say may well be true, but I'd argue that those who squander their abilities are politically insignificant. Not in a 'let's pack them off to happy camps' kind of way, more in a 'they were never going to do anything anyway' sort of way. The people who do give a shit, give a shit.

I regard people who squander their abilities as highly politically significant, despite their lack of knowledge about what they're doing. They vote in vast numbers for other reasons than political curiosity and knowledge. They keep the same old parties in power, and these parties know this.


You're still working within the framework of electoral politics. I couldn't give a toss about that, because it always becomes dominated by political parties and political parties are equivalent to tabloid media in the way that they'll leap from one position to another depending on what they perceive the advantage as being in doing so. The socialists are no different in this respect.

Das Experiment wrote:most people who call themselves anarchists are dipshits. But I'm seeking to define anarchism as something else on this thread, however limited and futile you might see that endeavor as being.

Most people who call themselves Socialists are also dipshits. I seek to define Socialism as what it actually is, rather than what it's made out to be - however futile others might see that endeavour.


Go on then, define socialism as 'what is actually is'. I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that.

Das Experiment wrote:Also, I'm anti-state, not anti-government. One could have something that looks a bit like government in an anarchic society as I see it.

I'm neither anti-State nor anti-government. To me, that's "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". They are here and aren't going to suddenly disappear forever just because some Anarchists got together.


This is perhaps the 12th time on this thread that people have resorted to a stock, hackneyed rejection of anarchism that has nothing to do with anything I've said, or indeed that anyone else on this thread has said. It's an objection to a label, nothing more. I expect more of you, and know you are capable of far more.

These institutions need to be transformed into something that brings out more favourable conditions (ironically ones that Anarchists would most likely wish would happen immediately without any transition). Socialism is simply more realistic - though I would identify more as a Co-operativist, because even Socialism asks for too much at once.


So we need to use the state as a mechanism to force people to become more co-operative? I think you're right that this is 'what socialism really is' but it's a pretty terrible thing.

Das Experiment wrote:Tell me, what in your life has inspired you to be creative, funny, compassionate and so on?

Not a simple answer to that one for sure. But to force one, I would say emotional/chemical reward due to a certain set of experiences.


And this is why I hate Marxism - it reduces people to material beings, typically views ordinary life and people with contempt and pretends it is forcing them to do things for their own benefit. You have expressed utterly typical Marxism.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:50 am

Silhouette wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:
The elite:
I
MM
JSS
Sauwelios
Parodites
Weary Locomotive
Pezer
BigTom

Must be a bizarre definition of elite you're using there. But then mine only includes me...

Indeed that is where I am different from most anyone here.
Of course I myself am the standard to what is required to be part of this elite - and I was drunk writing that list - but I've come so far that I can't rise any higher, and have to expand in breadth. Thankfully this proves possible.

Basically I included every poster on this list who I know that understands, to a significant degree, value ontology. Without meeting that standard anyone is perfectly worthless to me, as a philosopher I mean.
WL's presence on the list is mostly due to the drinking.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:00 pm

Moreno wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:Or anarchists who only work part-time, maybe.
It seems to me the distinction between leisure and work is an ill fit with anarchy.


Why?

Regardless, that's not what I meant. I meant that they are only compassionate, funny etc. part-time, hence are only 'working as anarchists' part-time.

Possibly because they spend most of the first 20 years of their life in state-controlled education centres (schools). But they don't have to identify themselves as anarchists, or even believe in the dissolution of the state in order to be anarchists as I'm defining them.
It seems like you are defining them not for the qualities they have but for the qualities they would have in an alternate universe. If they make up the bulk of the population, which I Think they do, they are going to resist the Changes you are likely going to want to make. They may very well call in the state to enforce their fears about what you are doing. Not some of them, most of them.


I'm not defining them per se as anything or via anything. I'm saying people not only have the potential and capacity to be these things but also manifest them on a daily basis in a billions 'trivial' ways. That they also manifest other characteristics does in no way preclude or contradict what I'm asserting as a base proposition.

I'm not talking about 'changes I want to make', so as with Sil this is a stock argument against what most people argue for when they talk about anarchism, rather than a rejection of what I've actually asserted. And I've never met anyone who was frightened by my political perspective, so I simply don't buy the idea that most people will call in the state because they are so terrified of me. It's not like I'm urging people to fly planes into Big Ben.

5% more or less of anything is what makes the difference.
So has it recently reached 5% and that's why we do not have the dissolution of the state?


You aren't taking this seriously.

I see daily acts of kindness and compassion everywhere I go. I can't convince you to see the same. I don't know else to say about that.
Within norms. Sure, I see them too. Where they fit the rules and categories sanctioned by norms and often the State.


When an old person drops their shopping and you help to pick it up the state has virtually fuck all to do with it. Again, I don't think you're taking this seriously.

I don't. But I don't see much risk in approaching things as I do - what could go wrong with being optimistic about human potential? I might be proven wrong, but if that's the worst outcome then fuck it, it's a risk I'm willing to take.
I figure that it's best to go with what is. It seems to me there is too much assumption about what is hiding underneath conformity. If there are solutions, then these will come with a clear appraisal of what we know, even if that means the crack letting in a Little light is even smaller. One can have optimism without making more positive assessments.


'It's best to go with what is' - OK, and to me 'what is' is that humans have the capacity and potential and manifest this quite a lot already for being funny, compassionate and so on. That is my base proposition, and after several long posts all you've done is talk around that, rather than take it on directly and tell me what it is you object to about it.

I'm not talking about a violent overthrow or coup or a dissolution of the state in that sense. It's not something that will be established and then have to find a way to stop the sociopaths resurrecting the state, it's about advancing the opposite of sociopathic values, first, last and always. Sometimes real life gets in the way, of course, but often real life becomes easier by being this way.
The state arose out of what was less like a state - at least it seems this way. What will be different this time?


The absence of a grand narrative of the dissolution of the state. That's an aim, but it shouldn't be a political teleology.

Perhaps you're not looking in the same places as I am.
Perhaps. I Think I said earlier that there may simply be gaps between our perceptions and experiences and these may be hard to impossible to talk our way past.


Sure, but I'm not willing to reduce political discussion to the relativism of personal experience. If you are, then there probably is no point continuing this discussion.

Why would you be nervous about this?
First it Cuts both ways because it can also lead to overestimating the positive, which obviously I Think you have. In my experiences most people would find such a discussion uncomfortable. IN a sense what one is asking is 'are you more creative and intelligent than you seem to be? or Do you really want to conform or are you aching to throw off the bounds of state created norms? I can certainly come up with more diplomatic ways of trying to get at that information, but there is a damn good reason to be diplomatic there and that's becasue people identify with those norms and also more and more see themselves and their Surfaces.


I think you're being hyper-sensitive here, and it's pathetic. Those who have the stomach for actually believing in things would not find such a discussion even the slightest bit uncomfortable, and frankly those who don't believe in anything deserve whatever they get, and accept whatever they get. If you go along to get along then when things change you will continue to go along to get along, so what does your opinion matter? I'm not seeking to have that sort of conversation with the sort of person who spends most of their time watching reality TV and soap operas, so I don't give a fuck about whether they'd hypothetically find it uncomfortable.

There are even people within the state who embody these characteristics a lot of the time, so it isn't just mythological, and like I say when the state isn't watching, people behave markedly differently.
I'm not sure what you mean by the state watching. most of my interactions with people are not under state surveillance. People have internalized norms. When you say the state isn't watching, what are the situations where the state is watching that you are thinking of?


Do you not read the newspapers? Indeed, the very fact that it's now out in the open that the state (not just government) basically records everything it technologically can record about its citizens, their behaviour, their thoughts and attitudes means that people feel under surveillance by the state even more than they did before, hence it has even more influence on their behaviour.

To be honest I think we're always likely to be in the intermediate stage, and the measure of how anarchistic our society is derives from the human values I've listed. I don't have a systemic plan for a transition to an ideal state - I'm not a Marxist or an anarcho-capitalist or any such ideologically committed historian. I do appreciate your disagreement, but like the dude in the Matrix said, my beliefs do not require you to believe in them.
That seems like a strange thing to say in context. What led you to Think I think your beliefs are dependent on mine? I assume it was something beyond my simply questioning your ideas and not agreeing.


It's the fact you keep asking me about intermediate stages and changes I would make and so on when I haven't mentioned any of that. It's the fact you keep trying to draw me into 'well I don't believe that' when nothing in my argument relies on you agreeing or requires you to agree. You can be funny and compassionate without believing what I believe about humour and compassion.

And by the way, I am not a pessimist. I just don't see people the way you do. My optimism seems not to be dependent on what seems a rosy Picture of what they are 'really' like, despite appearances. And to be clear. I am not saying your optimism is hinged to the image you have of people. But it seemed like you had a kind of pascal's Wager relationship to your faith in other people. And that you were potentially implying to be optimistic included this view of humans.


Once again you're committing the fallacy of confusing 'people CAN BE and ARE SOMETIMES funny and compassionate' with 'people ARE (per se) compassionate'. Stop applying ludicrous, irrelevant standards to what I'm saying and maybe you'll understand it.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:16 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I don't see a difference at all anymore between government and corporations. In Holland, virtually all the news about what the government does is about how well it obeys certain corporate interests in curbing other corporate interests. What I mean is, the government of the state is the corporate boardrooms. The parliamentary system is now almost pure sham. It has become so in recent decades, after the collapse of the USSR. Before that there was still a powerful political dichotomy within the state.


OK, sure, I agree, but this is kinda my point - that so many anarchists reduce 'the state' to 'the government' and thus believe that the 'free market' will replace 'the state' when it is magically abolished. The corporations are the most obvious reason why that is nonsense.

This is a difficult one, because healthcare is, at times, an absolute necessity for survival and yet it is relatively highly skilled, rare, work which is therefore deserving of considerable reward. It bridges the natural hierarchy of needs-wants and the respective economies you've suggested. So I don't know, I'd like to think something like welfare healthcare would still be possible, but without all the massive subsidising of drug companies and so on. I mean, you wouldn't want to be dependent on the drunkard in Deadwood, would you? Nor would I. I think we can do better than that.

This all depends on our [the states] conception of viable medical technology. I disagree with that conception for about 80/90%, though of course not with all of it. I am certainly well aware that both diseases and treatments are created in order to drawn funds into certain industries, and that cheap and simple cures are legally banned, destroyed and their creators murdered. So there's all that, it's uncomfortable to talk about really. But the medical industry is at the very core of the corporate state, there's literally nothing that anchors it deeper, it outperforms even the military branch.


'Outperforms' in what sense? As a practical (rather than implied) mechanism of control? If that's what you mean then I agree completely, though I would add the caveat that the main purpose of the military is not to control ones own population. That was their main purpose in the past, but now it's more about stealing resources from the citizens of other countries. But yes, the welfare state and in particular the medical-industrial complex is the main tool for control in the Western world. Medicalise dissent and then numb it with SSRIs - this seems to be their first port of call.

Yes, you are absolutely right, but our task is also to appreciate that which is valuable beyond the logic and the laws.

That's why I found that value had to be placed at the very root of logic itself, for logic to be able to operate on truly significant levels.
value always precedes logic. Logic is the basic instrument of operating value. As a tool, it is worthless or worse when we do not first clearly perceive what is valuable to us.


Yes.

So, to the question that is perhaps most difficult to answer in practical terms - what about security? Almost everything the state does, it does in the name of security (it says it means our security when of course it means its own). Avoiding economic armageddon, pig flu, bad weather and terrorists gives the state mosts of its perceived legitimacy. Now, demonstrating the absolute corruptness of the state in this regard is not difficult, but the politics of security goes to the heart of what makes humans humans - our ability to imagine different possibilities, including nightmares. Most creatures simply don't suffer from nightmares. So, even when people recognise that the state is corrupt they don't make the jump to anarchy because 'better the devil you know'. They can envision a worse scenario than anything you can tell them is real, and hence the feeling of protection offered by the state remains with them.

Very true and in this light we should look at Silhouette's point about the brain.

What's important to know is that our state is not the only problem. There is an even greater problem with the Islamic religion. We can not break down our own state before the Islamic hegemony has been dismantled. Both are the result of fear, the pretense of security. We can not break down any state on any other ground than having found a true security. And such true security only arises from properly understanding what makes organisms tick. Hence, I say we must start with the logic of value. We must start from the ground up even when the massive security machines are still expanding.


I know, and agree with, what you're saying here but as always I yearn for a better vocabulary. I don't want to break down the state, I want to make it irrelevant. Ditto the Islamic hegemony. My ideal world has the bastard mullahs on street corners talking about their terrified and horrified world view but the passing people do nothing except tell them to shut up and fuck off. No fighting, just a general contempt for such idiocy.

Here is one instance where I think the free marketeers haven't thought it through, because offering up security as a commodity to an open market, in an age where people perceive all kinds of fictitious threats, is the mafia-media complex's wet dream. Combating that would require intelligence analysis and media production of a quality much higher than the web based media is capable of, because alerting people to real threats and steering them away from bullshit, and doing so on a daily basis, is not an easy task. I got involved with all that with the intention of trying to raise the standards, what I found was that most people didn't give a fuck. Hence my desire for a different approach, and our discussions.

The only way to approach a solution is to seek to eliminate, on a psychological level, the causes for people to become uprooted and excessively violent, universal threats. You can't ever eliminate the threats implicit in the will to power, itself - that should not be the purpose. We can only seek to reinvent the concept of power altogether. This is the sort of thing that (the legend of) Jesus is about, and as sorry I am to bring up a religious figure, we may perhaps look at the philosophy of Christianity as a means to disconnect the self-valuing from the state and to generate a spontaneous self-value-based order locally.

I have grown tired of the Nietzschean view of Christianity. I rather prefer the Napoleonic view now.

People who can not value themselves in terms of the world around them will value the death of those around them in terms of their own self-value. So what is required is to make the world appear differently. As it will always be clear that the world is will to power, it is necessary to come to terms with power, to value power itself in terms of our power to value.


I have no problem with you bringing up a religious figure. Many Christians might argue that a lot of other people who don't identify with Christianity because of the church or ideology are in fact behaving in a Christian way, and many would be right to argue that. I'm arguing much the same regarding anarchism, and the way I conceive of anarchist man is not at all far from the way many Christians conceive of Christian man. So no worries there, though I do object somewhat to the notion of Christ as more-than-man, because to me our redefinition of power is an affirmation of the human, not the transhuman, and the Napoleonic view strikes me as profoundly transhuman.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:55 pm

Das Experiment wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I don't see a difference at all anymore between government and corporations. In Holland, virtually all the news about what the government does is about how well it obeys certain corporate interests in curbing other corporate interests. What I mean is, the government of the state is the corporate boardrooms. The parliamentary system is now almost pure sham. It has become so in recent decades, after the collapse of the USSR. Before that there was still a powerful political dichotomy within the state.


OK, sure, I agree, but this is kinda my point - that so many anarchists reduce 'the state' to 'the government' and thus believe that the 'free market' will replace 'the state' when it is magically abolished. The corporations are the most obvious reason why that is nonsense.

Right. No I am not thinking like these people.
I rather equate the current idea of "State" with "Extortion Apparatus".
I'm not really interested in softening my definitions either, I don't want to waste anymore energy on trying to find some sort of euphemism.

This all depends on our [the states] conception of viable medical technology. I disagree with that conception for about 80/90%, though of course not with all of it. I am certainly well aware that both diseases and treatments are created in order to drawn funds into certain industries, and that cheap and simple cures are legally banned, destroyed and their creators murdered. So there's all that, it's uncomfortable to talk about really. But the medical industry is at the very core of the corporate state, there's literally nothing that anchors it deeper, it outperforms even the military branch.


'Outperforms' in what sense? As a practical (rather than implied) mechanism of control? If that's what you mean then I agree completely, though I would add the caveat that the main purpose of the military is not to control ones own population. That was their main purpose in the past, but now it's more about stealing resources from the citizens of other countries. But yes, the welfare state and in particular the medical-industrial complex is the main tool for control in the Western world. Medicalise dissent and then numb it with SSRIs - this seems to be their first port of call.

Right - the medical industry is used to keep the population subdued - and really not just by anti depressants, but this is way too scary to discuss for me online.

I say "outperforms" because it's much more pervasive and subtle - what's really impressive is how it convinces people that it's best to submit themselves to the lobotomies and the other disgusting practices. With the military, at least the guys getting blown to bits are trying to escape it.

What's important to know is that our state is not the only problem. There is an even greater problem with the Islamic religion. We can not break down our own state before the Islamic hegemony has been dismantled. Both are the result of fear, the pretense of security. We can not break down any state on any other ground than having found a true security. And such true security only arises from properly understanding what makes organisms tick. Hence, I say we must start with the logic of value. We must start from the ground up even when the massive security machines are still expanding.


I know, and agree with, what you're saying here but as always I yearn for a better vocabulary. I don't want to break down the state, I want to make it irrelevant. Ditto the Islamic hegemony. My ideal world has the bastard mullahs on street corners talking about their terrified and horrified world view but the passing people do nothing except tell them to shut up and fuck off. No fighting, just a general contempt for such idiocy.

We agree then, because I have no illusion about any force being able to actually confront either our State or the Islamic Doctrinal Fascists.
They need to be rendered irrelevant, un-credible.
Value ontology is the only thing that gives me hope that such is in the long run possible.
After all, in order to replace a functional mindset (and that is all Fascism/Corporatism is, rests on) you have to have an alternative.

We need to actually have a working model for a non-corporate government.

I have grown tired of the Nietzschean view of Christianity. I rather prefer the Napoleonic view now.

People who can not value themselves in terms of the world around them will value the death of those around them in terms of their own self-value. So what is required is to make the world appear differently. As it will always be clear that the world is will to power, it is necessary to come to terms with power, to value power itself in terms of our power to value.


I have no problem with you bringing up a religious figure. Many Christians might argue that a lot of other people who don't identify with Christianity because of the church or ideology are in fact behaving in a Christian way, and many would be right to argue that. I'm arguing much the same regarding anarchism, and the way I conceive of anarchist man is not at all far from the way many Christians conceive of Christian man. So no worries there, though I do object somewhat to the notion of Christ as more-than-man, because to me our redefinition of power is an affirmation of the human, not the transhuman, and the Napoleonic view strikes me as profoundly transhuman.

Yes. I only mean that I prefer Napoleons conception, not that I agree with it entirely.
He's way too fanatic, but at least he recognizes the vast and awesome power in the concept of "Christ".

We definitely need a new name for Christ as well, and the whole religion needs to be stripped of the - ehm, religion.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Tyrannus » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:33 pm

James S Saint wrote:.. and 10,000 years of strife, struggle, disease, death, and oppression.

So why change it now?

8)


Which still exists incidentally in modern civilization.
User avatar
Tyrannus
Nihilistic Anarcho Primitivist
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Tyrannus » Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:39 pm

uglypeoplefucking wrote:
Tyrannus wrote:
uglypeoplefucking wrote:Ok Tyrannus, how about YOU define "functions well" whichever way pleases you, and then find me a historical example of a society that does it in the absence of a state . . .


10,000 years of hunter gatherer society.


Oh, you mean when the Earth had about 0.5% of its present human population? You and your fellow anarchists are going to have to do some serious "culling of the herd" before you can get back to that.


Anarchists don't really have to do much. Statists are already doing very well destroying the world in various different kinds of ways which will eventually end up destroying ninety five percent of the human population.

All anarchists have to do is sit and wait to inherit the soon to be ruins of this planet left by the statists.
User avatar
Tyrannus
Nihilistic Anarcho Primitivist
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Uccisore » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:39 am

Silhouette wrote:I think you can just as easily say "culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish to tamper with it" as "culture develops in its own time at its own rate, so humans are foolish not to change with it".


The difference I was talking about wasn't 'change' vs. 'don't change'. It was more like 'change by people behaving naturally in response to their needs and changes in their environment' and 'change because a handful of academics think they know how to guide society better than these natural forces would do'. It's a mistake with culture, it's a mistake with the economy. Or, you know. Says I. I'm against somebody saying "Everything needs to be commercialized" or "everything needs to be egalitarian" and creating an abnormal society of square pegs in round holes because enforcing the ideal is more important than actually lettings humans live their lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13235
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:02 am

Uccisore - I agree in general terms. Wherever this top down 'academic' will originates, it serves as a force to cause a lessening of power differences, thus lesser power to create changes, within the populace. The curve is flattened, to rise only at an almost absolute differential as it approaches the location of executive wealth.

In a hypothetical, perfectly organic society, every point can always change a point next to it because to not be the same means to be different means to have an effect. In a totally synthetic society, every point is interpreted by every point as being the same as itself, so there is no potential to cause change in each other, no real power differences among the people. At least, in their awareness.

We are close to such a synthetic world. With the exception of the context of playful business such as sports as well as whatever happens outside of what our media consider the civilized world, all people just look up for power, they do not look to what they can do to/with each other. The direction of their desired change is toward an abstract ideal of being super wealthy. In this way no wealthy person ever affects a person next to him as if he is really very powerful. Wealth is spent in the most infantile ways because the very notion of influencing others out of inequality (being 'better' as in able to do greater good) is considered not just evil, but impossible.

Charities exist, but they are usually completely megalomanic and abstract. What's being taken away is the direct chain of events between individuals. The state serves as a mediator, a filter through which every impulse must pass before it can have a substantial influence.

This may have started as the Ten Commandments - that was an advice about how to keep out of harms way within a community. And I guess it still functions like that, but with the harm (bathwater) life itself (baby) is thrown out.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:36 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Right. No I am not thinking like these people.
I rather equate the current idea of "State" with "Extortion Apparatus".
I'm not really interested in softening my definitions either, I don't want to waste anymore energy on trying to find some sort of euphemism.


Nor should you - it is an extortion apparatus, that's the most apt description for it.

I suppose the appeal of the market is that there are already lots of companies and businesses out there who have almost nothing to do with the state, whereas there aren't many other types of institutions with the same almost-independence, and I do share in finding that appealing.

Right - the medical industry is used to keep the population subdued - and really not just by anti depressants, but this is way too scary to discuss for me online.


Of course, like I say that their first port of call. If they can keep you going to work and paying taxes or sitting in your prison cell or doing whatever it is they think you should be doing, without resorting to more cannibalistic methods then they generally prefer that.

I say "outperforms" because it's much more pervasive and subtle - what's really impressive is how it convinces people that it's best to submit themselves to the lobotomies and the other disgusting practices. With the military, at least the guys getting blown to bits are trying to escape it.


Yes, you've said this before and you've always been right. I dunno, I don't live that healthy a lifestyle and yet I'm rarely ill and haven't been to a doctor in years. Maybe I'm lucky, or maybe it's because I don't go to the doctor that I'm usually well.

We agree then, because I have no illusion about any force being able to actually confront either our State or the Islamic Doctrinal Fascists.
They need to be rendered irrelevant, un-credible.
Value ontology is the only thing that gives me hope that such is in the long run possible.
After all, in order to replace a functional mindset (and that is all Fascism/Corporatism is, rests on) you have to have an alternative.

We need to actually have a working model for a non-corporate government.


I am not sure that we do. We need an alternative, a mindset that demonstrably functions better, but I don't think we need a working model. But even if at this stage we only have a mindset that applies to individuals and small groups like families, if it works then it will catch on, because nothing makes a differences to people's lives more than something that actually makes a difference to their lives.

Besides which, I don't know what a non-corporate government would look like, though I'm all ears to anyone who wants to explain it to me.

Yes. I only mean that I prefer Napoleons conception, not that I agree with it entirely.
He's way too fanatic, but at least he recognizes the vast and awesome power in the concept of "Christ".

We definitely need a new name for Christ as well, and the whole religion needs to be stripped of the - ehm, religion.


To be clear, I was not objecting to you presenting that view, only to that aspect of the view itself. But there is something crucial in there that separates Christ from other figures who are considered similar. And yes, stripped of the religion, what is left? An awful lot that is nourishing.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Silhouette » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:36 pm

Uccisore wrote:Or, you know. Says I.

Is this the point at which you realise you are being a hypocrite?

You're against "change because a handful of academics think they know how to guide society better than these natural forces would do", and "ego-maniacal experimenters and theorists that think they know better than how the culture has developed over time", yet whether or not one is to dub you ego-maniacal, your theories and practices are in line with your judgment that you know better than how culture has developed over time... which has forever been shaped by people who think they know how to change things for the better! I would even say that culture cannot even exist without people pushing their various ways that they think are best, like you are doing by saying there is some natural way other than the way that nature has presented us with so far.

Your argument only makes any sense if you're either simply disparaging "academics" and/or the "ego-maniacal" (but everything else in those sentences is fine), or you're trying to distinguish between people acting according to how they think they know best so long as it is to have effect over only themselves vs. people acting according to how they think they know best when it has effect over others.

In the latter case, you're simply arguing for a society and/or economy founded only on negative liberties aka. Libertarianism.

....but you say "I'm not a libertarian".

And what a ridiculous ideology it is anyway, with which you deny acquaintance - one that either ideally suggests that a society/economy of agents ought to live freely from the unwanted effects of one another, as though such a practically impossible scenario could be called society/economy, or it realistically knows that such an idealisation of freedom ends in people impinging on the freedoms of others and thus it can only pre-emptively contradict itself by ensuring that this cannot happen. Lol. You say you are against "enforcing the ideal" so there's no way you could be affiliated with a doctrine solely founded upon an ideal.

So let's just say I'm missing something here, rather than jumping to conclusions that you simply haven't thought this one through. What would that be?

Das Experiment wrote:Really? How do you measure that?

By observing outcomes and how well they fit in with my knowledge of people vs. other people's knowledge of people - in terms of both quality of prediction correlation with these outcomes and quantity of accurate predictions - in the eyes of others as well as in my own.

Das Experiment wrote:But OK, what is this human tendency, as you see it?

Towards the end of your post you accused me of being a Marxist because I reluctantly forced a simple answer to an admittedly vastly complex question. I don't really feel like doing it again - not because of the association with Marx but because I have no time for ridiculous irrelevant accusations and your contempt and hatred for strawmen.

Das Experiment wrote:You're still working within the framework of electoral politics. I couldn't give a toss about that, because it always becomes dominated by political parties and political parties are equivalent to tabloid media in the way that they'll leap from one position to another depending on what they perceive the advantage as being in doing so. The socialists are no different in this respect.

Not really, people who squander their abilities are going to act in ignorance with or without any electoral system. With one, they contribute heavily to an outcome dominated by political parties that are equivalent to tabloid media in the way in which you describe. Without one, they contribute heavily to something indistinguishable.

To address your slant to Socialists, they are revolutionary, and revolution isn't a process of indirectly democratically voting on who to have in power like we have now. It literally forces an outcome. Within the Socialist framework, democracy is hugely emphasised at all levels, which become increasingly independent as Communist principles become established and people eventually realise how much better they are and turn away from Capitalist principles by their own accord. Thus the State withers away, giving way to Communism, which is equally democratic. Only the democracy of both Socialism and Communism is free of the opportunistic deception and manipulation and you're rightly against - it's simply open, transparent and factual.

This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I refer to "what Socialism actually is", as opposed to the nightmarish distortion that everyone seems to associate it with - as inspired by corrupt and/or Totalitarian governments adopting the name simply because of its good reputation, and dramatic media representation.

Socialism isn't about forcing people to play nice, it's about prohibiting people from playing mean when it comes to peoples' means to live. The former would be a terrible thing, but the latter certainly is not.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:55 am

Tyrannus wrote:Anarchists don't really have to do much. Statists are already doing very well destroying the world in various different kinds of ways which will eventually end up destroying ninety five percent of the human population.

All anarchists have to do is sit and wait to inherit the soon to be ruins of this planet left by the statists.


You make a lot of dire predictions, and i've noticed that many of them do not come true. In any case, even if 95% of the world gets wiped out suddenly, i wonder what makes you think the remaining 5% will be anarchists content to live a hunter gatherer lifestyle?
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4139
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Uccisore » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:13 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Uccisore - I agree in general terms. Wherever this top down 'academic' will originates, it serves as a force to cause a lessening of power differences, thus lesser power to create changes, within the populace. The curve is flattened, to rise only at an almost absolute differential as it approaches the location of executive wealth.


I disagree with this. I think these forces tend to cause a change of power differences, and billing the change as a lessening is a sales pitch. Because of natural aristocracy, there's always going to be power differences, the levelers are just seeking (knowingly or not) to change the rules of the game in such a way that people and merits they favor rise to prominence. So for example, when somebody says we ought not solve problems with violence, they are (often as not) saying that we OUGHT to solve problems with cunnning, manipulation, or money. Power doesn't change, how you get it does. The rest of what you said, I found pretty spot-on and insightful, yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13235
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:29 am

A working model only in the sense of a logic that is applicable to every kind of crisis situation we can project. What's important in the future is to have a critical mass of conscious humans. The state has been necessary only in so far as humans weren't in the position to value without remorse or fear. These conditions aren't excess or accident, but conditions of the mind. Only by healing (making whole, completing) the mind do these dispelled. And unlike mystics want, this is done by the toughest and most radical honesty.

We've reached agreement on most if not all of these issues. Peculiar how rare that is.
I'd like to offer that Silhouette means well and is realistic. The system is in place and it's an evolving dragon of popular will, i.e. common sense. I'm sure Von Rivers and Silhouette could find terms on an objective morality. What I would consider a contingency plan wherein every situation is contingent - to the friction between irreducible self-valuings.

It's awesome that our branch of online philosophy is gaining momentum, has gained a momentum -- it lets me relax a bit and include a lot of what I'd strictly consider challengeable ideas, allies and practical truths. There's no enemy except illogical division - a division of self-valuings holding compatible values. This is the common human (post Babel) condition and result of a belief that the other is other in such a way as to require to change to similar in order to be justified.

Rather, the other, in this system of surplus, is an agent of the self. The self, the human self will no longer ever be the animal, but a God by virtue of his resources, which are other humans turned God in this manner.

Fundamental question of economy: do the parts amount to a greater potential for the individual than the individual does by himself?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Uccisore » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:43 am

Fixed Cross wrote:I'd like to offer that Silhouette means well and is realistic. The system is in place and it's an evolving dragon of popular will, i.e. common sense. I'm sure Von Rivers and Silhouette could find terms on an objective morality. What I would consider a contingency plan wherein every situation is contingent - to the friction between irreducible self-valuings.


The popular will isn't common sense, at least not as I understand it. Common sense would include what is common to us all, and by us all, I mean those who are dead as well as living- lessons learned can be temporarily forgotten, and at any given moment in time, we are often on that razor's edge between forgetting a lesson of the past, and being harshly reminded of it's importance by nature. The popular will is an expression of the now, and the now only, and often as not, that isn't 'popular' at all, it's what a handful of academics and politicians and pundits have directed. You can see that with polling- what people think about issue A if you ask them right after crisis B, as opposed to right before. I know 'popular opinion of the moment' isn't what Rousseau meant by the popular will, but, if you discount history and the aristocracy of the dead, it amounts to the same thing.
I think human nature may be like a rubber band, stretched and distorted by various influences, but with a natural tendency to snap back into place, and what we call 'evolution' may often times be a look at an action with considering the reaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13235
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:06 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Uccisore - I agree in general terms. Wherever this top down 'academic' will originates, it serves as a force to cause a lessening of power differences, thus lesser power to create changes, within the populace. The curve is flattened, to rise only at an almost absolute differential as it approaches the location of executive wealth.


I disagree with this. I think these forces tend to cause a change of power differences, and billing the change as a lessening is a sales pitch. Because of natural aristocracy, there's always going to be power differences, the levelers are just seeking (knowingly or not) to change the rules of the game in such a way that people and merits they favor rise to prominence.

This is true, but what I mean is that the relatively underprivileged section of the population, which I see as anyone who is not above the law in some respect, is pushed to interpret itself as pawns, voters, people who have a minuscule influence on a system that's on the whole immutable.

What I mean is that, by what Chomsky (with whom I don't always agree at all) calls the Manufacture of Consent, people are made to interpret their influence, their 'potential to affect', in terms of a rather abstract apparatus, the representative segment of the state, rather than in terms of the human right next to them.

Of course, people continue to influence each other directly, but it's not the main code of the paradigm, so to speak. We're taught that our most significant power "to do good" is in our right to vote - rather than to spend capital on the world around us.

Look at how the possession of wealth is portrayed everywhere in our culture. It's supposed to buy you large mansions, jewels and cars, that's basically it. Basically, wealth is portrayed as utterly ineffective.

So where it is true that we'll always have a scale of power, the segment that is not "on top of things" is very much undifferentiated, passive, useless. This does not need to be this way - if only wealth were interpreted as the power to have an hard affect completely separate of the channels of politics, the world would instantly go back to a much more natural and 'anarchistic' dynamic, much in line with the ideal that brought about the US constitution.

The core of every power structure is its code of human value - if it manages to make humans interpret their power-value in terms of the already existing state, you have taken away all their power to determine their fate.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:I'd like to offer that Silhouette means well and is realistic. The system is in place and it's an evolving dragon of popular will, i.e. common sense. I'm sure Von Rivers and Silhouette could find terms on an objective morality. What I would consider a contingency plan wherein every situation is contingent - to the friction between irreducible self-valuings.


The popular will isn't common sense, at least not as I understand it. Common sense would include what is common to us all, and by us all, I mean those who are dead as well as living- lessons learned can be temporarily forgotten, and at any given moment in time, we are often on that razor's edge between forgetting a lesson of the past, and being harshly reminded of it's importance by nature. The popular will is an expression of the now, and the now only, and often as not, that isn't 'popular' at all, it's what a handful of academics and politicians and pundits have directed. You can see that with polling- what people think about issue A if you ask them right after crisis B, as opposed to right before. I know 'popular opinion of the moment' isn't what Rousseau meant by the popular will, but, if you discount history and the aristocracy of the dead, it amounts to the same thing.
I think human nature may be like a rubber band, stretched and distorted by various influences, but with a natural tendency to snap back into place, and what we call 'evolution' may often times be a look at an action with considering the reaction.

I'm afraid you are right here, and my conciliatory statements toward what I understand of Silhouette's notion of Socialism were overly optimistic.

Personally I think that whatever ever was the purpose of Socialism has been long fulfilled in the west, most of it already had been realized in Germany in the 19th century. General voting rights, education for all classes, no more child labor, minimum wage and a couple of other such things.

But in a socialist state it is necessary that the bureaucracy keeps increasing without any added useful work done. In a massive administration such as required for a state which acts as a moral agent, which is what I think Silhouette is aiming at, you end up with half the resources being spent on the administration itself (not that which is being administered) -- an increasingly massive fortune is spent on government employees who are doing the work that a fraction of their number could do much more effectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

That is assuming a best case scenario as far as the administrations agenda is concerned.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Uccisore » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Personally I think that whatever ever was the purpose of Socialism has been long fulfilled in the west, most of it already had been realized in Germany in the 19th century.


I had a political science professor say pretty much the same thing- that all the actual important stuff Marx ever wanted is basically realized now in the United States, and further pushing in that direction isn't warranted. Of course, that makes Marx pretty off base if true, since we did virtually nothing that he recommended in order to get here other than public education and some relatively half-assed social welfare.

But in a socialist state it is necessary that the bureaucracy keeps increasing without any added useful work done.


Necessary? I figured it WOULD increase because socialism creates a system where only those skilled at manipulating the bureaucracy can enjoy luxury, so that's where all the talent is going to go. But is it mechanically necessary by how socialism works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

That is assuming a best case scenario as far as the administrations agenda is concerned.


Parkinson's law neatly explains why socialists, feminists, and race-baiters are as busy now as ever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13235
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:26 pm

OK Sil,

Silhouette wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:Really? How do you measure that?

By observing outcomes and how well they fit in with my knowledge of people vs. other people's knowledge of people - in terms of both quality of prediction correlation with these outcomes and quantity of accurate predictions - in the eyes of others as well as in my own.


But if those other people are stupid wastrels, like you say, who cares what they think? How is that an adequate measure of you being more knowledgeable about other people than other people? The thing seems either circular (people are stupid, therefore I'm more knowledgeable) or self contradictory (stupid people saying I'm knowledgeable, therefore I'm more knowledgeable than them).

In any case, I reject your view of people. I don't see people in those terms, I think that sort of cynicism is always open to being used as a justification for ordering people around and forcing them to do things. I'm not interested in forcing anyone to do anything.

Das Experiment wrote:But OK, what is this human tendency, as you see it?

Towards the end of your post you accused me of being a Marxist because I reluctantly forced a simple answer to an admittedly vastly complex question. I don't really feel like doing it again - not because of the association with Marx but because I have no time for ridiculous irrelevant accusations and your contempt and hatred for strawmen.


I called you a Marxist because you're a Marxist, or at best a post-Marxist. You identify the problem as capitalism per se, you believe in socialism, you are a Marxist. I don't necessarily use that label as a derogatory term but regardless, it fits. Given that this is fundamentally an argument about what humans are, and therefore what kind of politics naturally flows from that, this tendency you refer to is very important to our disagreement. I would genuinely appreciate it if you would take the time to outline it.

Das Experiment wrote:You're still working within the framework of electoral politics. I couldn't give a toss about that, because it always becomes dominated by political parties and political parties are equivalent to tabloid media in the way that they'll leap from one position to another depending on what they perceive the advantage as being in doing so. The socialists are no different in this respect.

Not really, people who squander their abilities are going to act in ignorance with or without any electoral system. With one, they contribute heavily to an outcome dominated by political parties that are equivalent to tabloid media in the way in which you describe. Without one, they contribute heavily to something indistinguishable.


The electoral system (indeed 'democratic' culture in general) is one of the main reasons they squander their abilities. They think someone else is taking care of stuff in roughly the right way because they expressed their opinion a few times.

To address your slant to Socialists, they are revolutionary, and revolution isn't a process of indirectly democratically voting on who to have in power like we have now. It literally forces an outcome. Within the Socialist framework, democracy is hugely emphasised at all levels, which become increasingly independent as Communist principles become established and people eventually realise how much better they are and turn away from Capitalist principles by their own accord. Thus the State withers away, giving way to Communism, which is equally democratic. Only the democracy of both Socialism and Communism is free of the opportunistic deception and manipulation and you're rightly against - it's simply open, transparent and factual.


Can you give me a couple of examples of when socialism has been open, transparent and factual in the last couple of centuries of human history? I'm someone who has a lot of time for socialism in some senses of the word, but is radically opposed to socialism in other senses of the word. Thus, I can only work with actual examples rather than theory - the anarcho-capitalists insist that the 'true free market' will function in a way that is akin to what you're outlining, but they never seem to be able to give me examples substantiating this. Hence my scepticism regarding capitalism and socialism, and my attempt to see what it good in each that can be preserved and encouraged and advanced, and the bad in each that must be attacked and overcome if we are to actually make a better world for what is already an inherently good humanity.

This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I refer to "what Socialism actually is", as opposed to the nightmarish distortion that everyone seems to associate it with - as inspired by corrupt and/or Totalitarian governments adopting the name simply because of its good reputation, and dramatic media representation.


I think they adopted 'socialism' because it was a good myth to sell to the public, and at the time a popular one amongst the working class. The idea that we all work to 'pay into' this massive system of managed interactions and thus we all 'get out of' this system the things we need and many of the things we want is enormously attractive. It's just a massive, horrible failure in reality, and I think the reasons for that could only be overcome by turning humans into something else, which I'm also radically opposed to doing.

Socialism isn't about forcing people to play nice, it's about prohibiting people from playing mean when it comes to peoples' means to live. The former would be a terrible thing, but the latter certainly is not.


It depends on what mechanism you use and how you define 'playing mean'. This is why I ask for examples, I want to know what you think this would actually look like, beyond the Marxist rhetoric because trust me, I've read all that, considered it for a long time, and not found it persuasive. What persuades me about socialists is when they actually do things that benefit their fellow humans, which quite a few have done at various times and in various ways. Even the welfare state as it was originally conceived and set up in the UK wasn't such a bad idea and certainly benefited a lot of poor people, but the long term consequences of that have been that it has turned into an enormous system for social control. It hasn't made anyone free, and hasn't produced the sort of society you have described (which for the record, in theory, I think is rather nice-sounding and not one I'd have much objection about living in, if it could be achieved).
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:But in a socialist state it is necessary that the bureaucracy keeps increasing without any added useful work done. In a massive administration such as required for a state which acts as a moral agent, which is what I think Silhouette is aiming at, you end up with half the resources being spent on the administration itself (not that which is being administered) -- an increasingly massive fortune is spent on government employees who are doing the work that a fraction of their number could do much more effectively.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Challe ... s_Minister)

This series is still the best exploration of the practical problems of government I've ever seen on TV, and it's a 35-year old sitcom.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Nov 11, 2013 3:26 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Personally I think that whatever ever was the purpose of Socialism has been long fulfilled in the west, most of it already had been realized in Germany in the 19th century.


I had a political science professor say pretty much the same thing- that all the actual important stuff Marx ever wanted is basically realized now in the United States, and further pushing in that direction isn't warranted. Of course, that makes Marx pretty off base if true, since we did virtually nothing that he recommended in order to get here other than public education and some relatively half-assed social welfare.

Do you mean stuff that Marx considered important ot that the proefessor considered important?

Marxism was instrumental in realizing the things I mentioned in Europe.
But yes, America realised a number of things which may be considered Socialist without Marx.

I'm not an expert on Marx, though.

But in a socialist state it is necessary that the bureaucracy keeps increasing without any added useful work done.


Necessary? I figured it WOULD increase because socialism creates a system where only those skilled at manipulating the bureaucracy can enjoy luxury, so that's where all the talent is going to go. But is it mechanically necessary by how socialism works?

I think so. As Socialism is a statist system, meaning that the central value-standard (moral and economic agent) is the state. Such an arrangement has value gravitate to those who represent that agent - the people who enforce it, who ''are'' it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

That is assuming a best case scenario as far as the administrations agenda is concerned.


Parkinson's law neatly explains why socialists, feminists, and race-baiters are as busy now as ever.

It also explains why half of the governments budget is spent on time-wasting, obstructing and obfuscating of purpose, and thus why mankind is utterly incapable of doing anything other than blindly groping for short term gain.

If the planet becomes uninhabitable in 40 years, it is wholly due to the principle of the State. In the end it only serves to prevent people from checking the destructive influence of other people. The exact opposite of what it is intended to accomplish.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Image

Thunderbolt steers all things.
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6959
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:11 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:As Socialism is a statist system, meaning that the central value-standard (moral and economic agent) is the state. Such an arrangement has value gravitate to those who represent that agent - the people who enforce it, who ''are'' it.

A good way to express it.
The socialist world becomes merely one living entity.
The rest are merely drones serving it.
.. easily replaced by much more efficient machines.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25762
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby uglypeoplefucking » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:56 pm

James S Saint wrote:The socialist world becomes merely one living entity.
The rest are merely drones serving it.
.. easily replaced by much more efficient machines.


You don't need socialism for that to be true, it's true anyway.
i am brilliant, you are stupid. Therefore, you are wrong.
uglypeoplefucking
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4139
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:47 pm
Location: throughout

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users