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.

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:52 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:So, why am I an anarchist? I'm an anarchist not because I believe in the market and not even because I recognise the state as an extortion racket, but because I believe in humanity, I believe that humans are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative, funny - and that we simply don't need the state anymore, if in fact we ever did. It is not 'the market' that will take over from the state, it's just people. It was always just people anyway...


I'm not. I'm a hateful, domineering monster that would exploit you to my own selfish ends if given half a chance. And even if I'm exaggerating, there's just enough people who really are that way. I've always thought talk about human nature kind of missed the point. Hobbes tried to say "here's what people are like", but his premise was far too strong. He really only needed to say "Here's what a few people are like" to justify the state.

Unfortunately Hobbes didn't realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I'm afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.

Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.

Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like "you" (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:22 pm

Das Experiment wrote:Define 'discerned'...

Discerned ≡ distinguished and perceived as separate.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:04 pm

James, what is your take on Libertarianism?

I'm asking because it is the movement that appears right now to be the closest to advocating a system driven only by a set of principles based on the subject as a standard of value.
Of course they are strongly tied to Christianity, but this is a flexible religion, can be interpreted in many ways, among others simply as the sanctifier of the individual (God in man).

I think that radical right wing anti-statism (libertarianism) is very similar to radical left wing anti-statism (anarchism), in that their main tenets are mistrust of centralized power and trust in the capacity of the human species to take care of itself without central authority.

It would seem natural to try to bring them together in theory, see where the differences truly are.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:James, what is your take on Libertarianism?

I'm asking because it is the movement that appears right now to be the closest to advocating a system driven only by a set of principles based on the subject as a standard of value.
Of course they are strongly tied to Christianity, but this is a flexible religion, can be interpreted in many ways, among others simply as the sanctifier of the individual (God in man).

Wow. He actually said that out loud.
..I knew he was one of the only actual men around here.. :-?
And yeah, your assessment of Libertarians seems on mark.

But the Left and the Right are intentionally kept at extremes.
So there is no bringing them together.

James S Saint wrote:God-wannabes.
And there is only one solution once they have the greater momentum.
David and Goliath.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:20 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:So, why am I an anarchist? I'm an anarchist not because I believe in the market and not even because I recognise the state as an extortion racket, but because I believe in humanity, I believe that humans are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative, funny - and that we simply don't need the state anymore, if in fact we ever did. It is not 'the market' that will take over from the state, it's just people. It was always just people anyway...


I'm not. I'm a hateful, domineering monster that would exploit you to my own selfish ends if given half a chance. And even if I'm exaggerating, there's just enough people who really are that way. I've always thought talk about human nature kind of missed the point. Hobbes tried to say "here's what people are like", but his premise was far too strong. He really only needed to say "Here's what a few people are like" to justify the state.

Unfortunately Hobbes didn't realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I'm afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.

Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.

Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like "you" (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.

I can already see the witch-hunts for "sociopaths".

"Insanity is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." (Nietzsche)

The only community that can do without the obligations to goodness and to recognition of God's grace is what the scholar in the Kuzari calls "a community of robbers" (cf. my previous post): the philosophers are the only genuine individuals.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:James, what is your take on Libertarianism?

I'm asking because it is the movement that appears right now to be the closest to advocating a system driven only by a set of principles based on the subject as a standard of value.
Of course they are strongly tied to Christianity, but this is a flexible religion, can be interpreted in many ways, among others simply as the sanctifier of the individual (God in man).

Wow. He actually said that out loud.
..I knew he was one of the only actual men around here.. :-?

And yeah, your assessment of Libertarians seems on mark.

But the Left and the Right are intentionally kept at extremes.
So there is no bringing them together.

One can always try. And in fact I intend to.
These two movements are both equally close to my own views. For me there's no reason to not try to merge them.

And in fact what you say should be an incentive to give this a shot, rather than a discouragement.

James S Saint wrote:God-wannabes.
And there is only one solution once they have the greater momentum.
David and Goliath.

What does the sling represent in this case?

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote: Unfortunately Hobbes didn't realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I'm afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.

Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.

Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like "you" (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.

I can already see the witch-hunts for "sociopaths".

Can you really?
I admit that I use the term very freely these days. It's in part a way to ventilate my disdain for the type of people that modern governments attracts.
There are some decent people there, of course, but in a system where corporate interests are merged with government, while at the same time government claims it is there as a representation of the people (the most dishonest system thinkable, which is not saying its the worst, it's not), it is normal to assume that a certain very dishonest and cold type will be most successful.

There are exceptions to this rule, but nowhere near enough for critical mass.

"Insanity is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." (Nietzsche)

Sociopathy is not at all the same as insanity.
Often people go insane because of an excess of compassion.

Rather the sociopath is extremely calculating, ''sane'' in terms of his own interest.

The only community that can do without the obligations to goodness and to recognition of God's grace is what the scholar in the Kuzari calls "a community of robbers" (cf. my previous post): the philosophers are the only genuine individuals.

I doubt that.
I don't think that individuality requires all the properties of a philosopher.

A philosopher is by definition a writer, or someone whose views are quoted by a philosopher (Socrates). This is not a requirement for individuality.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:21 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:What does the sling represent in this case?

The sling is merely to deliver the stone.
Casting the stone is what you have to concentrate on.
..to "cast a stone" is to make an immutably solid object.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:Define 'discerned'...

Discerned ≡ distinguished and perceived as separate.


Define 'distinguished'...
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:49 pm

Sauwelios wrote:I can already see the witch-hunts for "sociopaths".

"Insanity is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." (Nietzsche)


All witch-hunts end up being self-destructive ('terrorism' most obviously) so there's no difference when it comes to sociopathy. But I wasn't advocating a witch-hunt so much as an attempt to starve certain human behaviours by having the others steal their food.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:50 pm

Uccisore wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:So, why am I an anarchist? I'm an anarchist not because I believe in the market and not even because I recognise the state as an extortion racket, but because I believe in humanity, I believe that humans are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative, funny - and that we simply don't need the state anymore, if in fact we ever did. It is not 'the market' that will take over from the state, it's just people. It was always just people anyway...


I'm not. I'm a hateful, domineering monster that would exploit you to my own selfish ends if given half a chance. And even if I'm exaggerating, there's just enough people who really are that way. I've always thought talk about human nature kind of missed the point. Hobbes tried to say "here's what people are like", but his premise was far too strong. He really only needed to say "Here's what a few people are like" to justify the state.


That's alright, you fascists (Christo- or otherwise) are all cowards hiding behind the glorious diffuse spectacle of the state anyway, I feel more than ready to beat you in a fight if it comes to that.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Tyrannus » Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:52 pm

Das Experiment wrote:
Uccisore wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:So, why am I an anarchist? I'm an anarchist not because I believe in the market and not even because I recognise the state as an extortion racket, but because I believe in humanity, I believe that humans are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative, funny - and that we simply don't need the state anymore, if in fact we ever did. It is not 'the market' that will take over from the state, it's just people. It was always just people anyway...


I'm not. I'm a hateful, domineering monster that would exploit you to my own selfish ends if given half a chance. And even if I'm exaggerating, there's just enough people who really are that way. I've always thought talk about human nature kind of missed the point. Hobbes tried to say "here's what people are like", but his premise was far too strong. He really only needed to say "Here's what a few people are like" to justify the state.


That's alright, you fascists (Christo- or otherwise) are all cowards hiding behind the glorious diffuse spectacle of the state anyway, I feel more than ready to beat you in a fight if it comes to that.


Individual appropriation. Propaganda of the deed.
User avatar
Tyrannus
Nihilistic Anarcho Primitivist
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:03 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Moreno wrote:If people are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative and funny, why are so few of them anarchists? I actually don't find myself thinking those adjectives when dealing with most people, but I thought I would ask it via the anarchist issue to you. If they have been in some way brainwashed not to consider anarchism, isn't this showing a limit on their intelligence and creativity? If it is some other factor that stops them, what is it? I have to say I don't find most people compassionate. If you are a legitimate victim - the criteria for determining this varies - they may exhibit the form of compassion and some likely also actually feel it, but it seems like a lot of people fall outside 'justified recipient of compassion' status. I also find a lot of blame out there. Here's what you did wrong. If you thought more positively..... and other non-compassionate reactions to people who are suffering or not succeeding. I am not advocating that one wander around glopping one's heart on the problems of others. In fact I see a lot of Active cruelty - most of it attitudinal, some of it acted out. Anarchism, it seems to me, depends on the qualities you mentioned. I am not sure where the discussion can go if you experience people as generally fitting those qualities and I do not, but I want to explore it a bit and see how we are each reaching our conclusions.

I find myself in agreement with this assessment of "most people".

I admit that I do not literally know most of the 7 trillion people on the planet, and neither is anybody else likely to - in whatever combination. So in comparing "most people", we're most likely to find at least slight variations. This means it's somewhat interesting when we don't.


Where do you live? And how much have you travelled to other places?

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'.

I too find that most people I have come across are not compassionate, because they need to blame, meaning there is a lot of cruelty. Not individually towards me, mind. I am referring to a general outlook and attitude, which may or may not manifest itself politically. I analyse this as a reaction to either a lack of intelligence and creativity or - much more disturbingly - a lack of willingness to be any different. The latter appear quite content in their discontentment, to take all at face value. Without an easy scapegoat, they blame individuals rather than the way in which they are organised, encouraged and discouraged. They are largely disinterested in politics and the study of society and economy even if they do have the intelligence and creativity to do so, and even if they do loosely affiliate themselves with a party - though seemingly only to have some answer to questions about it, to avoid being labelled ignorant. They might not be averse to a little amateur psychology though, which is naturally warped and negative due to the knowledge from which they cut themselves off. The unintelligent and uncreative end up with similar symptoms, but at least they are not squandering their abilities.


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 think if there's one thing that modern politics understands, it's these people. They are the majority and they are manipulable because they are dim.


In which case they'll buy into anarchy because we'll give them a free toy, or something.

Intellectual theories that you are likely to find on a philosophy board or amongst any intellectual group of people, are beyond them - and thus crucially inapplicable.
I think politics ought to start with admitting what we've got - whether or not it ends up transforming it.


I agree, and what we've got are a bunch of people who are capable of being all the things I said - whatever else they may also be capable of.

Anarchism has some success in appealing to the majority because its central message is a lack of government, and government is one of the most obvious scapegoats - it's visible, it is accountable (in that politicians are required to put themselves in the way of identified issues as those who are about to resolve them) and its role affects people's day to day financial situations. Single issue parties with an aversion to foreigners, calling it "national pride", "Nationalism" or "independence" have an equally visible issue to scapegoat, which likewise affects people's day to day financial situations. This gives the majority a target to impotently complain about - but people are a lot safer than inanimate property. Anarchism's central message being rooted in destruction applies to both people and things, so it attracts a more physical crowd who now get to feel justified in attacking property. As such they become more known for vandalism and violence than anything else, especially amongst rebellious youths - meaning it is usually written off as a teenage phase that only brutes will carry on into adulthood.


Hey no shit, 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.

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.

One main thing that benefits the main political parties is PR. They know that most people only care about the personality of the person in charge, and the addressing of isolated complaints minus the bigger picture. It thrives on its pettiness and through this achieves the goal of mostly carrying on things as they are, with only minor tweaks. These minor tweaks often making things worse only feeds their Conservativism.

The only problem is that people want more change than this (despite being afraid of too much change at once). Only, alternatives have a bad reputation (though often for good reason - and I would say there's a good reason Anarchism has one). Alternatives need to think about their market - not just their essential principles, which on their own create a reputation too easily marred. Their essential principles should be directed away from something easily slandered. Anarchism is too extreme for this, as well as being foolish enough to concentrate on superficial things even at its depths.


Tell me, what in your life has inspired you to be creative, funny, compassionate and so on?
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Das Experiment » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:21 pm

Moreno wrote:
Das Experiment wrote:Because the state has built itself up to the point where it is the path of least resistance. To be an anarchist these days you have to avoid the state on a frequent basis, whereas in the past you could largely just ignore it.
On the frontiers, perhaps, but serfs, for example, in many times and Places could not ignore the state. But in any case, I am not quite sure how this explains the lack of anarchists nowadays. (perhaps there are more than say in the 70s, but we are still talking about a small, small minority.) it seems like they are anarchists in potentia.


Or anarchists who only work part-time, maybe.

Besides which, my argument is that inasmuch as people are creative, intelligent, good natured, compassionate, innovative and funny, they are anarchists. Inasmuch as they are other things, they are not anarchists (though not quite because the list we're repeating is not complete), because that is what 'anarchism' means to me, it means the advancement of those aspects of humanity. A society that advances those, even if it still has a government, is inherently anarchic, or perhaps value-archic.
That's fair, if I am taking it correctly as they are defacto anarchists even if they do not define themselves this way. I would raise the issue of why so many of them would be skeptical about the dissolving of the state working.


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.

Like I say, I think it is the state making itself the path of least resistance. It's made so much easier to run into the slaughterhouse because you get a free toy if you run into the slaughterhouse, whereas if you refuse to go anywhere near the slaughterhouse then the slaughterhouse guards come and try and take your toys off you. So I say turn the toys into weapons to undermine the very existence of the slaughterhouse.
One can be aware of the problem and simply do things so as to makes ones Life easier. There is only so much most people are willing to treat Everything as a Place to take a political stand. However I don't find most people aware that there are problems with having a state or the way Corporations can influence their lives and the government. They have problems with this law and that policy, but then to want other ones.

And frankly much of the population that identifies as libertarian, also a minority, don't seem to fit your criteria.


5% more or less of anything is what makes the difference.

You're talking about people's compassion towards people they only know through vicarious media coverage of crime and so forth. I'd argue that's a terrible measure of how compassionate humans are, as indeed the reactions brought on by mediated reality is one of the main things driving human shitiness. It's kinda like saying 'these people with their hands chained to a wall aren't doing much landscape gardening, thus humanity is crap at landscape gardening'.
I was talking about that, but also direct on the ground compassion in interactions. With acquaintances, people they see on the street, people they hear complaining. If something tears someone out of their Daily Life - a guy on a bike get hits by a cab - people are generally great. This is a valid victim - according to most people's standards. But where you seems to be having trouble with systemic issues and they personally don't agree with the implicit political stance in your issue, I don't see much compassion. There still seems to me to be a generalized you are a bit of leper if you are not doing well. I can connect this with the way people take psychotopics. If you are feeling anxious, you have a problem. Modern Life is not the issue. Of course modern Life is stressful, people may grant, but if you are one of the ones who 'really' is bothered (which is an extremely large % of the population given medication rates) you have a problem and you should take the pills. I see the individual getting pathologized (not just around medication but it is a kind of marker of it) rather than assessment of systemic problems.


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.

I still see a general taboo, also, around expressing 'negative emotions' in fact most of all fear and sadness about 'the way things are'. This is generally not received well.


Likewise, there's not a lot of hope around in popular discourse. But I see this as the darkness before the light, if you like, the quiet before the storm. Never has there been more potential for revolution than when people are made to suppress both their dissatisfaction AND their hope.

OK, that analogy is flawed for all sorts of reasons, but you see what I mean, it's just a bad measure of what humans are, because it's a mechanism being used for turning them into something else. No doubt digitally replicated human beings (the ultimate transhuman social control method) would have no compassion whatsoever, because 'compassion' would be irrelevant and meaningless by that point.
I agree. And I really see a powerful trend towards this. Why makes things good for us when we can make us good for......already Cold people with Power who want more.


As always. Which is why empowerment of that which is valuable and yet ordinary (in a human sense of 'ordinary') is what I believe in - if I tried to create a system or organisation of the conventional political type it would be co-opted and diverted.

The vast majority of that behaviour is inspired and provoked and managed by the state, or rather by the people who make up 'the state'.
Perhaps you are correct, but then I feel kinda slighted since I don't have those reactions. All these people are being granted by you the status as compassionate, even though they may not demonstrate this quality because of the state. What is their problem? Think of people you know who actually manifest the qualities in your list. Are they really the same as everyone else? Or is there something lacking in the people who merely have those qualities as potential?


When the state isn't watching they are compassionate, most of the time anyway. That tells me something.

And how do you know what the people are really like?


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.

It not only depends on those qualities, it IS those qualities (by the way I've come to see it).
I agree. I meant mainly that if you have the kinds of shifting ongoing renogotiation plus a lack of state enforcement, people have to be pretty darn like that list and not merely in potentia. Because otherwise the sociopaths will take over and form states. And fast.


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.

Well, we need to define the disagreement more clearly - do we mean that 'people generally fit those qualities'? I don't. I'm not saying these are the overwhelming characteristics of human nature, I'm saying they are utterly natural qualities that almost all humans have, and that they are what is most self-nourishing and therefore valuable about human beings. Politically, I'm saying they are the vital components of an anarchistic society, and so how well we advance those characteristics so they become a more common part of people's behaviour and attitudes is, in fact, the measure of how anarchistic our society is.
I just don't experience people as having much interest in creativity, for example, except in very restricted areas - portions of their work, getting out of chores, convincing their partners to do something, etc.


Perhaps you're not looking in the same places as I am.

I hope I've clarified here - there is a tendency in Western culture towards cynical fallacies, such as confusing 'you sometimes do selfish/inconsiderate things' with 'you are selfish/inconsiderate'.
That Cuts both ways. I would be very nervous about going out of my apartment and actually figuring out a way to determine if even a few people fit your list.


Why would you be nervous about this?

We tend to generalise what is bad about people and trivialise what's good about them.
First I see a great deal of the opposite. But more importantly, it's not that I see people as bad, per se. It's more like they are rigid, habit driven, precisely not creative, and resistant to moving beyond norms. Whether these come from the state or somewhere else is not important to me for this particular issue. This can lead to them doing good and bad thigns, but generally just going with whatever norms and customs their are. That inside there are these creative compassionate intelligent people waiting to leap out if only the state would release their bindings seems mythological to me. I am not focused on them as moral creatures so much, but as people who do not fit those adjectives you listed.


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.

If we can turn that one around so we just have a more realistic appreciation of what we are, what we can be, and what we want to be then that's a political-philosophical goal that is worth accomplishing. Plus it isn't anyway near as hard as one might think it is.
How do you see it being accomplished? Presumably there would be some intermediate stages between the current statist system and an anarchist World. Waht would these intermediate stages look like and how are they to be brought about?


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.
User avatar
Das Experiment
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Tyrannus » Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:34 pm

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.
User avatar
Tyrannus
Nihilistic Anarcho Primitivist
 
Posts: 2403
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:01 pm

.. and 10,000 years of strife, struggle, disease, death, and oppression.

So why change it now?

8)
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:27 pm

Officially, I am re-introducing Christianity as philosophically viable.

The Christ = pure human self-valuing.
Baptism with fire = burning every culturally inherited valency bridge: Freedom.
Jesus = irrelevant.

Jesus was a value ontologist avant la lettre.
So I'm the second coming. But as I always said the second coming would not be a single human, but an elite.

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

And, statistically, about a million others.

Don't think I feel no shame and pain posting this drunken shit.
But in vino veritas and as Bill said: "Idiot, what do I matter?"
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:50 pm

I'll wait until you sober up before further comment...
:-"
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Moreno » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:32 am

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.

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.

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?

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.

Likewise, there's not a lot of hope around in popular discourse. But I see this as the darkness before the light, if you like, the quiet before the storm. Never has there been more potential for revolution than when people are made to suppress both their dissatisfaction AND their hope.
OK

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

I saw this in response to Sillouette...

Where do you live? And how much have you travelled to other places?

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'.
I've travelled a lot, lived in a variety of places in the country of my birth, live now in Another country and have also lived in a country with a very different Culture from that of my birth country. Have had shorter stays in a number of countries other than the Three I have lived in for a long time. (the one I live in now is Another 'Western nation'.) Human nature varies extremely. But what I saw everywhere I Went was that the bulk of the people Believe the norms of their Culture and these generally fit with that of their state. I saw anxiety in relation to what did not conform - at the least, some reactions much worse, even violent, and these worse reactions or the Calling in of the state in some way was Always likely if the lack of conformity was deemed really weird - even if it harmed no one. I encountered a general mixed at best reaction to creativity. Even when put on a pedastal, there were undercurrents of envy threat and interest in seeing the creative person taken down. Also creativity was generally accepted in 'art' - taken in a broad sense to include things like Music, etc. There was a main compartment for creativity. EVerywhere I Went I found people who were interested in a wider range of creativity, could tolerate and thrived in diversity in many facets of Life, etc. But these people were in a very small minority.

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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Uccisore » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:46 am

Fixed Cross wrote: Unfortunately Hobbes didn't realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I'm afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.

Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.

Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like "you" (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.


I agree with everything you said up to the point of abolishing the State being some kind of solution. I think of the French Revolution, I think of Bonapartism, and I know that tyrrany can exist (and in fact, thrives) in the absence of a state as well. If the U.S. Gov't actually limited itself to the powers described in it's Constitution,we'd be all set.

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.
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: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:00 am

The solution is merely to correct one seemingly small concern in the US Constitution. After that, everything automatically begins correcting itself and becomes as perfect as homosapians could ever manage.

But since that little change isn't going to happen, one must derive another solution, not greatly different and with the same end goal. But trying to establish any Constitution is pretty damn tough regardless. So it isn't for the meek hearted.


The idea of anarchism is merely one of "tear it all down and start again".
But of course, if one has no idea to where the new start would go, it is insane to give up what one has in blind faith of pure chance (99% chance of getting worse).
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:24 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
"Insanity is something rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." (Nietzsche)

Sociopathy is not at all the same as insanity.

I meant "insanity" to refer to the witch-hunts, not to the sociopathy.


The only community that can do without the obligations to goodness and to recognition of God's grace is what the scholar in the Kuzari calls "a community of robbers" (cf. my previous post): the philosophers are the only genuine individuals.

I doubt that.
I don't think that individuality requires all the properties of a philosopher.

A philosopher is by definition a writer, or someone whose views are quoted by a philosopher (Socrates). This is not a requirement for individuality.

I don't share your definition.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Moreno » Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:24 am

Fixed Cross wrote:Sociopathy is not at all the same as insanity.
Often people go insane because of an excess of compassion.

Rather the sociopath is extremely calculating, ''sane'' in terms of his own interest.
They tend not to do especially well. They are damaged. In some short term situations they will do better, but long term and often short term also, they fuck up. They are essentially social mammals with part of their Brains missing.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:31 am

Uccisore - The US Constitution is essentially a form of anti-State. So, yes. Can't say I disagree as far as the USA goes. I live in Europe, though.

It will be absolutely prudent for any political anarchistic movement to see to what extent the US Constitution is a viable form. Of course, a large problem is with the enforcers of the law all the way up to the executive office. How are you going to keep them from being corrupted by capital? If even the mods on ILP are corrupted somewhat by their power, then how is an enforcing arm of a government ever going to keep clean?

This is why I propose something even more reduced to principle. At least something that can be traced back in toto to a set of agreed upon principles.
Thunderbolt steers all things.
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com - Tree of Life Academy
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:19 am

Fixed Cross wrote:This is why I propose something even more reduced to principle. At least something that can be traced back in toto to a set of agreed upon principles.

And as it turns out, those principles will be amazingly similar to the US Constitution (before recent corruption). And the way you prevent corruption is through "double-stitch verification" which basically prevents all forms of cancers.
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Why I am an anarchist

Postby James S Saint » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:34 am

And this definition as a perspective;
A philosopher is by definition a writer, or someone whose views are quoted by a philosopher (Socrates). This is not a requirement for individuality.

..would make me your god (note the small case "g").
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: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]