Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090924/us_time/08599192561100

I wish them the best but they are spitting into a hurricane. The corporate monsters control everything. There are no countries anymore, only companies.

wow, who would have thought that dressing in deliberately scary clothing and violently protesting would lead to government overreaction and an increased authoritarian state?

oh, wait, its supposed to be the anarchists who thought that...

well, at least such protest movements aren't helping the media marginalize such political dissent... oh wait...

good old protest movement. Marginalizing itself while crippling its ability to enact change, all for the predictable consequence of less freedom. God bless those patriots

I've always thought the fact that there are organised anarchy groups hilariously ironic.

anarchists generally oppose the state. I think all forms of anarchy depend largely on social co-operation and organization.

Originally posted by jaden101
I've always thought the fact that there are organised anarchy groups hilariously ironic. Odd. That's not ironic at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Odd. That's not ironic at all.

Do these groups form spontaneously and act as a Borg-like hive? If they don't then someone is in charge, an idea that fits perfectly with the colloquial meaning of ironic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do these groups form spontaneously and act as a Borg-like hive? If they don't then someone is in charge, an idea that fits perfectly with the colloquial meaning of ironic.

Only if you have a very weird, almost idiotic, understanding of anarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Only if you have a very weird, almost idiotic, understanding of anarchy.

Weird and idiotic like say for example the dictionary definition of it?

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Thus the entire concept of "organised anarchy" is oxymoronic to say the least.

Originally posted by jaden101
Weird and idiotic like say for example the dictionary definition of it?

"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

Thus the entire concept of "organised anarchy" is oxymoronic to say the least.
Yes. That is an idiotic definition.

So if two guys come together and decide to say, meet in a week, that already broke anarchy, they life in a government society now?

So, yeah, that definition is dumb, perhaps it fits what anarchy means in some contexts but it does not encompass the concept of anarchy.

Sorry, but, people getting together and freely and voluntarily deciding on a plan does not make it non-anarchist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sorry, but, people getting together and freely and voluntarily deciding on a plan is does not make it non-anarchist.

But the moment they put someone in charge that person is governing them. They are no longer in a state of anarchy. An organization is not anarchic, they're just an anti-state group at that point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the moment they put someone in charge that person is governing them. They are no longer in a state of anarchy. An organization is not anarchic, they're just an anti-state group at that point. In a very specific definition of anarchy and government, yes. Not in all. Definitely not in common ones used by anarchists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In a very specific definition of anarchy and government, yes. Not in all. Definitely not in common ones used by anarchists.

Which really just explains a lot about why anarchists have tended to be such utter failures when it comes to creating anarchy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which really just explains a lot about why anarchists have tended to be such utter failures when it comes to creating anarchy. I don't know, I think there are way bigger and more fundamental issues than some vague definitions. Most causes do have that.

Of course I realize you just wanted to rile me up a little.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. That is an idiotic definition.

So if two guys come together and decide to say, meet in a week, that already broke anarchy, they life in a government society now?

So, yeah, that definition is dumb, perhaps it fits what anarchy means in some contexts but it does not encompass the concept of anarchy.

Sorry, but, people getting together and freely and voluntarily deciding on a plan does not make it non-anarchist.

Sorry to say that your disagreement of the definition doesn't make it idiotic. It does make you wrong though.



Then they shouldn't be defining themselves as anarchist groups. They're no different from any other protest group. They just use the "anarchy" tag as an excuse for promoting smashing up people's businesses and property. Meaning that they don't really have bigger and more fundamental issues. They just like people to believe they have an agenda that goes beyond smashing stuff up. They don't. Which makes them no different from petty criminals and vandals.

Originally posted by jaden101
"Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose."

so, not to argue with the oh-so-authoritative dictionary, but that is not in congruence with any of the philosophical ideas of anarchy, which can be traced back over 2000 years.

It is, however, largely congruent with the propaganda that informed the public about anarchy in the late 1800s, early 1900s.

I don't mean to insinuate that you should read about something before casting such sweeping generalizations, but...

Originally posted by jaden101
Then they shouldn't be defining themselves as anarchist groups. They're no different from any other protest group. They just use the "anarchy" tag as an excuse for promoting smashing up people's businesses and property. Meaning that they don't really have bigger and more fundamental issues. They just like people to believe they have an agenda that goes beyond smashing stuff up. They don't. Which makes them no different from petty criminals and vandals.

I largely agree. At the very least, they don't understand their own ideology. If the state is violent and oppressive by nature, and uses opposition to oppress freedom, violent protest is probably the last thing you would want to do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But the moment they put someone in charge that person is governing them. They are no longer in a state of anarchy. An organization is not anarchic, they're just an anti-state group at that point.

indeed. However, that anarchy concerns itself primarily with formal institutions of governance, and not the issue of authority in general, especially if we look at anarchist thought originating after the 1800s, would seem to render this moot.

Not to make sweeping generalisations but i'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of modern "anarchists" aren't historians or philosophers of the subject and really are just in it for the excuse to smash things up.

Originally posted by jaden101
Not to make sweeping generalisations but i'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of modern "anarchists" aren't historians or philosophers of the subject and really are just in it for the excuse to smash things up.

no, and I agreed with that point

there are very good reasons why I don't wear black ski masks and sling petrol bombs

Originally posted by jaden101
Not to make sweeping generalisations but i'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of modern "anarchists" aren't historians or philosophers of the subject and really are just in it for the excuse to smash things up.

Nah, the majority of people who would identify as anarchists today are whiny man-children who need to get over their own egos. The rest are philosophical like Bardock and inimalist. Then a very few just want to be violent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, the majority of people who would identify as anarchists today are whiny man-children who need to get over their own egos. The rest are philosophical like Bardock and inimalist. Then a very few just want to be violent.

Or students with extremely rich (through the marvels of capitalism) parents who can hire lawyers to get them off after they've burned down an independant shop owners family business and only means of income as a sign of protest against capitalism.

Swell bunch.

Originally posted by jaden101
Sorry to say that your disagreement of the definition doesn't make it idiotic. It does make you wrong though.



Then they shouldn't be defining themselves as anarchist groups. They're no different from any other protest group. They just use the "anarchy" tag as an excuse for promoting smashing up people's businesses and property. Meaning that they don't really have bigger and more fundamental issues. They just like people to believe they have an agenda that goes beyond smashing stuff up. They don't. Which makes them no different from petty criminals and vandals. Even the dictionary you cited (American Heritage, right?) has further definitions of the term. So, really, it doesn't make me wrong at all, it supports my point that the definition is only applicable in certain cases.

Originally posted by jaden101
Or students with extremely rich (through the marvels of capitalism) parents who can hire lawyers to get them off after they've burned down an independant shop owners family business and only means of income as a sign of protest against capitalism.

Swell bunch.

I have not met anyone like that, though I am sure there are many. But that seems to be more of a communist/socialist inspired view of anarchy. Which those "punk" kids you see in the streets at times are, apparently.

You dorks have already had this argument before.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=11499291& amp;highlight=anarchists+organise+their+protests#p
ost11499291

Originally posted by dadudemon
You dorks have already had this argument before.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=11499291& amp;highlight=anarchists+organise+their+protests#p
ost11499291 I know I had a similar argument before. Not with the same people though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know I had a similar argument before. Not with the same people though.

It is the same "people." Jaden.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is the same "people." Jaden. He made a similar post. We did not argue about it at all though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He made a similar post. We did not argue about it at all though.

Aye. But you "argued" with him.

The end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Aye. But you "argued" with him.

The end.

You are silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even the dictionary you cited (American Heritage, right?) has further definitions of the term. So, really, it doesn't make me wrong at all, it supports my point that the definition is only applicable in certain cases.

I have not met anyone like that, though I am sure there are many. But that seems to be more of a communist/socialist inspired view of anarchy. Which those "punk" kids you see in the streets at times are, apparently.

The definition is the definition. I shall say no more on it.

I have met people like that. Lots of them. What I haven't met is a scholar or historian of anarchy that participates in the kind of rallies you see at G8 or G20.

I'm sure they are there though.

Are you one?...If so then are you pissed off that these people effectively hijack your supposedly legitimate agenda.

Originally posted by jaden101
If so then are you pissed off that these people effectively hijack your supposedly legitimate agenda.

YES

though, at least in my opinion, they probably have a different agenda than I, and I would say they are highly ineffective at what they do, unless creating a state where protesters are constantly abused by aggressive police tactics is their agenda.

I would say almost every anarchist is highly ineffective and what they are trying to do.

How many countries in the world don't have a functioning government and how many that don't have peaceful and succesful societies?

That'd be none.

Example of how anarchy really works.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4017147.stm

Originally posted by jaden101
I would say almost every anarchist is highly ineffective and what they are trying to do.

How many countries in the world don't have a functioning government and how many that don't have peaceful and succesful societies?

That'd be none.

Example of how anarchy really works.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4017147.stm

Lies and propaganda. Go read Atlas Shrugged and free your mind of liberal poisons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lies and propaganda. Go read Atlas Shrugged and free your mind of liberal poisons.

Nah...I'll wait for the film...At least if i'm going to be bored, I might as well be bored while watching Charlize Theron.

Originally posted by jaden101
I would say almost every anarchist is highly ineffective and what they are trying to do.

that would depend on what they are trying to do

my goal for the moment is making people think less "anarchy means chaos and petrol bombs" and more "there are some reasonable points made by anarchists". I think I've been moderately successful.

Anarchy has a long way to go. It was demonized quite effectively ~150 years ago, and the propaganda from such has essentially informed the mainstream public about what anarchy is.

It is an uphill battle, against ignorance, partisanship and my own patience. Being told what anarchy is by people who haven't read the Wiki page gets tiresome. There are few topics people with such ignorance would feel they have the authority to speak about, and they would routinely be laughed out of most threads regarding religious or other mainstream political views, however, it seems that with anarchy, it is those who are informed about what the ideology actually stands for who are ridiculed.

I'm not saying I feel you, or anyone else here, is ignorant in such a way. Just, ya, people need to read...

Originally posted by jaden101
How many countries in the world don't have a functioning government

wow, what a loaded question. To an anarchist, all countries. We can quibble, but at the very least, democracy doesn't work the way it should on paper.

Originally posted by jaden101
and how many that don't have peaceful and succesful societies?

That'd be none.

There are numerous examples of anarchist societies which would have, from all available date, been successful. The largest single reason for the lack of success would be that they were devastated by the militaries of authoritarian nations.

Originally posted by jaden101
Example of how anarchy really works.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4017147.stm

scholarly reviews of Somalia show that it was the Islamic Courts attempt to take power which started the recent spate of violence, I don't have the source on me, but basically, the introduction of rigid legal systems created violence within the nation. At least, it was responsible for the recent violence that has brought Somalia back into the news post-Blackhawk Down

However, I've never seen an anarchist defend Somalia. If you want, we can go over specifics about how anarchy could possibly work, but, the essence is that poor nations without infrastructure are probably going to suffer such issues regardless of leadership. Look at the state of African nations with corrupt governance. Even those who have "fledgling democracies".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lies and propaganda. Go read Atlas Shrugged and free your mind of liberal poisons.

Rand wasn't an anarchist

Elaborate.




I'd say you're fighting the wrong uphill battle. It'd be far more effective to get the people who believe they are anarchists but with entirely the wrong notion of what it actually is to change their opinions. Rather than those who don't agree with anarchy in the 1st place or know what it is. You might even kill two birds with one stone by doing so.



Completely irrelevant point. Criticisms of one do not, by default, make the other more valid. This is effectively the same wrong argument that creationists use against evolution. Pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory doesn't make creationism true.




Published findings?



The recent violence between the ICU and the ARPCT doesn't cover the problems that have occurred in a country that has had no government from 1991-2006 when the power of the courts began.



I've never claimed an anarchist did or would defend Somalia. What is there to defend? It's simply an example of what happens to a country if you remove government.

my friend apparently is in the hospital getting rabies shots, and I'm going to go keep him company, so I can't put a full reply right now (it'll give me a chance to look through my articles as well). I just wanted to put this:

Originally posted by jaden101
I'd say you're fighting the wrong uphill battle. It'd be far more effective to get the people who believe they are anarchists but with entirely the wrong notion of what it actually is to change their opinions. Rather than those who don't agree with anarchy in the 1st place or know what it is. You might even kill two birds with one stone by doing so.

those people would say I'm not an anarchist (yes, revel in the irony of that)

If he starts foaming at the mouth then get out.

I jest, of course...Hope he is ok.

I look forward to your full reply. It may be the only thing I learn this week other than that punching junkies in the face in front of the police is highly amusing.

Originally posted by jaden101
The definition is the definition. I shall say no more on it.

I have met people like that. Lots of them. What I haven't met is a scholar or historian of anarchy that participates in the kind of rallies you see at G8 or G20.

I'm sure they are there though.

Are you one?...If so then are you pissed off that these people effectively hijack your supposedly legitimate agenda. I wouldn't say that I am a scholar or historian, I would however claim that my understanding and thoughts on anarchy are superior to many who go by the label. I'd argue though that the cover the use is not necessarily most important to them, violence and rebellion may be more essential. I don't actually know whether a significant amount of people protesting the G8 would label themselves anarchist.

Blah, a little late, but what the hell

Originally posted by jaden101
Elaborate.

The best examples are places like Kronstadt or the Spanish Anarchists of the Spanish Civil war. Admittedly, neither had a long period to show sustainability. Anarchy in Spain was successful in some towns and rural centers, and Kronstadt had a worked constitution that dealt with the distribution of food and labour which, on paper, should have been manageable.

Better modern examples come from self-selected groups of people who live in communes in the rain forest or other tropical climates, though they may not profess to be "anarchist", however, their lack of formal institutional government, mixed with their eco-friendly attitudes, do show that some form of stateless sustainability is possible.

Many communities have attempted various projects, such as radical ideas in convict treatment, with varying success.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'd say you're fighting the wrong uphill battle. It'd be far more effective to get the people who believe they are anarchists but with entirely the wrong notion of what it actually is to change their opinions. Rather than those who don't agree with anarchy in the 1st place or know what it is. You might even kill two birds with one stone by doing so.

There are generally two camps of anarchy. You could classify it as left-right, liberal-conservative, syndicalist-individualist, etc. The Syndicalists are most often those who think they are revolutionaries fighting the corrupt power structure, and they are informed by the firey rhetoric of Marx and Che. These people literally believe that the overthrow of the current political establishment will lead to anarchist utopia. These are the people who dress in black face masks and riot as if that is some form of political statement.

They also are the most interested in defining a very strict and discriminative anarchy. More tiresome than being told "anarchy can't work, dumbass" is "you aren't a real anarchist" by people who are from the syndicalist section. I guess this is my longwinded way of saying, people in the general public are more receptive of calm, rational explanations of my position than are other anarchists. In the crowd you speak of, I would mention that I support the right of a man to earn the product of his labour, and they would call me a capitalist whore. That I don't kneel to and blow Mr. Chomsky also irks them. This gives them a priori reason to dismiss anything I say, whereas people who aren't so invested in identity politics can have a reasonable conversation.

And I guess, frankly, I don't want the anarchy people think about to be associated with the syndicalist ideas. I personally don't agree with them (though I'd give them their right to call themselves anarchists) or, especially, their tactics. I don't believe in the revolution they have committed their entire cognition to, and they don't want to hear that working with people is better than fighting the power.

Originally posted by jaden101
Completely irrelevant point. Criticisms of one do not, by default, make the other more valid. This is effectively the same wrong argument that creationists use against evolution. Pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory doesn't make creationism true.

My point wasn't that anarchy is better than democracy because democracy doesn't work, it was about how to define a failed state. Democracy as practiced in most of the western world does not bring the individual freedom that it promised, and thus, democratic states can be said to have failed.

Originally posted by jaden101
Published findings?

I looked all over for it. I found it on Wiley Interscience last summer, and have subsequently deleted those articles, or misplaced the USB stick. I could find a couple of articles that talk about how modern theories about how a state maintains order are misinformed given how local networks compensate for the lack of centralized institutions, so if you are interested I'll link the abstract.

But alas, I can't back that up...

Originally posted by jaden101
The recent violence between the ICU and the ARPCT doesn't cover the problems that have occurred in a country that has had no government from 1991-2006 when the power of the courts began.

for sure, the argument was, however, that violence increased when someone tried to take control, not when there was no formal government (which is the opposite of modern theory, though makes intuitive sense)

Originally posted by jaden101
I've never claimed an anarchist did or would defend Somalia. What is there to defend? It's simply an example of what happens to a country if you remove government.

indeed. A prime reason why revolutions are foolish.

Many of those cultures don't lack authority though. They have it in the form of elders and other similar social structures that are just micro-societies.



Shame...I would've liked to read them. You tried searching internet archive. A lot of pages that are taken down are stored in basic format meaning links on the pages don't work etc.




My point is that Somalia was far better when it did have a government. It actually had an education system. Granted it was a flawed and often brutal dictatorship that forced citizens to take up arms against its neighbours but in terms of individual wellbeing, it was better than it has been for the last 15 or so years.




Revolutions unto themselves are foolish although sometimes the end result of the revolution is not. I don't think the French or Americans would argue that Revolutions have been bad for their countries.

Granted, most modern "revolutions" have really just been military coups. (Although the two terms are interchangable depending on what side you're on)

Originally posted by jaden101
Many of those cultures don't lack authority though. They have it in the form of elders and other similar social structures that are just micro-societies.

I don't argue against any authority. There do need to be ways for people to resolve disputes. Fluid and inclusive leadership, I feel, is preferable to a central, formal system.

Originally posted by jaden101
Shame...I would've liked to read them. You tried searching internet archive. A lot of pages that are taken down are stored in basic format meaning links on the pages don't work etc.

I can't believe its not still on the Wiley page... they have a large archive of much older stuff.

I'll look harder when I have a chance.

Originally posted by jaden101
My point is that Somalia was far better when it did have a government. It actually had an education system. Granted it was a flawed and often brutal dictatorship that forced citizens to take up arms against its neighbours but in terms of individual wellbeing, it was better than it has been for the last 15 or so years.

fair enough, and ya, those institutions didn't spring up through grass root organization either. I'd be insane to try and find a pro-anarchy position there, other than to say, local forms of rule did establish themselves, and they were better than the years that have followed.

I don't know...

ehweLPluNpY

Originally posted by jaden101
Revolutions unto themselves are foolish although sometimes the end result of the revolution is not. I don't think the French or Americans would argue that Revolutions have been bad for their countries.

Granted, most modern "revolutions" have really just been military coups. (Although the two terms are interchangable depending on what side you're on)

The problem is, revolution gets thrown around so much, that it really is a matter of perspective.

For instance, the Orange Revolution, which was really a successful counter-coup staged by the Ukrainian citizens, or the American revolution, where a group of already largely autonomous territories gained political independence.

I use it more to describe coups, where the formal government is totally overthrown and a power vacuum of some sort forms. I also tend to think this is how most self described revolutionaries see the term, though they feel they would fill that vacuum.

I think the French Revolution actually exemplifies what I'm talking about. For all its liberal legacies, it saw the "Reign of Terror", followed by Imperial dictatorship, then a return to Monarchy before finally becoming the state it is today. When the established monarch fell, it was the most radical, and the most ruthless who were able to gain power, not the benevolent.

uj

ah, the paradox of anarchy.
i believe that this is a more accurate definition.

I, as you can probably tell from my sig, believe that the established government has rotted and must be overturned so that a new and fresh libertarian government can arise. (second law of thermodynamics)

Libertarians want to take power away from government and give that power to giant corporations. "Freedom" for everyone is a sham, humans are heirarchical by nature so if you take government out of the picture corporations will step in to fill the void.

If you think government is oppressive and overbearing just imagine a world ruled by corporate policy (it's coming to that anyway) where there is no recourse. At least government is supposed to be accountable to the voters in a democratic society.

America is already pretty much a Leptacracy (basically, you vote with your money, in every sense of the word, and more money=more say).

The real democracies are mostly in the socialist-democracies in Europe imo.

Originally posted by King Kandy
America is already pretty much a Leptacracy (basically, you vote with your money, in every sense of the word, and more money=more say).
how do you figure? I've never been given the opportunity to buy more votes.

You do it through lobbyists.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Libertarians want to take power away from government and give that power to giant corporations. "Freedom" for everyone is a sham, humans are heirarchical by nature so if you take government out of the picture corporations will step in to fill the void.

If you think government is oppressive and overbearing just imagine a world ruled by corporate policy (it's coming to that anyway) where there is no recourse. At least government is supposed to be accountable to the voters in a democratic society. That is nonsense. Libertarians want to take some of the biggest powers corporations now have away from them. Big government means big coruption, that's just a fact. And that's how some of the biggest company stay so big and consume all the others. If there were no million dollar land grants for Walmart (as there wouldn't be) they couldn't get them.

On the other hand, you are probably right. There's what 5% libertarian at most, the rest mostly Republican and Democrats and we can see that we live in this perfect world where the government doesn't **** us up the butt and where it doesn't give immense powers to giant corporations to **** us up the butt as well. You are right. This all would change if libertarians were in charge.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is nonsense. Libertarians want to take some of the biggest powers corporations now have away from them.

What Libertarians want to do and what their policies would clearly in real life do are totally different things. If I want to cure someone with cancer (America) but suggest doing so by shooting that person a few times (trying modern Libertarianism) the defense that "dude, no I'm totally trying to help" is moronic.

Anyway, people seem that the US is libertarian, all these complaints are the result of that plus 200 some years of legislative gunk (and angsty teenagers who know that all the worlds problems stem from them not getting whatever they want).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What Libertarians want to do and what their policies would clearly in real life do are totally different things. If I want to cure someone with cancer (America) but suggest doing so by shooting that person a few times (trying modern Libertarianism) the defense that "dude, no I'm totally trying to help" is moronic.

Anyway, people seem that the US is libertarian, all these complaints are the result of that plus 200 some years of legislative gunk (and angsty teenagers who know that all the worlds problems stem from them not getting whatever they want).

That's a different issue altogether though, the possibility of which should be addressed, but it is unrelated to my point in reaction to the post I quoted.

Originally posted by One Free Man
how do you figure? I've never been given the opportunity to buy more votes.


This explains a lot

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

You might also want to read the book "No Logo" by Naomi Klein, it's a real eye opener.

/sigh

or don't read things by Naomi Klein

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
This explains a lot

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

You might also want to read the book "No Logo" by Naomi Klein, it's a real eye opener.

Sounds like the current definition of "conservatives" and not "neoliberalism" to me.

you don't read enough socialist circle jerk then