You dorks have already had this argument before.
You dorks have already had this argument before.
Originally posted by dadudemonI know I had a similar argument before. Not with the same people though.
You dorks have already had this argument before.
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.
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.
Lies and propaganda. Go read Atlas Shrugged and free your mind of liberal poisons.
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.
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
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.
Elaborate.
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'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.
democracy doesn't work the way it should on paper.
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.
scholarly reviews
Published findings?
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
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.
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".
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)
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:
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 jaden101I 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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...
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.
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)
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.
indeed. A prime reason why revolutions are foolish.
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...
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.