• Anarchism
    250 replies, posted
[QUOTE=striker453;41304034]How much of that land is desert landscape? or volcanic plains? how much of that land is cultivable? How much land do you want to dedicate to solar power or wind? Mind you we can't build solar power too far from the populace as power degrades in wire. In Australia most of our land is salt pans and the desert with only a small portion being capable for cultivation.[/QUOTE] large portion of it is plains that are perfectly suitable for farming.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41303274]“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism? Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed? John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities. Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.” come on use an argument that hasn't been rebutted a hundred years ago.[/QUOTE] that's not so much a rebuttal as a pretentious and self-aggrandizing spiel with no substance other than "you're dumb I'm right you're wrong"
when people say to me that anarchy is too idealistic and doomed to fail because humans will inherently fuck it up i think then maybe humanity deserves to fail, if we are so base at nature that we will never be able to live in harmony without some external force making us then i see no hope for the human race regardless of what system it lives by. i don't think so though i think people are fine it's external forces that turn them bad
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41304390]large portion of it is plains that are perfectly suitable for farming.[/QUOTE] Plains does not mean farmable land, huge part of continents are filled with salted land due to inland seas in the past
freedom of association and the non-aggression principle are the only two virtues i abide by. i dont know what kind of anarchist i am. i think we require massive global depopulation and we should revert back to local communities. it sounds psychotic but i dont know, it seems optimal. i am not a luddite by any means but i do believe that humanity has lost its way with this wasteful and meaningless approach to survival. endless consumptions for artificial growth. i dont believe economic growth should be a priority of humanity. i think humanity at the moment is aimless and humanity is reaching a culminating point of a behavioral sink. humanity should accept itself for what it is, and with that truth..change itself. i want humans to be honest. i want humans to know truth. i believe humans now have the capacity to live in a world of abundance. i believe we always have, but because of our lack of scientific understanding we couldnt accomplish what we can now. we have harnessed many tools to alleviate our physical shortcomings. we have meddled with nature to assemble somewhat of a hospitable environment for ourselves. we have devised social customs and philosophical abstractions to somehow justify our intrinsically meaningless existence. i dont know. if people were honest with themselves and everyone around them, not only would we be living in harmony but we would know what would be best for one another. but my desires are just that...desires. not an accurate reflection of the real world at the moment but i know..or at least i want to know that humanity wants peace with itself. humanity has blinded itself.....but i dont know. i am confused. i am humanity.
[QUOTE=Cockman;41307078]freedom of association and the non-aggression principle are the only two virtues i abide by. i dont know what kind of anarchist i am. i think we require massive global depopulation and we should revert back to local communities. it sounds psychotic but i dont know, it seems optimal. i am not a luddite by any means but i do believe that humanity has lost its way with this wasteful and meaningless approach to survival. endless consumptions for artificial growth. i dont believe economic growth should be a priority of humanity. i think humanity at the moment is aimless and humanity is reaching a culminating point of a behavioral sink. humanity should accept itself for what it is, and with that truth..change itself. i want humans to be honest. i want humans to know truth. i believe humans now have the capacity to live in a world of abundance. i believe we always have, but because of our lack of scientific understanding we couldn't accomplish what we can now. we have harnessed many tools to alleviate our physical shortcomings. we have meddled with nature to assemble somewhat of a hospitable environment for ourselves. we have devised social customs and philosophical abstractions to somehow justify our intrinsically meaningless existence. i dont know. if people were honest with themselves and everyone around them, not only would we be living in harmony but we would know what would be best for one another. but my desires are just that...desires. not an accurate reflection of the real world at the moment but i know..or at least i want to know that humanity wants peace with itself. humanity has blinded itself.....but i dont know. i am confused. i am humanity.[/QUOTE] Wow, that was beautiful.
[QUOTE=striker453;41307015]Plains does not mean farmable land, huge part of continents are filled with salted land due to inland seas in the past[/QUOTE] Even if there isn't enough land or resources are too scarce, does that make unfair distribution morally justifiable? I would argue no. Furthermore, due to the poor no longer being poor, the population will stay in check. As more people are kept healthy and educated, birth rates, as well as population growth will decline. (For a more in depth explanation, check this out [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html[/url])
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41307217]Even if there isn't enough land or resources are too scarce, does that make unfair distribution morally justifiable? I would argue no. Furthermore, due to the poor no longer being poor, the population will stay in check. As more people are kept healthy and educated, birth rates, as well as population growth will decline. (For a more in depth explanation, check this out [url]http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html[/url])[/QUOTE] I said before that although I would like for resources to be equally distributed to all people its just not possible until further down the line when we do have the technology and the know how to produce near endless food and resources.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41299819]Anarchist societies have existed in the past, and worked out fine. Take the anarchist territories in the Spanish revolution or The Free Territory in Ukraine during the Russian revolution for example.[/QUOTE] Both of those states were transitory and existed only as long as they kept up a reign of terror involving mass murder of their own people I don't think that qualifies as "working out fine"
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41299819]Anarchist societies have existed in the past, and worked out fine. Take the anarchist territories in the Spanish revolution or The Free Territory in Ukraine during the Russian revolution for example.[/QUOTE] And what happened to those societies? They eventually got back into control. Anarchy works short-term but it's almost impossible for it to exist for any long period of time.
Forgive me if its been answered but how would an anarchistic society ensure that coercive forces like a state are not imposed upon individuals by force?
[QUOTE=KingArcher;41307835]And what happened to those societies? They eventually got back into control. Anarchy works short-term but it's almost impossible for it to exist for any long period of time.[/QUOTE] they got back into control by stopping the anarchism [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;41307865]Forgive me if its been answered but how would an anarchistic society ensure that coercive forces like a state are not imposed upon individuals by force?[/QUOTE] they don't.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;41307865]Forgive me if its been answered but how would an anarchistic society ensure that coercive forces like a state are not imposed upon individuals by force?[/QUOTE] A militia of volunteers, according to several posts in this thread I have no idea how a cooperative militia plans to stand against a hierarchical military force with actual logistics capability though
[QUOTE=scout1;41308075]A militia of volunteers, according to several posts in this thread I have no idea how a cooperative militia plans to stand against a hierarchical military force with actual logistics capability though[/QUOTE] With the power of punk rock and wicked metal, obviously.
[QUOTE=scout1;41307432]Both of those states were transitory and existed only as long as they kept up a reign of terror involving mass murder of their own people I don't think that qualifies as "working out fine"[/QUOTE] neither had a reign of terror[QUOTE=scout1;41308075]A militia of volunteers, according to several posts in this thread I have no idea how a cooperative militia plans to stand against a hierarchical military force with actual logistics capability though[/QUOTE] same way militias have defeated hierarchical military forces in the past. you are acting like militias have never defeated armies which is just not true. but hey, if the history revisionism works for you, thats great
[QUOTE=scout1;41308075]A militia of volunteers, according to several posts in this thread I have no idea how a cooperative militia plans to stand against a hierarchical military force with actual logistics capability though[/QUOTE] The state provides stability and security. Theres a reason that communities have chosen to become apart of them or form them for thousands of years.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41308744]neither had a reign of terror [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)[/url] [QUOTE=yawmwen;41308744] same way militias have defeated hierarchical military forces in the past. you are acting like militias have never defeated armies which is just not true. but hey, if the history revisionism works for you, thats great[/QUOTE] They've certainly never [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War]won a war[/url], lol Doesn't matter if you win a battle if you lose the war
[QUOTE=scout1;41308799][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)[/url] They've certainly never [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War]won a war[/url], lol Doesn't matter if you win a battle if you lose the war[/QUOTE] the red terror in spain wasnt a systematic act and was mostly committed by smaller impassioned groups and individuals in the context of a brutal civil war. and yea militias have won wars before unless you forget about vietnam and china.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41308876]the red terror in spain wasnt a systematic act and was mostly committed by smaller impassioned groups and individuals in the context of a brutal civil war. and yea militias have won wars before unless you forget about vietnam and china.[/QUOTE] War is now fought differently to back then of blanket bombing areas. Militia groups stand little against high tech precise bombings and movements
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41308876]the red terror in spain wasnt a systematic act and was mostly committed by smaller impassioned groups and individuals in the context of a brutal civil war. and yea militias have won wars before unless you forget about vietnam and china.[/QUOTE] Vietnam and China's revolutions involved organized armies with professional soldiers and even foreign support in the case of Vietnam.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41308876]the red terror in spain wasnt a systematic act and was mostly committed by smaller impassioned groups and individuals in the context of a brutal civil war. and yea militias have won wars before unless you forget about vietnam and china.[/QUOTE] So now we're arguing semantics? Okay, well you've just admitted that the anarchists in Spain slaughtered people. As for militias, please see: NVA supply of the vietcong and the fact the comchi had an actual supply structure, again. Militaries are hierarchical and demand such a thing to ensure a command and control structure and control the flow of things such as supplies. The modern supply apparatus is actually incredibly complex and can put a battalion on your shores within 72 hours with a full complement of air, artillery, and armored support. How exactly do you propose a [B]cooperative militia[/B], in the context of an anarchic community, overcome such a capability? [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=striker453;41308890]War is now fought differently to back then of blanket bombing areas. Militia groups stand little against high tech precise bombings and movements[/QUOTE] I'll actually disagree with you here. Things like the Iranian Basij are fully capable of overwhelming opponents, given proper support. It's just that without an actual military command structure, you don't even have the [I]chance[/I] of such support. There was an analysis I read on this. Let me see if I can find it.
[QUOTE=scout1;41308915] [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] I'll actually disagree with you here. Things like the Iranian Basij are fully capable of overwhelming opponents, given proper support. It's just that without an actual military command structure, you don't even have the [I]chance[/I] of such support. There was an analysis I read on this. Let me see if I can find it.[/QUOTE] Sorry I was basing it on the recent happenings of both the French in Mali and Syrian civil war.
[QUOTE=striker453;41309027]Sorry I was basing it on the recent happenings of both the French in Mali and Syrian civil war.[/QUOTE] Ah well that's down to the Militia's material. It's such a complicated thing, that. War.
[QUOTE=butre;41298575]Healthcare and social security are not libertarian ideals.[/QUOTE] Yes, that's why it's not Libertarian. It's left Libertarian. Edit: I've expressed my views wrongly. Left Libertarians believe in Individual Freedoms, like almost all Libertarians. But, we also stress social justice. Social justice stresses social equality to a degree as well. As i said before, i believe that true Libertarianism and Anarchism, is morally wrong. It forgoes all senses of social Justice in favour of, what equates to extremist capitalism. People do occasionally need social welfare (Social security) and such to get by, and occasionally need police to settle disputes and deal with matters of personal property. (I'm unconvinced this could be mediated by a corporation, i'm open to suggestions though. It is my thought that police will be corrupt, government sponsored or not.) As an Australian, i look at your healthcare (I'm talking to you, America) and fucking laugh. The amount of human suffering and unnecessary pain that is caused by your stupid fucking healthcare system is ridiculous. When i look at ours, it's not perfect i admit, but by fucking Christ it's better then yours. In my mind, i can not see a way for a state to exist peacefully with Full Anarchist or Libertarian ideals. Although i'd love to debate it, fuck i love debating. [editline]5th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;41298917][I]Bioshock spoilers[/I] [/QUOTE] It's been a fair time since i played the game. But even if i'm wrong, a true Anarchistic would devolve into this state anyway. A single mega-corporation lauding over most if not all sectors of the economy. Brutal and cutthroat business tactics would be accepted due to the rule of the dollar. Maybe i'm understanding Anarchism wrong, maybe i'm understanding Libertarian ideals wrong, if i am, please, correct me. [editline]5th July 2013[/editline] It guess it doesn't really matter though. Labels are for soup and trying to adhere or label other people it silly in it's idea.
So what I'm getting so far is that Anarchism would work great in a post-scarcity society? Idk I've never really read up on Anarchism or that but what's been described sounds kind of similar to "The Culture" in the books of Iain M. Banks.
Fuck calling myself anything, i can't find anything that fully agrees or disagrees with my fucked up views.
You beat me to my anarchist thread. I still had to go through socialism first, though. Mine will be a bit more comprehensive of ideas. Also, anarchist capitalism is an oxymoron and shouldn't be anywhere near the other forms of anarchism. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=kebab52;41312794]So what I'm getting so far is that Anarchism would work great in a post-scarcity society? Idk I've never really read up on Anarchism or that but what's been described sounds kind of similar to "The Culture" in the books of Iain M. Banks.[/QUOTE] Yes, it would work best in a post-scarcity society, which actually more or less exists, in that the needs of all people are capable of being taken care of now, but not all wants. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;41308903]Vietnam and China's revolutions involved organized armies with professional soldiers and even foreign support in the case of Vietnam.[/QUOTE] So was the Spanish Republican front. It wasn't just the militia fighting. I haven't been here for the whole debate but I'm guessing comrade yawmwen here is arguing that the libertarian militias would be capable of winning the SCW alone. In reality, the militias were also fighting alongside the well-organized CNT-FAI which was far from a band of militias, though made mostly of volunteers, and the Republican army, which was a Soviet-style military power, which backing form Mexico and the USSR. But the militias and the POUM, by themselves, did hold and make huge victories on multiple fronts against the fascist-backed Falangist army, which boasted almost the entire military power of Spain before the split, as well as almost all of the military minds. To say that the militias themselves could win is unlikely, given the actual reality of it. But if we went into the realm of hypothesis and said that had the communists [I]not[/I] organized a national military, that most of the communists' forces would be in the militias. And had the communists not taken the state, then there would be less/no infighting between groups, and an organized federation of militias larger than OTL could probably hold together enough to counter Franco and win. Given the examples of the militias in OTL then I think had that model been applied larger without infighting, then it's very possible that the system of volunteer militias would have won the war. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;41307432]Both of those states were transitory and existed only as long as they kept up a reign of terror involving mass murder of their own people I don't think that qualifies as "working out fine"[/QUOTE] the Free territory hardly used a reign of terror on its own people. It raided and killed kulaks, sure, but hardly used terror as a motivator for keeping the people in line. The Spanish revolution had very little terror, and most of it was the communists, with some libertarian attacks independent from the overall program. The libertarian did not use terror or mass violence to maintain control. The communists were not above that. The actions of the two groups should be separated. [editline]4th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=striker453;41303804]Solar energy requires land, let alone to power 7 billion people. The only way to power the world is either through fusion (which isn't a thing yet) or nuclear. According to you we need to give everyone food so that also requires land where are we getting all this land from? Not all land in the world can be used to build upon the world resources is not infinite I don't know where you got that idea from. We also need forest to sustain the ecosystem and also our wood supply. Even more of a problem how are we going to hand out resources to 7 billion people equally without a government or a huge group of people controlling the distribution of these resources.[/QUOTE] There's already enough power to give most everyone in the world a lit house with heat. We don't need solar panels to do this or green energies, we just need to cut down on power consumption int he west and export it to developing nations. I swear, the entire viewpoint of people who don't think this is possible comes from their worldview of "Well, I'm using a bajillion units of power per day and they aren't and there's no way they could ever get power!" Just cut down on your power usage, it's not a hard concept to grasp.
Just a few basic question here about anarchism: How does justice and rehabilitation work? How does the economy work? How do relations between other countries work (diplomacy and stuff)? What about emergency services, healthcare, ect? How is fairness and equality achieved and/or sustained? How is infrastructure planned and created? Is any sort of regulation enforced in any way?
To be honest I'd much prefer if the OP was by [Seed Eater], and no offense meant to soccerskyman but Seed's threads are more comprehensive and well-structured, offering short yet spot on information on any given topic. It just reads better instead of posting a bunch of Wikipedia links and barely elaborating or summarizing anything.
[QUOTE=Melnek;41314417]To be honest I'd much prefer if the OP was by [Seed Eater], and no offense meant to soccerskyman but Seed's threads are more comprehensive and well-structured, offering short yet spot on information on any given topic. It just reads better instead of posting a bunch of Wikipedia links and barely elaborating or summarizing anything.[/QUOTE] I'll have one eventually. Don't worry. Soccer did a good job of introducing it and bringing the topic to discussion, which is an important part of learning about anything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.