well i won't agree with any state that is authoritarian in nature either. you say you are libertarian, and i can at least respect a leftist-libertarian statist in the sense that i can see why states can be expedient and help people at times, but the state should always have a burden of proof it needs to fulfill with every action it takes.
i can see the state as a tool, but only as long as we are actually destroying it in the process. instead of waiting "generations" under a working-class state before everyone becomes conscious enough and organized enough to do away with it, we should create the working class state and very quickly begin destroying each function as communities become able to take care of their own needs.
idk if that will really ever happen though. i think that if we get communism it might actually come about organically through a slow cultural shift in people's attitudes towards government. people become a bit more disillusioned with authoritarian systems, communities organize a little bit better, and the government becomes a little more redundant until we are left with a very libertarian system that can transition into communism.
it should be the goal of the leftist imo to begin encouraging that sort of environment in their own community. start community gardens, create safe zones, try and get people more involved in their community in ways other than church or government functions. not everyone will become an anarchist, but they will begin to support the programs that make their lives better and be more willing to listen to alternative philosophies on governance.
I can agree with Marxists on the idea of using the state as a tool to create a collective society, but I think that it is absolutely crucial to keep anarchist values as part of the society, in order to prevent the society from forever depending on the state for its needs.
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/ded5101487a831b4309b490dadbf2796/tumblr_mq7djyTm6l1qk91wgo1_500.png[/img]
there you go
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;41526257][img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/ded5101487a831b4309b490dadbf2796/tumblr_mq7djyTm6l1qk91wgo1_500.png[/img]
there you go[/QUOTE]
Its unfortunate that Anarchism would lead to Anarchy.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41550116]Its unfortunate that Anarchism would lead to Anarchy.[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate?
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41580399]Care to elaborate?[/QUOTE]
most people who say anarchism would always end up as chaos and murder generally says some vague things about how we dont live in a perfect world and how human nature wouldnt allow for anarchism as if they were authorities on a humans natural behavior by observing it in an unnatural environment.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41597203] allow for anarchism as if they were authorities on a humans natural behavior by observing it in an unnatural environment.[/QUOTE]
What exactly is humanities natural habitat? The Jungles or plains of Africa? I don't understand what you mean.
Anarchism won't work because the state is inevitable. In such a decentralized world the state will always be created for its stability and ability to mobilize resources towards larger needs.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41599960]What exactly is humanities natural habitat? The Jungles or plains of Africa? I don't understand what you mean.
Anarchism won't work because the state is inevitable. In such a decentralized world the state will always be created for its stability and ability to mobilize resources towards larger needs.[/QUOTE]
what i meant by the unnatural environment comment is that human beings today are raised to have certain mentalities by society. to say you know human nature because you look at modern society is arrogant because it ignores the fact that humans are highly adaptable. really, both our assumptions about humanity are equally valid. i simply choose the more optimistic route and say that humans, in general, want to cooperate with each other and want to control their own lives(and are more happy when they have control over their lives). the cooperation part seems to be backed up by hundreds of thousands of years of human and hominid history since our survival depended on cooperation.
and your claim that the state is inevitable is sorta pointless. societys collapse is inevitable, death is inevitable, the extinction of humanity is inevitable. we dont refuse to live because we will eventually die, why should we refuse anarchism simply because it might turn into a state later?
also, in the days of modern technology, a highly decentralized system becomes more and more feasible. the state is expedient because it is a system of large institutions with the means to organize and mobilize resources towards a common goal. nowadays, with internet, computers, and telephones, it becomes easier for smaller groups to organize and mobilize resources towards their own goals.
Nestor Makhno is my favorite anarchist
How do communes operate in a world where not everybody is included in an anarchist system?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41625888]How do communes operate in a world where not everybody is included in an anarchist system?[/QUOTE]
Ideally everybody would be.
Unideally, not dissimilar to how they really did, minus some hierarchy caused by the necessities of war.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41633145']Ideally everybody would be.
Unideally, not dissimilar to how they really did, minus some hierarchy caused by the necessities of war.[/QUOTE]
Since when did communes go to war?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41635436]Since when did communes go to war?[/QUOTE]
Since revolutions happened or caused wars.
Both the Makhnovists and the CNT-FAI's revolutions occurred during or preceding a nation-wide civil war, and as such both were in wartime conditions. The Makhnovists fight whites, reds, and Centrals, and the CNT-FAI fought the fascists and at times the communists and liberals.
Even the Zapatistas were forced into a war for defense and liberation when their revolution was opposed by military force by the Mexican government.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41637223']Since revolutions happened or caused wars.
Both the Makhnovists and the CNT-FAI's revolutions occurred during or preceding a nation-wide civil war, and as such both were in wartime conditions. The Makhnovists fight whites, reds, and Centrals, and the CNT-FAI fought the fascists and at times the communists and liberals.
Even the Zapatistas were forced into a war for defense and liberation when their revolution was opposed by military force by the Mexican government.[/QUOTE]
So Communes have to use coercive force in order to ensure a successful revolution?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41641886]So Communes have to use coercive force in order to ensure a successful revolution?[/QUOTE]
The Russian Civil War was split into many factions, but it was mostly industrial populations vs industrial populations+peasants, and was roughly evenly split. The Spanish Civil War/Revolution had the majority of the population on its side, but obviously a civil war that happened to coincide complicated things.
But yes, violence is a method, as in all revolutions, to take power. Violence to oppose violence is often the motto of a revolution.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41643816']The Russian Civil War was split into many factions, but it was mostly industrial populations vs industrial populations+peasants, and was roughly evenly split. The Spanish Civil War/Revolution had the majority of the population on its side, but obviously a civil war that happened to coincide complicated things.
But yes, violence is a method, as in all revolutions, to take power. Violence to oppose violence is often the motto of a revolution.[/QUOTE]
In a Communist world, what would be done to prevent a resurgence of capitalism? (For instance, say from people who read about it or thought it up or the such)
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644177]In a Communist world, what would be done to prevent a resurgence of capitalism? (For instance, say from people who read about it or thought it up or the such)[/QUOTE]
That doesn't need to be prevented, just like how communism doesn't have to be prevented in a capitalist world. Preventing a revolution in any society (without using inhumane tactics) is pretty much impossible.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;41644715]That doesn't need to be prevented, just like how communism doesn't have to be prevented in a capitalist world. Preventing a revolution in any society (without using inhumane tactics) is pretty much impossible.[/QUOTE]
So such a society is wholly dependent on everybody agreeing that Communism is good?
Well, if a commune or something went capitalist after the world had been in Communism for say, centuries, what then?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644731]So such a society is wholly dependent on everybody agreeing that Communism is good?
Well, if a commune or something went capitalist after the world had been in Communism for say, centuries, what then?[/QUOTE]
then the commune would go capitalist.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644750]then the commune would go capitalist.[/QUOTE]
And if it spread?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644788]And if it spread?[/QUOTE]
then it would spread. the thing about democracy and freedom is that you can easily vote it away
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644816]then it would spread. the thing about democracy and freedom is that you can easily vote it away[/QUOTE]
Well, what if some people disagreed and saw capitalism as the way to go?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644825]Well, what if some people disagreed and saw capitalism as the way to go?[/QUOTE]
people could start their own capitalist society if they wanted to. people might resist if they were forced into it though
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
the whole point of anarchism is that people are free to construct their own society and arent forced by an outside authority
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644849]
the whole point of anarchism is that people are free to construct their own society and arent forced by an outside authority[/QUOTE]
What if my society masters the art of warfare and wants to conquer other societies so that it may enjoy great luxury?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644849]people could start their own capitalist society if they wanted to. people might resist if they were forced into it though
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
the whole point of anarchism is that people are free to construct their own society and arent forced by an outside authority[/QUOTE]
Except it sounds much as though capitalism would ultimately end up eating away at communes until you are back to the default setting again. Given that capitalist societies tend to have higher rates of economic growth, does this not entail a problem for the existence of Anarchist or Communist societies once people see that?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644892]Except it sounds much as though capitalism would ultimately end up eating away at communes until you are back to the default setting again. Given that capitalist societies tend to have higher rates of economic growth, does this not entail a problem for the existence of Anarchist or Communist societies once people see that?[/QUOTE]
depends if the society values economic growth(as it is in our current society) more than freedom or worker emancipation(as it is in a communist society)
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41644887]What if my society masters the art of warfare and wants to conquer other societies so that it may enjoy great luxury?[/QUOTE]
sounds like the last several thousand years of human history
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644909]depends if the society values economic growth(as it is in our current society) more than freedom or worker emancipation(as it is in a communist society)[/QUOTE]
Well, given that the economic problem is based about satisfying infinite want with finite resources, it's a given that a significant number of people (enough to create a state) would end up recreating a capitalist society if they thought that they could improve resource allocation by it.
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
It's interesting how only 6 states have ever formed independently in history (always in areas with high population densities). Every one thereafter has been formed in reaction as a way to prevent being conquered by them.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644919]Well, given that the economic problem is based about satisfying infinite want with finite resources, it's a given that a significant number of people (enough to create a state) would end up recreating a capitalist society if they thought that they could improve resource allocation by it.
[editline]30th July 2013[/editline]
It's interesting how only 6 states have ever formed independently in history (always in areas with high population densities). Every one thereafter has been formed in reaction as a way to prevent being conquered by them.[/QUOTE]
again, if people want to create a state, a state will form. anarchists believe the state is unnecessary and take actions to try and create a society where a state is not needed
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41644958]again, if people want to create a state, a state will form. anarchists believe the state is unnecessary and take actions to try and create a society where a state is not needed[/QUOTE]
So ultimately you are dependent on everybody becoming an anarchist if you don't want states to re-emerge?
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41645340]So ultimately you are dependent on everybody becoming an anarchist if you don't want states to re-emerge?[/QUOTE]
Just like how you have to rely on everyone being a capitalist in a capitalistic society. Once again, this is not a flaw with anarchism, but happens with EVERY type of society. You really aren't getting this, are you?
[editline]31st July 2013[/editline]
Anarchists promote democracy, so yes people will have to agree with it. Honestly, if you try to force a system onto people that don't agree with it, you're an asshole.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.