Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;43155423]Not necessarily, one can believe one race to be superior to others and also believe that it shouldn't be acted on. For example, I'm religious, but I don't at all, in any way, shape, or form want other's who disagree to be oppressed, even though I believe them to be completely wrong about foundational questions of life.[/QUOTE] well, race is a social construct based on oppression so yes, racism is an oppressive attitude. and i mean, if they're not going to act on it then i guess it's not relevant is it? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] noone arguing against personal beliefs here

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155470]well, race is a social construct based on oppression so yes, racism is an oppressive attitude. and i mean, if they're not going to act on it then i guess it's not relevant is it?[/QUOTE] By stating that an anarchist has books on racism I assume Yawmwen was claiming that his anarchism had something to do with his views on racism. So it is relevant, yes.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43155478]By stating that an anarchist has books on racism I assume Yawmwen was claiming that his anarchism had something to do with his views on racism. So it is relevant, yes.[/QUOTE] he's saying that anarchism is not about 'me' it's about 'us' and providing evidence that many anarchist works are about feminism, racism & post colonialism

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155485]he's saying that anarchism is not about 'me' it's about 'us' and providing evidence that many anarchist works are about feminism, racism & post colonialism[/QUOTE] ... and back to my original point. Saying that an anarchist is about 'us' because of their anti-racist book (just to choose one of the examples) is not the same thing as showing that anarchism, itself, led to those beliefs. I'm saying that an anarchist can very easily be both racist and against oppression. So, in effect, anarchism doesn't necessarily lead to not being racist.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43155505]... and back to my original point. Saying that an anarchist is about 'us' because of their anti-racist book (just to choose one of the examples) is not the same thing as showing that anarchism, itself, led to those beliefs. I'm saying that an anarchist can very easily be both racist and against oppression. So, in effect, anarchism doesn't necessarily lead to not being racist.[/QUOTE] the idea of racism is against the ideas of anarchism so yes if a racist person became an anarchist and got educated on anarchism then they would find their ideas of racism don't coincide with anarchism [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] all people being equal is a pretty big part of anarchism, believing your race to be superior kind of goes against that

[QUOTE=sgman91;43155352]Saying that there are some anarchists that do X is not the same thing as saying that a belief in anarchism necessarily leads to X. You would need to provide a logical chain connecting the core tenets of anarchism to those specific ideas.[/QUOTE] anarchism is, in essence, resistance to illegitimate authority and oppression. although some anarchists do not consider themselves "antira" or "feminist", egalitarian movements like antira and feminism are logical extensions to anarchist philosophy. intersectionality is actually becoming very important to anarchism as a whole. i would put it like this: "the struggles of all people against oppression are anarchist, and anarchism is about the struggle of all peoples against oppression". the idea that one can only be an "economic anarchist" or "anti-statist anarchist" has been debunked. oppression overlaps many different ways throughout our lives. [url]http://libcom.org/library/insurrections-intersections-feminism-intersectionality-anarchism[/url] [img]https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1603912493/tranarchist.png[/img] -this image incorporates the symbolism of anarchism and transfeminism. while anarchism tends to be specifically about "the state", the anarchist movement has grown to incorporate all egalitarian movements to some extent or another. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] i can continue to tack on more prefixes and suffixes to become radical-revolutionary anti-racist anti-imperialist anarcho-transfeminist communist, but most of those descriptors have become implied through the evolution of the movement. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] sry it would be radical-revolutionary anti-racist anti-imperialist [i]green[/i] anarcho-transfeminist communist [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] it seems like now the flag isn't just black to symbolize individualism. the flag is black because it incorporates every other damn color in the rainbow. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] except white, because i'm no pacifist ;)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43155571] except white, because i'm no pacifist ;)[/QUOTE] Wait, isn't the goal of your system pacifism? As in nobody is aggressive against each other?

[QUOTE=deadoon;43155620]Wait, isn't the goal of your system pacifism? As in nobody is aggressive against each other?[/QUOTE] pacifism isn't about "aggression", it's about violence. pacifists believe in non-violence, even for self-defense. so no, i am not pacifist and don't believe in pacifism. i think violence is acceptable and sometimes necessary as a way to defend yourself from the imposition of force. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] my "ideal" society would have no qualms about dealing with oppression violently if it was necessary to the liberty and safety of individuals within the society.

That's uh, kinda fucked up.

[QUOTE=Swilly;43155752]That's uh, kinda fucked up.[/QUOTE] why? when you face an oppressor that will do anything to dominate you why is violent response fucked up?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155807]why? when you face an oppressor that will do anything to dominate you why is violent response fucked up?[/QUOTE] If this "ideal" society has any kind of chain of command then history would just repeat itself and pull out a knife every time the current leader makes a bad decision that could lead to some sort of oppression or even something someone. It sounds really unstable.

[QUOTE=Viper202;43155831]If this "ideal" society has any kind of chain of command then history would just repeat itself every time the current leader makes a bad decision that could lead to some sort of oppression. It sounds really unstable.[/QUOTE] what does that have to do with violence being a 'fucked up' response to oppression? and er, 'chain of command' 'leader' ? remember what we're talking about here

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43155844]what does that have to do with violence being a 'fucked up' response to oppression? and er, 'chain of command' 'leader' ? remember what we're talking about here[/QUOTE] Yeah we're talking about yawmwens post aren't we. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] Very sure we're talking about swillys reaction to [B]yawmwens[/B] post [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] You know the post that said "'ideal' society"? The one 5 posts up?

is this some lame attempt at being condescending? read my post again [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] pretty sure yawmwens ideal society wouldn't have leaders and a chain of command [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you know, because his posts have pointed out he's an anarchist [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you know, all those posts in regards to this subject in this thread

Boy I sure look forward to anarchism being successful one day.

boy i sure do look forward to viper202's next awesome sarcastic or condescending post in which he adds absolutely nothing to the discussion at hand one day

That kind of society couldn't possibly happen. It's naive to believe there wouldn't be detrimental amounts of people who feel oppressed by something that should mean nothing, and just open up fist fights with whoever might be a culprit since there would be no "qualms" about dealing with oppression. It'd have to be a small society, otherwise blind ignorance would be uncontrollable.

well i guess that's that then

An anarchist society isn't really an alternative to what we have now if you view the use of force to be acceptable in combating oppression. By using force, you have justified some form of force, even if its against another force. An anarchist society created through use of force will inevitably fall back into or be based upon a system where force is viewed as acceptable.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125962]growing food is not a trivial task. [/QUOTE] this is true, not to forget protected your crop from bandits is not easy

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43154992]why doesn't it? people collect knowledge as hobbies, people become doctors because they like to help others. the difficulty of producing medicines i agree with, and i dunno i don't have all the answers do i?[/QUOTE] People can do this because they don't have to worry about growing and protecting their own food. They can pay someone else to feed them while they practice a trade like medicine. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] One reason people ask so many questions for your supposed anarchy society (which is an oxymoron in of itself), is because every question has an answer for the society we have now. If you don't have a solution for a problem we already solved, how could it be called an improvement?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43156036]An anarchist society isn't really an alternative to what we have now if you view the use of force to be acceptable in combating oppression. By using force, you have justified some form of force, even if its against another force. An anarchist society created through use of force will inevitably fall back into or be based upon a system where force is viewed as acceptable.[/QUOTE] it doesn't have to be created through force necessarily, but what about defended? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] what is not acceptable about using force to defend yourself?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156069]it doesn't have to be created through force necessarily, but what about defended? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] what is not acceptable about using force to defend yourself?[/QUOTE] The only way to stop a single individual from incorrectly allocating all the communities resources (e.g. wasting it all) would be through force. Once you have accepted this axiom then you have officially said that force is an appropriate way to ensure the will of the majority.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156069]it doesn't have to be created through force necessarily, but what about defended? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] what is not acceptable about using force to defend yourself?[/QUOTE] What does "defend" cover? Does it cover external threats from say an army? Internal threats from people who have formed political groupings? Is force acceptable to use if it means ensuring the existence of the society?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43156059]People can do this because they don't have to worry about growing and protecting their own food. They can pay someone else to feed them while they practice a trade like medicine. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] One reason people ask so many questions for your supposed anarchy society (which is an oxymoron in of itself), is because every question has an answer for the society we have now. If you don't have a solution for a problem we already solved, what benefits does your society provide over the current one?[/QUOTE] if we're all helping provide food for eachother surely there would be time to focus on hobbies? and what do you mean by every question has an answer for the society we have now? that doesn't make sense in my head if you wouldn't mind rephrasing it. and i don't really see what 'solutions' you necessarily have, and what about the problems you don't have solutions for? are you trying to say we have the perfect society now? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43156081]The only way to stop a single individual from incorrectly allocating all the communities resources (e.g. wasting it all) would be through force. Once you have accepted this axiom then you have officially said that force is an appropriate way to ensure the will of the majority.[/QUOTE] only if they're not willing to listen to reason [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43156083]What does "defend" cover? Does it cover external threats from say an army? Internal threats from people who have formed political groupings? Is force acceptable to use if it means ensuring the existence of the society?[/QUOTE] it covers the threat of oppression

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156089]if we're all helping provide food for eachother surely there would be time to focus on hobbies? and what do you mean by every question has an answer for the society we have now? that doesn't make sense in my head if you wouldn't mind rephrasing it. and i don't really see what 'solutions' you necessarily have, and what about the problems you don't have solutions for? are you trying to say we have the perfect society now?[/QUOTE] But how would I be ensured that I would have food to practice medicine? I'm relying solely on the goodwill of strangers to feed me. In a capitalist society, I get a job to contribute to society in order to receive money, which then I can use to pay for whatever food I want, whenever I want. Leaving me with time not spent growing food spent practicing medicine instead.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156089]it covers the threat of oppression[/QUOTE] This is hopelessly vague.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43156108]But how would I be ensured that I would have food to practice medicine? I'm relying solely on the goodwill of strangers to feed me. In a capitalist society, I get a job to contribute to society in order to receive money, which then I can use to pay for whatever food I want, whenever I want. Leaving me with time not spent growing food spent practicing medicine instead.[/QUOTE] a community shouldn't be made up of strangers

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43156115]a community shouldn't be made up of strangers[/QUOTE] Missing the point. How would I be guaranteed to be fed so that I don't have to spend time growing food?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43156113]This is hopelessly vague.[/QUOTE] i don't know what more you want me to say? if an army from somewhere else is coming to kill you, then yes, form a militia or whatever to fight them off, if people from within revolt then fight them [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] there's nothing wrong with political dissent from within so long as it isn't going to lead to subjugation [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43156122]Missing the point. How would I be guaranteed to be fed so that I don't have to spend time growing food?[/QUOTE] maybe people in the community go 'well, such & such is trying darn hard to learn his medicines so he can medicine up the rest of us if we get sick, i guess we'll hook him up with some more food even if he isn't going to be able to work as much, then once he's done his learning maybe he can work in the farm a little bit more so someone else can learn something different' i don't know, something like that? the idea of letting someone starve seems pretty bad to me so i just don't imagine that would happen