Anarchist.....*YAWN*

[EastSideScotian]

While walking around my City Halifax, Girl friend by myside, we began to notice some tagging, the good old....A in a circle....You know the one the greesy kids would draw on their binders and on their desks durning Biolgy.

Then I noticed that they were also spraypainting links to thier web site.
http://www.infoshop.org/

I took a look at the site out of sheer interest in knowing other peoples views.....

I came to this conclusion, Anarchy is the stupidest shit I have ever heard of.

I invite you all to visit http://www.infoshop.org/ and have a good laugh. But please do tell me what you feel about Anarchy and the pack of simple minded followers that actully think it would work. Do you feel its liget and would work, if so why? if not why? and how do you feel about peole who are throwing it all away to live "out of the system" aka the guys who scrub your cars for tattoo money and beer.

 

[humanbeing]

What do you feel is most stupid about anarchy? Everything, or just certain things?

Granted, taking up a lifestyle of living out of dumpsters and catching rides on trains ought not appeal to everyone, it certainly doesn't appeal to all anarchists either.

I know a few anarchists, and simple minded followers are not the words I would use to describe them.

 

[feronia]

They've got heart look in their shop.

http://www.canadiancontent.net/en/jd/go?Url=http://www.infoshop.org/

 

[Cosmo]

But please do tell me what you feel about Anarchy and the pack of simple minded followers that actully think it would work. Do you feel its liget and would work, if so why? if not why? and how do you feel about peole who are throwing it all away to live "out of the system" aka the guys who scrub your cars for tattoo money and beer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're confusing anarchism with disenfranchised poverty. In my experience the street people I have met and spoken with don't have the luxury of sitting around reading books or websites on anarchy ... they're too busy trying cadge a buck for their next drink/drug/meal. *shrug* They don't seem to be deeply involved in the phil

Like socialism and communism, anarchy looks good on paper. The ideology is sound, but it falls down when put into practice. It doesn't take into account basic human nature and our predatory, consumer bent nature. The strong will always exploit the weak if there are no checks and balances in place.

Having said that, I am an anarchist at heart. I have little respect for social heirarchy. I see it as a thin veneer containing the true mamalian nature of human beings. Yes, we can be lifted above ourselves on an individual level, but nothing is more stupid or dangerous than a crowd of people. Google mob mentality if you don't believe me.

Our social order is, in my view, much like the movie "The Matrix". How we deal with it depends on which pill we take ... the one that allows us to maintain the illusion that life is good, orderly and controllable, or the other that shows the true nature of what lies beneath the facade -- anarchy. We like to think we are oh-so-civilized, but in truth we're just thinking meat. We're top of the food chain predators because we happen to have bigger brains. To see ourselves as more than that is hubris, imho.

I try to live by a common sense marriage of anarchist/civilized philosopy. I stay within the laws of society because they serve us well, but I value autonomy.

 

[athabaska]

Humans are products of evolution like all organisms. We have evolved for million of years as social animals not unlike dogs, etc. Anarchism is somewhat artificial to humans. Since 'whenever' we've built clan units, hierarchies and similar structures. No need to deny we are part of Nature or need to rise above it.

The issue becomes one more of our social nature in a world of technology and structures combining humans in units larger than clans. The reality is that 6 billion people aren't all going to go away or stop the process of organizing society in all types and manners that impact us all.

We can preach anarchism or libertarianism but it's not achievable and never was part of our nature as humans. We can just try and swing the pendulum towards more individualism and less structure. Nobody is going to agree if more government, military security, social programmes, etc. means more or less freedom of action for the individual.

 

[humanbeing]

Well, people have used reason to eventually find certain arrangements in society, like slavery and sexism and racism, to be this and that. Anarchists (and many classical liberals from back in the day) were arguing against forms of slavery, sexism, and racism long before people in the mainstream reasoned these things to be undesirable (yes, I am aware that they are still issues today, but at least they are issues, where before they were so ingrained in society they were not considered as such).

Given this, what is there to say that other things anarchists (at least, those who also count themselves as socialists) despise, such as so-called wage slavery, and other forms of hierarchy and oppression, will not eventually go the same way as slavery, sexism, and racism? Or what about things other libertarians (like those who do not consider themselves socialists) despise, such as relations between a coercive government and its citizens? These things might be questioned by more and more people in the future.

I know it sounds unreasonable to suggest this right now, but it would have been just as unreasonable to question sexism or racism back when they were deeply rooted features in most people's minds and in society. There is no reason to believe things cannot change until they hit a point that society can no longer tolerate their practice.
That said, I don't think such changes will take place in the near future, but who knows? What with technology exploding, among other things, the sky is the limit.

If we end up having cheaply built robots doing all the rote work in society, that is their benefits end up making it to all people, we might scoff at the old (current) relations of production and also the relations between government and citizen. Who knows? Sounds like anarchists/libertarians, both from the right and the left, might be more in tune with things than we care to admit.

 

[humanbeing]

That's actually a fairly interesting site that you've posted, eastsidescotian. thanx for the link

by the way, it just occurred to me that sexism and racism are still pretty deep rooted in society, but you folks know what I mean. these are things being questioned right now.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

The simple fact is that they arn't real Anarchists.

From the headline on their site, "Kill capitalism before it kills you."

Capitalism is one of the keys to anarchism. Without it anachism would never work. Not that I think it realistically would work anyways, but without capitalism anarchy wouldn't have a hope in hell.

 

[humanbeing]

Depends what you mean by anarchism, LRG.

If you mean more specifically "without government", then you could say whatever you like.

If you were to mean more generally "without hierarchy", then you would be incorrect.

 

[LittleRunningGag]

Not at all. True anarchy assumes that there is no social/political/economic control. Without free market capitalism anarchy simply becomes another form of control, and ceases to be anarchy.

 

[hermanntrude]

My boss is an anarchist. This means he refuses to tell me what to do, and never gets anything done himself. He drives me mad and makes the worst boss ive ever had.

he believes that everyone should be responsible for themselves and therefore no ruler(s) is/are needed. Think what the world would be like if some of your friends were allowed to be soleley responsible for themselves.

idiots

 

[Nuggler]

Be careful what you wish for.

I know of a couple of biker dudes who have some heavy ammunition stashed here and there who would love to see true anarchy. They wouldn't last long however; just chaff in the wind compared to the true evil bastards who now operate just within the law.

Laws and law enforcement are a definite requirement in any society, socialistic, capitalistic, you name it. We get pretty bogged sometimes with bureaucracy given its' propensity for self propagation, bafflegab, and its seeming love of stifling individual freedoms. Our system could definately use some streamlining, but anarchy would maybe take it a bit far............?

Just my .02

:idea:

 

[tamarin]

Anarchy is kids' stuff. The belief that government should not exist and that individuals will act in their best interest and this will help create a more effective world is horsesh*t of the highest order.

 

[BitWhys]

Anarchy doesn't get the roads built but it IS the extreme ideal of lack of authortarianism both Hayek and Trotsky (in theory) both strived for ideologically.

at least it makes the young'uns are good for a few kick ass thrash tunes.

 

[sha_zapple]

I think Brent Butt put it best when he said that a biker would be eating soup out of the skull of the 74lb kid wearing an Anarchy shirt.
“I wonder if he ever thought that decision through?” - Brent Butt

 

[Finder]

But please do tell me what you feel about Anarchy and the pack of simple minded followers that actully think it would work. Do you feel its liget and would work, if so why? if not why? and how do you feel about peole who are throwing it all away to live "out of the system" aka the guys who scrub your cars for tattoo money and beer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're confusing anarchism with disenfranchised poverty. In my experience the street people I have met and spoken with don't have the luxury of sitting around reading books or websites on anarchy ... they're too busy trying cadge a buck for their next drink/drug/meal. *shrug* They don't seem to be deeply involved in the phil

Like socialism and communism, anarchy looks good on paper. The ideology is sound, but it falls down when put into practice. It doesn't take into account basic human nature and our predatory, consumer bent nature. The strong will always exploit the weak if there are no checks and balances in place.

Having said that, I am an anarchist at heart. I have little respect for social heirarchy. I see it as a thin veneer containing the true mamalian nature of human beings. Yes, we can be lifted above ourselves on an individual level, but nothing is more stupid or dangerous than a crowd of people. Google mob mentality if you don't believe me.

Our social order is, in my view, much like the movie "The Matrix". How we deal with it depends on which pill we take ... the one that allows us to maintain the illusion that life is good, orderly and controllable, or the other that shows the true nature of what lies beneath the facade -- anarchy. We like to think we are oh-so-civilized, but in truth we're just thinking meat. We're top of the food chain predators because we happen to have bigger brains. To see ourselves as more than that is hubris, imho.

I try to live by a common sense marriage of anarchist/civilized philosopy. I stay within the laws of society because they serve us well, but I value autonomy.

:twisted: I agree... mostly


But you tend to pingeon hole Socialism with Communism and Anarachism, when socialism is in our daily lives and has been a working form for many past and present governments, in the western world and else were. Such as Canada, Sweden, Spain and so own either in the form of social democracy or socialism.

 

[humanbeing]

I personally don't disregard anarchism so easily -- that it would fail when practiced in a society, I am hardly the one to say. What I do know, is that lots of the ideas espoused by anarchists deserve serious thought.

Don't know how it can be simply shrugged off as "kids stuff"... Unless you are looking at some goons wearing leather jackets and sporting mohawks that are calling for anarchism whilst smashing in someone's headlights- in which case, I could totally understand where you are coming from.

Not at all. True anarchy assumes that there is no social/political/economic control. Without free market capitalism anarchy simply becomes another form of control, and ceases to be anarchy.

Please don't give me this and that about *true* anarchy and what is assumes. Obviously, there is more than one meaning to the word anarchism. Don't believe me? Then look it up in an encyclopedia or dictionary.

What I've said summed it up just fine. What is boils down to, is that there are traditions in anarchism of capitalism and socialism (with certain elements from both traditions placing individualism somewhere along their own lines). Then there is also the definition for chaos and disorder, of course.

It sounds to me like, what you are attempting to do is take a large tradition in what has been called anarchism (the group of traditions involving direct democracy, direct action, et cetera), and strip it of its name. Anyhow, there is no point in arguing over this, it is sure to lead nowhere.

Also, I have no idea why anarchism of any sort is considered the antithesis to civilization to people here. Has anyone here read much into the various traditions of anarchism?

Maybe you all have, and have thus come to your own conclusions. I'm not sure, which is why I wonder.

 

[hermanntrude]

monarchy=one person in charge (england in the middle ages for eg)
polyarchy=lots of people in charge (not sure of any examples... hard to work without a spokesperson which means u tend back toward monarchy)
oligarchy=a few people in charge, eg switzerland
anarchy=no one in charge

i like the idea of a bovinarchy