 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
 |
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
As for Anarchy! Kropotokin was just another derelict angry at the system. I would'nt take what he says to seroiusly. |
Yeah, like Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, John Locke and other revolutionary thinkers. Just derlicts angry at the system. 
quote:
The Reason Catalonia fell was pretty damn simple, they couldnt support the city and keep the way of life forever. |
Um, this is simply untrue. You apparently haven't studied the Spanish Revolution in much depth. First off, Catalonia is a region of Spain, not a city. There are cities in it, including Barcelona, which the Anarchists were quite capable of supporting. Second, the revolution was not limited to Catalonia. Aragon, Levant, and other areas also experienced Social Revolutions.
Catalonia wasn't taken until the Stalinists had already implemented a counter-revolution in Catalonia and elsewhere, thereby demoralising the population. It's fall to Fascists is evidence against Stalinism, not Anarchism. And the Stalinist counter-revolution came about as a result of (IMO) mistakes made by the Anarchists including allying with the Stalinists in the hope that they could form a united front against the Fascists.
Go to http://www.struggle.ws/spaindx.html and read about the revolution.
quote:
And in the end, outside influences put an end to the anarchy insurgence (as it would any other anarchy uprising). If all nations reverted to Anarchy today, gauruntee you that they would be snuffed out/conquered within two years. by the nation that didnt revert to such a system. |
Besides being wrong, at most all this proves is that the whole world would have to be in Anarchy for it to work & that a world revolution is needed. That doesn't show that Anarchy doesn't work.
Regardless, there are a number of ways an Anarchist society could defend itself from foreign aggressors:
Propaganda. Talk to the other side. See if you can talk them out of fighting. Try to get their soldiers to mutiny, their workers to strike, etc.
Civil Disobedience. Simply refuse to cooperate with the attackers. Utilize all the civil disobedience tactics that have been used in the Civil Rights movement and a number of other movements. If Ghandi could drive the British out of India with this tactic then it's at least theoretically possible for an Anarchist society to successfully use it against attackers.
Arm the population. An Armed population intent on defending its freedom is not easy to conquer. This is basically what was done during the Spanish Revolution. After crushing Franco's coup in most of Spain we organized militias who battled the Fascists and were rather successfull at it. Aragon was liberated and the Fascists kept out of Madrid & Catalonia. A condition of aid from the USSR, however, was that these militias be ended and a regular military built. By the time the Fascists won, the Stalinists were in charge and using a normal military.
Anarchists also used this strategy in Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. In 1918 the Ukrainian peasants revolted and implemented Anarchist, often Anarcho-Communist, ideas. They, however, faced attacks from numerous different groups. The Germans invaded, but Anarchist militias beat them. The Austrians invaded, but Anarchist militias beat them. Ukrainian Nationalists attempted to impose a new, independent, state on Ukraine, but Anarchist militias defeated them. General Denikin, a White (pro-capitalist Russian) general, invaded, but Anarchist militias beat him. General Wrangal, another White, faced the same fate. Were it not for the Anarchists battles against the Whites there's a good chance the Bolsheviks would have been defeated since Denikin came closest to victory of all the White generals. Unfortunetly, in 1921 they fell victim to Marxist Imperialism when the newly formed Bolshevik regime in Russia use their vastly superior resources to conquer Ukraine and impose their "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" on the population. That they were able to beat 5 out of 6 of their opponets, and with inferior equiptment often being outnumbered, shows that this is a viable strategy. It may not work all of the time, but no defense does.
As for being prosperous, the record also supports Anarchy on that. Numerous eyewitness accounts from the Spanish revolution indicate that, without parasitic capitalists & landlords, the collectives were much more efficient then under capitalism. Poverty was abolished, wages went up, more was produced with less effort.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
You've answered my question  Since Anarchy will never happen on a world level...it can never work. Hence, its not worth trying. |
You don't know it will never happen on a global scale. The modern world has an unprecedented level of interaction between different parts of the global; it's not hard to imagine dramatic changes sweeping the whole globe. And besides, I already pointed out that an Anarchist society could survive, prosper, and defend itself even if the rest of the world wasn't Anarchist. There is no reason why an Anarchist society wouldn't work even on a non-global system. Indeed, there are anarchist societies around today.
quote:
The world is fine the way it is. Who would want to change it that dramatically  |
According to the UN world food program 24,000 people starve to death every day. This is a direct result of capitalism. I don't consider that fine. There are a gazillion wars all over the place, I don't consider that fine. Global inequality has reached horrific proportions. The world is currently run by a tiny group of people who run things mainly in their own interests and dictate to the rest of us. No minority has the right to dictate to the majority. People have a right to control our own lives, and to have an equal say in group decisions involving us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Goingonit,
I've never read the story, but it sounds like a typical Hobbesian myth. Just 'cause some story says something will happen doesn't mean it will. People used to say the same thing would happen in a Democracy. Every time there's some new idea there's always naysayers who cry "it won't work" without even giving the idea a serious chance. They did it with democracy, they did it with the airplane, and many other things. Now we know they were wrong, but unfortunetly that hasn't taught the naysayers any lessons.
Anarchism (well, not my version of Anarchism) does not assume that "people will behave if there's no immediate reason to do so." Let us say that this claim is true, that people will not "behave." If so, then we can assume that rulers will also not behave (since they're human, too) and will abuse their power. Since they're rulers, they have a lot of power at their fingertips and will use that power to do lots of bad things (robbing people, rape, etc.) and the magnitude of those bad things will be worse because they're rulers with lots of power. Then we'd be worse of then with Anarchy. If people are too wicked to be free, then they're far too wicked to rule.
Also, one cannot impose Anarchy. It has to come from the bottom up. A group of gangs controlling the goings on is what a government is. The worst that would happen under Anarchy is that a government would emerge. The best that would happen under government is that we'd have Anarchy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joe R. Golowka
|
|
Earth, Sol System, Milky Way
Jul 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Look Fading Glory,
Just because you think Anarchy won't work, is a matter of your biased and ignorant opinion, not facts. If you look at history Anarchy does work, there are ample examples. That's a fact. Whether it is better then the status quo is an opinion, just as the view that it wouldn't be better then the status quo is also an opinion. But it's a fact that it _does_ work.
I do not think Anarchy will solve all the world's problems, but it will be better then the system we have now. And some of those problems are systemic and can only be fixed by abolishing hierarchy.
This sentence:
quote:
if you didnt like your boss, you and a couple of co-workers can swing by his house and Lynch him? |
Proves you are ignorant and don't know what your'e talking about. There wouldn't be any boses in Anarchy! The whole point of Anarchism is to abolish bosses! We seek the abolition of all hierarchical authority, including class society, the state, patriarchy and racism. That doesn't mean you do absolutely everything you feel like even if it hurts other people. It means everyone has control of their own lives and an equal say in decisions that involve them. Both Kabul and Somalia definately have hierarchies and thus are not an example of anarchy. Please go to http://www.anarchyfaq.org and send a few minutes learning what Anarchism is *really* about, not the strawman you apparently have in your head.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Anarchism (well, not my version of Anarchism) does not assume that "people will behave if there's no immediate reason to do so." Let us say that this claim is true, that people will not "behave." If so, then we can assume that rulers will also not behave (since they're human, too) and will abuse their power. Since they're rulers, they have a lot of power at their fingertips and will use that power to do lots of bad things (robbing people, rape, etc.) and the magnitude of those bad things will be worse because they're rulers with lots of power. Then we'd be worse of then with Anarchy. If people are too wicked to be free, then they're far too wicked to rule. |
But it's far harder to impose moderating influences on society as a whole. A group of people can depose a leader, but they can't depose me, because I don't have anything to be deposed from. This is why, although leaders may be as wicked as the rest of us as individuals, things like democracy make sure that they can't blatantly screw their people over, whereas if I mugged someone, I couldn't be "voted off the island" or something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cal
|
|
Hermosa Beach, California, USA
Aug 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
America is a republic. |
On the surface, maybe it looks that way. But in America, there is far more emphasis on property rights than human rights. America has the largest poverty class population of all the industrialized countries, and three of the top five richest people in the world are Americans. It is easy for the rich to manipulate the government and use their position to maintain their status. Anyone can vote, campaign, and participate, sure, but what makes you effective? Money. Therefore, the people that have the most money have all the political power at their disposal.
America is indeed a plutocracy; it is ruled by the rich who are also the few.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
According to the UN world food program 24,000 people starve to death every day. This is a direct result of capitalism. I don't consider that fine. There are a gazillion wars all over the place, I don't consider that fine. Global inequality has reached horrific proportions. The world is currently run by a tiny group of people who run things mainly in their own interests and dictate to the rest of us. No minority has the right to dictate to the majority. People have a right to control our own lives, and to have an equal say in group decisions involving us. |
More propaganda Joe...Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with people starving in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact; I argue it is the lack of capitalism, which is the problem. If you want to blame Capitalism for 2/3 of the world being dirt poor...atleast mention that those 2/3 nations arent EVEN CAPITALIST! So already your arguement is discredited.
quote:
There wouldn't be any boses in Anarchy! The whole point of Anarchism is to abolish bosses! We seek the abolition of all hierarchical authority, including class society, the state, patriarchy and racism. |
Exactly you'de kill off all the Bosses, and who would gaurd's the banks? who would enforce the law? Who would keep someone from Stealing your TV? Since anarcy wants to do away with Law Enforcement....Unless you are presuming there NOT BE ANY Crime/Greed under Anarcy!!! Of course then, you have Somalia or Kabul!
quote:
But in America, there is far more emphasis on property rights than human rights. America has the largest poverty class population of all the industrialized countries, and three of the top five richest people in the world are Americans |
Wow thats ****in great!!! Like I care about Bill Gates! Have you heard of minding your own business? Or is it like just because somebody is rich that means HAD to of stole that money from some poverty stricken crackwhore!? This is completely false...and again, shows your uninformed bias.
quote:
Please go to http://www.anarchyfaq.org and send a few minutes learning what Anarchism is *really* about, not the strawman you apparently have in your head. |
Read it! Same old rhetoric!
Next!
quote:
You don't know it will never happen on a global scale. The modern world has an unprecedented level of interaction between different parts of the global; it's not hard to imagine dramatic changes sweeping the whole globe. |
Lets hope not!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2001 07:50
.
|