 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Ramo - quote:
On the one hand, the lack of private authority means that there are no groups that can effectively co-opt the state. In capitalist societies, you consistently see either the rich using the state to break strikes, fund corporate subsidies, etc. or the poor using the state to seek redress through welfare, etc. Wealth disparity has always lead to the growth of the state. |
When a corporation is subsidised, it ceases operating in a capitalist system since capitalism operates through a level playing field - the marketplace - where people are free to exchange goods and labor. Subsidies are a form of favoritism... As for breaking strikes, depends on what "breaking" means. If I employ people and they walk off the job to seek redress, they have that right and we can discuss the grievance. But if I hire other people, am I breaking the strike? If the strikers try to inhibit my operation through violence or blocking entrances, etc., and the state uses force to free me from their tactics, that's an enforcement of capitalism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Berz, I don't define capitalism as a free market. Rather, I'm using a definition of the lack of worker worker ownership of the means of production to specify capitalism. Specifically, I associate wealth disparity with capitalism. The point I'm making is that the lack of socialism implies that a strong state will emerge. And no, I don't consider hiring replacement workers as using the state to break strikes. Regarding state force with respect to worker "violence," it would depend entirely upon the situation.
quote:
Anarchy and anarchists are perhaps my greatest pet peeves!
I cannot stand it. A society of anarchy could never work in a progressive state. It would be nothing more than a hunting and gathering society... there would be no great art, archetecture, or scientific advances. There would be no modern convenieces, or leisure activities (ie grocery stores and internet forums)
Anarchy
May civilization forever rule our social endeavors! |
You clearly are ignorant about anarchist societies. There have been a number of modern one's. I again would recommend looking at Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War if you want to see a modern, industrialized anarchist society at work. I'd also recommend looking at their huge progress with respect to technological advancement, increases in literacy, etc.
Anarchism doesn't preclude civilization, although there are a few luddite anarchists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
You clearly are ignorant about anarchist societies. There have been a number of modern one's. I again would recommend looking at Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War if you want to see a modern, industrialized anarchist society at work. I'd also recommend looking at their huge progress with respect to technological advancement, increases in literacy, etc. |
any good links?
the only major modern 'anarchist' society i am familiar with is the Catalonian one, and IIRC, it was flattened by the fascists (It wasnt even a true anarchist society, because it had loose governing bodies of committees. It was more of a uber-democracy). yes, the fascists di have alot of help, but no matter. they were outnumbered quite a bit, IIRC.
also, you must remember that the entire populace in this anarchist society was galvanized towards a single effort (the war to overcome the fascists). If they would not have had a unifying force, it would have been no time at all before they would be at each others throats, as in that society any one could basically do and say what they wanted... that is very dangerous, and lawlessness is surely around the corner.
EDITED gramatical errors so it makes sense
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
the only modern 'anarchist' society i am familiar with is the Catalonian one, and IIRC, it was flattened by the fascists (It wasnt even a true anarchist society, because it had loose governing bodies of committees. It was more of a uber-democracy). yes, the fascists di have alot of help, but no matter. they were outnumbered quite a bit, IIRC. |
It was crushed by the Soviet-controlled Stalinist central government in Madrid, not by the Nationalists. And yes, it was "true" anarchism by an reasonable definition. Anarchism is "uber-democracy." I consider it to be democracy in all spheres of life.
quote:
also, you must remember that the entire populace in this anarchist society was galvanized towards a single effort (the war to overcome the fascists. If they would have one, it would have been no time at all before they would be at each others throats, as in that society any one could basically do and say what they wanted... that is very dangerous, and lawlessness is surely around the corner. |
But it was the war that undermined their movement, not the lack of war. The war postponed the revolution in the rest of Spain in favor of maintaing the "Popular Front," the alliance between anarchists and the anti-Revolutionary Republican forces. And a whole lot was going on in Catalonia besides supporting the war. Why didn't all hell break loose then?
There's no reason to think Catalans would've been "at each others' throats" as soon as the fascists were beaten. There have been a large number of very stable anarchist societies. Hunter-gatherers, for instance. More recently, you have mid-Medieval Iceland. I'll have to call bullshit on your speculation.
You might want to check out "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell.
Last edited by Ramo on 28-03-2003 at 12:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blisterz
|
|
Yes I am.
To me, Anarchism isn't no laws, it’s a system where everyone has a say in deciding the laws. Take stop signs, we all agree that they make sense, so we keeps things like stop signs 'cause we ALL agree that stop signs HELP everyone. On the other hand curfews, a lot of people disagree with curfews, so things like curfews would be dropped.
For the times that we cannot decide how or in what form a law should be implemented, we use formal consensus (those directly affected by the law take place in the consensus) as apposed to Democracy (which looks good on paper, but in reality turns out to be more about who can buy the most votes).
I don't really know how I feel about Anarchism on a 'National' (for lack of a better word) scale, I don't really think of it in those terms. To me Anarchism is something that works in Communities and has no Central core, like a city state system without the state.
The path to Implementing Anarchism is pretty simple as well.
Slowly bring laws down from a national level to a Municipal level, but instead of stopping there, just keep going. Inevitably you have Communities small enough to govern themselves through consensus.
I realise that I simplified it a lot, but you get the idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
Hi badman... All respect to you, but I think it's kinda risky to state that something lies in the nature of mankind. It might be true for some, and false for others... Some philosphers state that cooperation also lie in the nature of man. When it comes to organizing the society and caring for others, this might be true.
For the sake of competition, I can agree that competing for a girl is one of the fun things we guys do.  It's related to our nature of reproduction. There are always some guys who try too hard and fail. Competing very aggressivly can ruin things for oneself.
I would not compete in the manner of ape-like behaviour, like some young men do. Where they hiss and threathen to fight competitors and show their muscles and act very primitive. I can't understand that some girl can fall for this stupid trick. She must be really ape-like too. 
The rest of us probably find ourself participating in this competition in the terms of gentlemanship, using our skills in e.g. flirting, intellectual talk, guitar playing, singing or dancing. We can dress in nice clothes and show our self-secureness. And of course... Always entertainig the female in some way. I call this the bird-like behaviour, since that's how the birds attract the opposite sex.  Another variant is the crow-behaviour.
It's about collecting as many shining things you can get and offer the female some. Some still fall for that one, so expect a greedy partner if you do the crow.
And it's all competition... So tune your guitar, invest in oil, or read a book!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PeteH
|
|
quote:
I cannot stand it. A society of anarchy could never work in a progressive state. It would be nothing more than a hunting and gathering society... there would be no great art, archetecture, or scientific advances. There would be no modern convenieces, or leisure activities (ie grocery stores and internet forums) |
This statement sums up many of the myths of civilized people.
Why would there be no art/music/leisure in a hunter gatherer community? The free time in such a society makes even the most liberal country's vacation time look like a prison camp. While there is some variation by envoronment, in general it is no more than a couple hours a day to provide for your needs in a hunter gatherer tribe. The rest of the time is leisure, spent talking, singing, crafting, visiting neighbors etc. Why bother with a grocery store when the land around you provides all the food you could want? Why post on an internet forum when you have a group around you that is genuinely concerned with your well being and ideas to share with?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
|
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:27
|
|
Ok, I just tried to argue that 'human nature' could be seen in a more philosophical way, rather than in the evolutionary way.
e.g. Social-Darwinism, which is too narrowminded in IMHO.
The good samaritan example was just to illustrate that it can be natural for humans to care for other people, without having to profit each time. However, in a desperate situation like a war, those who is close to eachother would care for eachother.
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 01-04-2003 at 01:22
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2003 10:50
Darwins theory fit well on reproduction and most businesslike behaviour, but it cannot answer everything. So I think this is a philosophical question rather than an evolutionary one...
|