It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anarchist Theory

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
A well-written (IMO) paper on anarchist theory, origins of anarchism, etc.

www.spunk.org...

Any criticisms? Agreements?




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
.
Isn't Anarchy and unregulated capitalism essentially equivalent?

Those that have power, wealth and influence use it with no restrictions [usually to aquire more power, wealth and influence].

Don't people in unpoliced societies always clamor for the first dictator that pops up?
Dictators and Gangsters are some of the purest forms of capitalism around.

I think REGULATED capitalism has its uses.

Anarchy where everyone is armed [power is reasonably distributed] as in the frontier days actually works reasonably well.

Semi anarchist societies where power is well distributed actually might be the optimal society. People wouldn't vote with ballots they would however vote with 'encouraging' people not to do unpopular things.

The 2nd amendment may be as or more important than the balloted voting system.

I tried to read your link [twice] but it timed out. maybe your could check it. thx.
.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Funny... I was just telling my friend earlier today that if the anarchists dreams were put into action (as far as rule goes), I'd be armed to the teeth.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Slank and ECK are right. Anarchy is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There is always rule so long as there is interaction. What some call "anarchy" I call "multi micro tyrany".
In John Locke's State of Nature there is supposedly absolute freedom, but also no protection. Thus every person is succeptible to the will of any minor tyrant whom he might encounter in any given situation.
In this light, anarchy may be seen as the most dictatorial of all governments. Rights that a despot will rarely claim, the many mini dictators of the anarchic world are quite likely to claim, up to and including rape and murder.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
but I've lost a lot of weight since then.


Reading slank's post made me wonder if Anarchy isn't pretty much what we have right now! just kidding.

I still think that anarchy is probably the most scathing critique of society I've ever seen. The problem is, while it informs a lot of my thoughts even today, it rarely provides workable solutions.

And yes, freedom and safety are at antipodes on the spectrum of public life. No two people ever agree on where to strike a healthy balance.

It is similar to my attitude toward finance. While I heartily approve of Free Enterprise, I dislike capital, since it tends to curtail enterprise over time. On the other hand, without a healthy capital base, you don' t have enough economic activity for ANY enterprise.

Anarchy is great, but I believe it tends to curtail its freedom as local warlords assert themselves, and evolve into city-states and finally nations. The problem is not the philosopher kings, it's the bandits.

Like I said, pretty much what we have now. . .




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
It all goes back to the social contract. Two people meet and agree not to bash each other over the head for their property or whatever it is they have of value. In civilized society, there HAS to be agreed upon rules and guidelines of behavior; otherwise, its every man for himself.

And that would not be pretty. 'Cos ya know what? There's always somebody bigger and badder coming down the line.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It all goes back to the social contract. . . .


While agreeing with your point, I'd just like to remind you/us that the "social contract" was never actually "signed." It was a hypothetical construct that Paine imagined as the basis of society. Every new generation of humans born in any society are actually unwilling participants in the status quo, or "social contract." Maybe after they grow up and get management jobs, they can aspire to leave a society of which they do not agree. Otherwise, you pretty much have to follow the rules, whether they are in your vested interest or not. The anarchist in me feels compelled to point out that being a social prisoner doesn't mean you have given tacit approval to the status quo.

Paine wanted to create a democracy, and felt that an imagined "social agreement" among the participants was the best way to guard every man's dignity. Paine, like the Supreme Court since the 19th century, has dispensed with "Natural Law," and argued for logical positivism. I guess that I'm arguing that logical positivism is simply another appeal to a final authority. Instead of "Nature's God" that is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the positivists are appealing to a fictional "founding" of government with the (imagined) explicit consent of the governed. This simply dethrones Reason, and supstitutes the "founding fathers" as the ultimate authority. But a legal fiction is a legal fiction.

I'm just reminding us all to be careful when we appeal to fictional social institutions.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Every new generation of humans born in any society are actually unwilling participants in the status quo, or "social contract." Maybe after they grow up and get management jobs, they can aspire to leave a society of which they do not agree. Otherwise, you pretty much have to follow the rules, whether they are in your vested interest or not. The anarchist in me feels compelled to point out that being a social prisoner doesn't mean you have given tacit approval to the status quo.


A certain degree of tyranny is a given, and is naturally present in the status quo. You judge it by its works relative to the alternative. We've actually got a really sweet deal here.
The tyranny is not as harsh as that of the micro-tyrants of the state of nature (who will kill you, screw your wife, take everything you have, and leave your children sitting in an empty house to starve to death).

Nor is it as harsh as more totalitarian forms of government (which will send you to prison for the rest of your natural life if you aren't slaving hard enough for the boss- if you can really call that a natural life).

The golden shackles of capitalist democracy, like any government, are inherently tyranical, but in nearly the most agreeable way imaginable. So you have to work. That's not a sacrifice- that would be part of life under any form of government- unless of course you planned to be a micro-tyrant in anarchy yourself and take from others.
So you can't transgress the law- nobody is allowed to do it against you either (ideally speaking).


Paine, like the Supreme Court since the 19th century, has dispensed with "Natural Law," and argued for logical positivism. I guess that I'm arguing that logical positivism is simply another appeal to a final authority.


OK, so it's fictional. And... I guess I'm missing something here. Doesn't the problem with this require an appeal to a fiction god who supposedly laid down rules for conduct? Is a lie that protects you from brute taking everything you have a good lie? I think so. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your argument if the enforcement of this admittedly fabricated social contract was holding you back from some better option. Tyranny is an inevitablity of human interaction. The goal of the "social contract" which was essentially just made up during the 18th century is to limit that inescapable evil to the least harmful of venues. Restricting unnecessary actions to preclude suffering other insufferable actions.

It's no shangri-la, but it's a heck of a lot better than an anarchic world where I can break into your house and have my way with you, cook you, and eat you (not even necessarily in that order if I'm a real sicko) just because I'm stronger. I mean hey, when somebody puts it to me that way, I don't know about you, but I suddenly find myself not cringing quite so much every time I have to slow down to obey the speed limit or pay the taxman or whatever other minor unpleasantries our made up social contract might entail.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
I tried to read your link [twice] but it timed out. maybe your could check it. thx.
.


Well, the link works for me, so idk what the deal is.
I could post the whole article I guess, but that'd be pretty huge. Would U2uing work?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Well, when thinking about every man for himself, social Darwinism would come into play. Although it sounds cold (and it is), it's the reality that there would be in an "anarchist" society. The weak and dumb would be killed and exploited, while the smart and powerful would thrive.

This would create a very competitive atmosphere and since only the strong and smart would survive, there would be pretty much only be these type of "super" people. Although animalistic, it would ensure humanity's survival (which might not be a good thing in itself).



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Anarchy is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There is always rule so long as there is interaction. What some call "anarchy" I call "multi micro tyrany".


True. Even going back to prehistoric periods, there was always a central tribal leader. It's kind of how we as humans socially function: the less dominant give way to the more dominant in order to recieve protection and peace.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by the_individualist]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_individualist
This would create a very competitive atmosphere and since only the strong and smart would survive, there would be pretty much only be these type of "super" people. Although animalistic, it would ensure humanity's survival (which might not be a good thing in itself).


I'm not sure that I agree. It seems to me that while the intelligent focused on creating and improving, morons incapable of caring for themselves would concentrate ond estroying and taking. Not unlike Morlocks really.

If brutes who can't provide for themselves are running around raiding farms or robbing people or whatever it is that stupid people do when there is no law, they're going to kill off the more useful half of humanity, and then they're going to fall into decay.

It's the strangest thing about mankind- we just might be the only species on this planet capable of looking at the big picture on more than just an instinctual level, and yet this seems to be our downfall, because the lack of instinct gives us a choice, and we have this tendency to choose poorly.

Reminds me of my drill instructors- when they wanted to call somebody an idiot they just said he was too smart for his own good.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Good point. We do need to take into consideration that every human is an individual, and that there will be "evil" stupid people and "evil" smart people at the same time, while the well intentioned people could be either smart or dumb.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Well, my ramblings about the fictionality of the social contract were not to say that it wasn't useful; merely that it was propping up another 'god' for the government to receive it's sanction from.

Personally, I think lies are always dangerous. Count me on the side of truth-at-all costs. It's a philosophical position, and sometimes an expensive one.

At it's bare minimum, social contract theory devolves into a "love it or leave it" mentality. But then, hey. So does EVERY form of hierarchy.

_____

Social Darwinism is a lot different (less true) than biological selection. See, humans always try to cheat. The guys who cannot throw rocks as far do something wicked like developing gunpowder, and presto! Suddenly it's not about physical strength. And the guys who have the good drugs or the hot girls in THEIR tribes end up controlling everything.

The cream rises, 'til it sours.

_____

I finally decided a long time ago (college) that any system can be corrupted by villains; any system can be a beacon of civilization, if it is run by well-meaning people. I guess that's why political theory seems less like an "answer" to me. Personal and group morality weighs heavier on my conduct as well as yours. The political system merely determines wether I have to call you "Comrade Kommisar," "Tribune," "Gauleiter," or "Senator."



So shall it be written; so shall it be done!




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Personally, I think lies are always dangerous. Count me on the side of truth-at-all costs. It's a philosophical position, and sometimes an expensive one.


Yes. My country, the United States of America has been exceptionally good to me in this life as I've known it. Considering the alternatives, I'd take our way of governance and economy any day of the week. All in all, its the best in the world.

Thanks to that fictional social contract.


[edit on 8/8/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Even if it is the best country in the world, that doesn't mean it's good. I personally believe that all the "good" things we have lead to other, different problems from other countries, so in the end, we've all got issues.

As far as my life in the U.S., yeah sure, I've been really fortunate in having food, clothing, shelter, etc., but I've had to put up with tons of social junk, consumerism, etc. my whole life.

[edit on 9-8-2005 by the_individualist]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

wonder if Anarchy isn't pretty much what we have right now!
freedom and safety... strike a healthy balance.

capital, it ()curtail enterprise,but without, (no) economic activity.

Anarchy ...is local warlords, ...and evolve into city-states and finally nations. The problem is not the philosopher kings, it's the bandits.

Like I said, pretty much what we have now. . .



Anarchy also allows citizens to amass instructions on how to retain their independence, singular identity, and retain their skepticism towards mass hynosis efforts. Anarchists believe that knowledge itself is sufficient to grant true autonomy.

I have found that most people think of "anarchy" as a period of "Bedlam" or "mayhem" and have fanciful visions of riots, rapes, lootings and atrocity. Needless to say, this is not what anarchists are seeking.
(well, not most of them on any given Sunday)

I agree with dr_strangecraft: Anarchy doesn't last in reality.

[edit on 8/18/2005 by Noumenon]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
well i think that if we moved from todays society to a true anarchy, it wouldnt last unless it was only a small group of people, that had agreed to live like that.

if you were in an anarchy, there really could be no forward progression, and the society would have to go back to a simple hunter-gatherer society, with maybe some simple farming.

this is the only way that the state of anarchy could happily exist, with all the participants realizing they were in an anarchy, and working to keep it that way.

any anarchy today is going to very quickly change into a despotism or oligarchy in no time, as someone will want to have the power, or the money.

in a modern anarchy no one would want to work, every one would just mostly steal and make deals, nothing new would get produced, unless some one was made to work, in which case the anarchy has dissolved.
if this didnt happen eventually all the goods would be used, and most would slowly satarve until there was onoly as many as the land could support it self.

with out any one to lead, the society annot develop much past a primitive farming comune.

as i said only a planned and isolated anarchy, relying on trade with a larger non-anarchistic society could stay at todays level of developmant



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
The only problem with Anarchy is that it itself is a system. True Anarchy, in the sense of the word, is temporary. Animals live in Anarchy but they still have social organizations, obviously they have no political hierarchy... that's a curse for only us creative animals.

Without a global disaster, nuclear war, or asteroid, we'd all have to agree to an anarchic way of life and when it comes down to a consensus that the majority would agree upon aren't we talking about democracy?

In an ideal free society everyone would exist in a state of Anarchy... though it would not have to be chaotic... it could be organized but again we have the paradox. And then again do you ever think we'll have a "free" society.

Just some fuel for the fire of thought.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I don't wish to be rude to anyone...but head out of the clouds.

Anarchy would result in one thing and one thing only.

Control.

You remove the Government, laws, agencies, etc and it works on a who has the most men and the most guns system until again we have a Government...so on and so fourth.

That's what people forget. Anarchy did exist and it then vanished. Why did it? Because it was open to abuse.

System shut down.
Reboot in a new form of Government...

Eventually the same will happen to Capitalism and so on and so fourth until we end with a form of Government which can work for us all.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join