It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by StandAloneComplex
Im not sure if this is a good place for this, but I am not an anarchist nor do I think anarchy would work as a system of government...
"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. Chomsky
"If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves." Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158 Chomsky
"It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege to kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity." God and the State, p. 31 Bakunin
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whate'er it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton. Percy Shelley
"Anarchism consists in things of utility and beauty, in things which help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in . . . [Our] goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual . . . Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom," in other words "social equality." Red Emma Speaks, pp. 67-8 Emma Goldman
Originally posted by zysin5
Thank you Anok for that well written rebuttal:up...
"To make a revolution it is not enough that there should be [popular] risings . It is necessary that after the risings there should be something new in the institutions [that make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be elaborated and established." Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 200
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intent of arriving in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid broadside, thorougly used up, worn out, and loudly proclaim 'Wow, what a ride!'"
Originally posted by Forest Lion
Anok put it this way, liberty, equality and solidarity are they key objects for us to live, for us to survive...
Anarchists reject the narrow concept of life which consist[s] in thinking that profits are the only leading motive of human society. Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 25
”Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator..." Boston Globe, Monday 19 January 1987. Kohn notes that "a related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task... the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake... typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
Some students then were given a list of extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers, making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
"The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards, Amabile says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. 'The more complex the activity, the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward, she said.
The study, showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to communicate ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in the end than those who were not rewarded.
…they also challenge the behaviourist assumption that any activity is more likely to occur if it is rewarded... Amabile concludes that her research "definitely refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly conditioned...
Firstly, it has a negative effect on productivity and excellence. This is due to increased anxiety, inefficiency (as compared to co-operative sharing of resources and knowledge), and the undermining of inner motivation. Competition shifts the focus to victory over others, and away from intrinsic motivators such as curiosity, interest, excellence, and social interaction. Studies show that co-operative behaviour, by contrast, consistently predicts good performance--a finding which holds true under a wide range of subject variables. Interestingly, the positive benefits of co-operation become more significant as tasks become more complex, or where greater creativity and problem-solving ability is required (as indicated above).
Secondly, competition lowers self-esteem and hampers the development of sound, self-directed individuals. A strong sense of self is difficult to attain when self-evaluation is dependent on seeing how we measure up to others. On the other hand, those whose identity is formed in relation to how they contribute to group efforts generally possess greater self-confidence and higher self-esteem.
Finally, competition undermines human relationships. Humans are social beings; we best express our humanness in interaction with others. By creating winners and losers, competition is destructive to human unity and prevents close social feeling.
"Another criticism of anarchism is that it has a narrow view of politics: that it sees the state as the fount of all evil, ignoring other aspects of social and economic life. This is a misrepresentation of anarchism. It partly derives from the way anarchism has been defined [in dictionaries, for example], and partly because Marxist historians have tried to exclude anarchism from the broader socialist movement. But when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." ["Anthropology and Anarchism,"…Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed no. 45, p. 40
"anarchism does derive from liberalism and socialism both historically and ideologically . . . In a sense, anarchists always remain liberals and socialists, and whenever they reject what is good in either they betray anarchism itself . . . We are liberals but more so, and socialists but more so."…Nicholas Walter, Reinventing Anarchy, p. 44
Historically Anarchism has been a movement of the working classes in their struggle against the capitalist bosses. It came out of left socialist thought.
'Anarcho'-capitalism has no ties with the traditions of true Anarchism, which has always been a socialist movement opposed to government and exploitation.
No offense mate but I see 'anarcho'-capitalism as an oxymoron. Only in America would there be such a thing...