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.

 

Anarchists Unite! Governments Failed! Are you Ready?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Thats the misconception about organized anarchy: it is NOT a band of lawless men ruling by force. it is localized, very localized, people who will enforce common laws with vigour. There will always be the need to isolate and house, or execute, criminals. There will still be jails, and trials..all tha keeps going on. It is local and speedy and efficient, no doubt. In many places no doubt it would be severe also.

Anarchists have to sleep at night like everyone else, and so there will be the need for peace officers for sure..REAL peace officers, who NEVER bust anyone for anything that is not directly bothering or impacting someone else negatively. Keeping the peace is as old as posting a watch around a camp: in large societies we must have large forces of peace keeprs. Under the new way, their roles would simply be well defined and no tolerance for deviating from the rules would be allowed.

No society can exist on the basis of whoever happens to have the momentary edge, getting the drop on someone, being the way to assume control. That cannot be. No, anarchists already have this figured out, and it is no doubt some localized method of arrest and trial and dealing with people who cause trouble in their area. Smaller and more defined areas can yeild more protection than any other means, for sure. neighborhood watch on steroids, with trials and punishments speedy and sure. rights would have to be protected as well, and that means attorneys or some form or advocacy, especially for the indigent.

So do not assume that an anarchistic society would be a lawless one; on the contrary, it no doubt would be very much controlled territory under close observation by all who live there and who have a vested interest in preservation of the community and themselves, along with an active response force of volunteers and elected officials who would do the actual arrests and holding and trials and such. There always has to be a system, and there will be.




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


A guy in the next County dams the river that is your only water supply. He refuses to remove the dam and your family will not have any water. Do you go to war with him and kill him? Remember there is no law and no Authorities.

A group of a dozen men come to your door and demand all your food and supplies. They are heavily armed and pointing guns at you and your family. They leave with everything you own and nobody else will help you. Who do you call? Do you just keep starting over every time someone decides to take everything from you?

As these things occur people will form groups to protect themselves. As arguments erupt these groups will have to choose leaders to stop the chaos. Now you are back where you started as you discover pure Communism (or Anarchy under your new definition of the word ) does not work because we are Human Beings.

Among us are motivated people, lazy people, evil people, dominating people, racist people, sexist people, perverted people and every other description you can name. Many people won't bother to do any work because they can just take what they need from weak people. In doing this they become the de facto Authorities through the use of fear and intimidation (just like the Taliban as someone else mentioned).

The next step after forming groups and leaders will be too establish a value system. For this to work there will have to be punishment for not adhering to this system. That means people will have to be given authority to enforce this system. To keep that fair there will need to be others with authority over them to make sure there is no abuse.

Are you starting to see where this is going?

There is a reason that Anarchy is a concept embraced almost exclusively by young inexperienced minds. After some life experience most realize that it is a concept not even worthy of discussion. It is also an idea put forth by older, less than honest people who desire to control a group of young people for some reason; or simply because they can control them.

There is nothing wrong with our current Republic in the US. We just need better leaders and the only way to exact real change is to get involved in the current System. Trying to fight it is utter foolishness. Learning to use the System is a sign of maturity and intelligence.

Those who use the System succeed and are productive and happy. Those who fight the system fail miserably and beg for money on the street corners as they hold up their signs that say "Will work for food" or fill our jails. Then there are those who are depressed or unhappy no matter what their circumstance. No System will ever satisfy them.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Thats the misconception about organized anarchy: it is NOT a band of lawless men ruling by force. it is localized, very localized, people who will enforce common laws with vigour. There will always be the need to isolate and house, or execute, criminals. There will still be jails, and trials..all tha keeps going on. It is local and speedy and efficient, no doubt. In many places no doubt it would be severe also.


That is not Anarchy. That is a Democratic System of Government without a Central Authority. Why use the word Anarchy, which means something else entirely? Communication is hard enough without people changing the definitions of words to fit their agenda. Thats the same thing Spin Doctors do on the News and in Government.


From Wikipedia which is as good as any -
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]


If something entirely different from Anarchy is being proposed; why give it a negative, unrelated name instead of a positive, descriptive name. Is it just because "Anarchy" sounds "Cool" to some people?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That is not Anarchy. That is a Democratic System of Government without a Central Authority.


You need to do some reading. You are just hung up on the statist dictionary definition of Anarchism. A definition written by those who are threatened by Anarchism. Do some reading and you'll see Anarchism has a long history and it's not what you are assuming.

I can't tell you how you would solve the situations you have described, that would be up to you and your community. No one said Anarchists could not defend themselves. Did you read Eyewitness's post?

Anarchists believe that most anti-social behaviour is a direct result of the system we live under and would change once people are truly free.

Anarchism and crime


"It would seem that the amount of destructiveness to be found in individuals is proportionate to the amount to which expansiveness of life is curtailed. By this we do not refer to individual frustrations of this or that instinctive desire but to the thwarting of the whole of life, the blockage of spontaneity of the growth and expression of man's sensuous, emotional, and intellectual capacities. Life has an inner dynamism of its own; it tends to grow, to be expressed, to be lived . . . the drive for life and the drive for destruction are not mutually interdependent factors but are in a reversed interdependence. The more the drive towards life is thwarted, the stronger is the drive towards destruction; the more life is realised, the less is the strength of destructiveness. Destructiveness is the outcome of unlived life. Those individual and social conditions that make for suppression of life produce the passion for destruction that forms, so to speak, the reservoir from which particular hostile tendencies -- either against others or against oneself -- are nourished" Eric Fromm The Fear of Freedom, p. 158



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


To communicate words have to have specific meanings. It seems to me whenever someone redefines words they are engaging in spin to hide something or confuse someone.

In your society who makes the decisions when their is no consensus? The fellow with the biggest gun? You? That was Castro's way of dealing with it and your proposition sounds very much like his early words. How do you propose to force those who don't agree with you to adopt this system that goes by the non-descriptive name of "Anarchist"? At gunpoint? If someone already owns property and this system of yours takes over will it also recognize peoples hard earned property or steal it for the supposed good of the people?

Take for example me? I don't care for your system because I believe it would fail and just create another Dictatorship before it is over. I prefer to live under a Democratic form of Government. Will you force me at gunpoint to give up my property, the Business that I slaved for 60 to 70 hours a week for over 22 years to build and give it to others who did not earn it? Who decides who does what jobs?

If you think people will just pitch in and do their share while they cooperate with one another you are living in a fantasy. If you think local Government can deal with issues like water, the environment, forests, natural resources and many others you are living in a fantasy world. Inevitably what happens in one community will effect other communities and there will be disputes.

Will your envisioned Government of Anarchists return to living off the land? If not how will these individually ruled communities produce modern products and distribute them without a system of exchange. Nobody is going to spend years developing products and all that goes with that and give it to you. Nobody is going to help build these products unless they get something in return.

If you do envision going back to basics and simple barter; you do realize billions will die? Don't you? How will you force this plot on the whole World?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think I'll escape from this thread by saying these things:

I understand what you are after and I applaud the concept.

I think you are being naive` if you believe people are capable of behaving in a way consistent with this type of system.

I think you are well meaning but don't understand that the system is not responsible for all evil and a percentage of us are born bad or evil.

I think you have been lulled into a false sense this will work by flowery speech by those who would desire to rule and control you.

Your ideas totally ignore the lazy and evil among us who will never submit to any system or authority and this form of self-rule can not deal with this.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think I'll escape from this thread by saying these things:

I understand what you are after and I applaud the concept.

I think you are being naive` if you believe people are capable of behaving in a way consistent with this type of system.

I think you are well meaning but don't understand that the system is not responsible for all evil and a percentage of us are born bad or evil.

I think you have been lulled into a false sense this will work by flowery speech by those who would desire to rule and control you.

Your ideas totally ignore the lazy and evil among us who will never submit to any system or authority and this form of self-rule can not deal with this.


1. Thanks for your opinion

2. I am in no way naive to think the way I do. In fact, you're being Naive by personally attacking me (which I thought moderators are supposed to take care of), now know all people are not mindless, this is a by product of years of television and thoughtless existence. Without that then these people would have increased mental capacity.

You do not give enough people credit to the point where a system like mine is hindered by thinkers such as yourself because these ideas are not allowed to grow or develop.

You must be affiliated with the Christian Church Dogma.

3. You believe people are born evil, that in itself is the problem if you're to dense to realize that.

4. Flowery speech? Showing your own ignorance is great. I don't need to type anything.

5. Those who would commit crimes are not taken care of without a system of punishment, that why people need to help develop theses ideas into something workable instead of trashing them with your obvious disregarding ignorance.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
To communicate words have to have specific meanings. It seems to me whenever someone redefines words they are engaging in spin to hide something or confuse someone.


Nobody has redefined the term Anarchism, again go read all about it before you jump to conclusions. The term Anarchy is as the dictionary says; no government. Anarchism does not mean chaos, it does not mean lawlessness, which is just assumptions based on conditioning. The version of Anarchism I am talking about is the classic Anarchism, socialism without government, that’s been around since the beginning. The state wants you to believe that we can not govern ourselves and cannot protect ourselves, from ourselves. A ruling elite that does nothing but exploit us for their own gain is not a necessity.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon is known as the ‘Father of Anarchism’, here is what he meant by Anarchism…


The public thinks anarchy means chaos or terrorism. But many people who claim to be anarchists are also confused as to its meaning. Some think anarchism is a doctrine espousing the right to do what ever you want. Others dream that one day a pure anarchist utopia, a kind of earthly Paradise of peace and freedom will come to be. Neither of these conceptions were Proudhon's. "Anarchy" did not mean a pure or absolute state of freedom, for pure anarchism was an ideal or myth.
[Anarchy] ... the ideal of human government... centuries will pass before that ideal is attained, but our law is to go in that direction, to grow unceasingly nearer to that end, and thus I would uphold the principle of federation.[2]
...it is unlikely that all traces of government or authority will disappear...[3]
Proudhon wanted people to minimalize the role of authority, as part of a process, that may or may not lead to anarchy. The end was not so important as the process itself.
By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties... The institutions of the police, preventative and repressive methods officialdom, taxation etc., are reduced to a minimum... monarchy and intensive centralization disappear, to be replaced by federal institutions and a pattern of life based upon the commune.[4] NB. "Commune" means municipality.


Source



In your society who makes the decisions when their is no consensus? The fellow with the biggest gun? You?


Again I can’t tell you how your community wishes to operate, but again to think that Anarchism means no order, or no control, you are wrong. What happens now is all decisions that effect our lives (war, inflation, unemployment, poverty etc..) are out of our control. Who takes care of that stuff now? An elite group of people who are so far removed from your life’s reality that they cannot even begin to know what you or your community wants or needs. Again refer to Proudhon, Anarchism does not mean a complete lack of authority, it’s just the authority will be controlled horizontally instead of from the top down. It is real democracy, not the illusion we have now.


Take for example me? I don't care for your system...I prefer to live under a Democratic form of Government. Will you force me at gunpoint to give up my property?... Who decides who does what jobs?


If you and your community want to create a centralized government system then you would be free to do that, as long as it only effects those that voluntarily choose to participate. No one would take anything from you, but if you want to survive you have to do your part to help your community to prosper and live as it wishes to. If your business includes exploiting workers then nobody would work for you. Businesses would become cooperative, so all who work benefit equally from the benefit of the business.

If you think you are living under a democratic government now you really don’t know what democracy really is. The only difference between the USA and Cuba is you get a change of dictator every 4-8 years.

Who decides who does what job now, the government? Did the government tell you what job to choose? As a community, if it was organized along Anarchist principles, then the community, and you as part of that community, would know what jobs need doing and would organize to accomplish the task. Many people would be freed from the shackles of the 40 hour week because many jobs would be unnecessary without capitalism. So the 40 hour week could become a 4 hour week to do whatever share of the community needs you choose to participate in. The rest of the time would be yours to pursue your own desires.


Inevitably what happens in one community will effect other communities and there will be disputes.


Of course there will be disputes; no one is naïve to think there wouldn’t be. But again disputes would be taken care of by consensus of the community. You have to realize everyone in the community would be involved in its organization, and the community will decide for itself how to organize, not some elite group far removed from your world.


...how will these individually ruled communities produce modern products and distribute them without a system of exchange...Nobody is going to help build these products unless they get something in return.


What people will get in return is a world without war or poverty. Many products that get developed now are motivated by making personal gains. In a system where we produce products that help our community your gain comes from personally sharing in that community that you help build. If you have the talent to produce something that would benefit your community, and thus yourself, wouldn’t you be motivated to improve your community?


If you do envision going back to basics and simple barter; you do realize billions will die? Don't you? How will you force this plot on the whole World?


Plot? Force it on the whole world? No mate the system we have now forces itself on the whole world. Anarchism is completely voluntary and anti-coercion. We would still have a form of exchange; we just wouldn’t have capital and the collecting of it for personal gain. Everything is done for the good of the community as a whole.

Again I suggest some deep reading, if you wish to debate something you should at least know what it’s all about. It’s too complex to do it on a forum like this. It takes some people years to grasp it.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I think you are well meaning but don't understand that the system is not responsible for all evil and a percentage of us are born bad or evil.


It's got nothing to do with meaning well, it has to do with Human nature...


What is human nature? Are we basically good, evil, or a little of both? Philosophers have debated this throughout the ages, but today science delivers some definitive news. Humans are naturally altruistic.

In Germany at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, a window has been opened into human behavior. Experiments involving prelinguistic and just post-linguistic children as young as 18 months showed the toddlers to be freely and voluntarily helpful in situations where the experimenter feigned a need for help.


Source

Sry mate but the world is full of misconceptions, perpetuated by the state to justify their existence. It is the society we grow up in that causes people to practice anti-social behaviour (crime) (As well as the crap they put in our food etc... but that another story)


Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]


Source



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SolarAnarchist
 


I had no intention of a "personal attack". I could have chosen my words better and for that I'll apologize.

I do understand more than you realize. This is in fact proposing a pure Democracy which like the idea of a pure Communist society is great on paper and as a concept. The problem with these concepts and Philosophy in general is the Human Factor is seldom considered.

Everyone sharing the load and getting an equal piece of the pie is a laudable idea; if only everyone were to share the same motivation. They do not and therein lies the horns of this dilemma. A large part of society will never do their share and will always be parasitic in nature. Perhaps a few centuries down the road we will evolve beyond that. But for now?

I love this Country I live in and the system which has made a good life possible for me. I sometimes hate our leaders, but they are transient thanks to this system and they soon fade away into obscurity; hopefully to replaced by someone better. Our standard of living is the highest its ever been, opportunity abounds and most households contain happy people enjoying the fruits. When I view the world around me; I find no place I'd rather be.

Young people will always be unhappy with the status quo and that pleases me too. It guarantees new ideas that will lead to a better Country in the future; even if the process is at times painful. It is better now than when I was young and it will better in the future than it is now. I honestly believe. If that makes me naive; then I prefer to be known that way. Positive change comes from positive people.

None of this blinds me to the fact that this is a dangerous world. Only a powerful system capable of defending itself can survive in it and offer a safe environment for its citizens. Unfortunately the people we need to protect us are often not the most savory people. Still without them we would be sitting ducks.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The point of anarchy is to be temorary like till a better form of gov is installed better for the ppl than the old gov which got overrided by the very anarchy.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join