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.

 

Those Pesky Anarchists

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


We can also look at history as a guide to what Anarchy brings.

BTW there is no such thing as functional anarchy, that's an oxymoron.

Look at what happened after the Visigoths sacked Rome on Tuesday August 24th 410 AD. It was not a pleasant millennium.

It's an interesting documentary, I hope you watch it. This is what happens when society falls into Anarchy.

So here we are exactly 1600 years later to the day, (yesterday in fact) that the Roman Empire fell, talking about another group who wants the same thing. I wonder, will history repeat itself?

[edit on 8/25/2010 by whatukno]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
To touch on the Microsoft example, as far as I can remember, the company's monopolistic practices were the subject of nearly decade-long lawsuits, with many different plaintiffs, most notably Netscape, and of course the governments criminal anti-trust case.
The idea that the market "spoke" in the wild success of Microsoft is not entirely honest. For a long time, (and pretty much continuing to this day) if you buy a PC it will come loaded with windows. This has nothing to do with a consumer's "choice', but rather the back-door, strong-arm tactics of Microsoft itself.They also made sure these PCs came bundled with internet explorer as well. Most people don't have the skills, inclination, or even the motivation to procure a different operating system. I do agree that they had an innovative product, but instead of letting that product compete with other systems, they used their market leverage to stymie competition and monopolize the market. Apple finally caught up in terms of applicability of their system with the internet (as recently as four years ago, I couldn't play internet poker on a Mac) but the competition between the two is practically illusionary as Microsoft bought a TON of Apple stock in '97. I'd have to say using Microsoft as an example of the "free" market working, is sort of beyond irony.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Actually the dark-middle ages were one of the most prosperous periods of human history. Given the time period, there was relatively low poverty, low crime, and trade flourished.

People did not suddenly become prosperous again once the States of the middle ages came to power - they were already prosperous.

rushkoff.com...

Douglas Rushkoff writes a fantastic little article on this.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You might just be completely insane,

The dark ages were the most cruel inhumane periods of human history the world has ever known, there was no prosperity, there was terror and fear!

That is the world of Anarchy. A world where education declined to the point where people became superstitious and thought that there were witches and warlocks and wizards causing evils on the world. It was a terrible time in human history.

Murder, rape, famine, disease, half of the population of Europe died due to the Plague!

This was not a prosperous time in Europe.

Let me correct you a little bit, I was talking about the early dark ages, you know, when there were no central governments? The late dark ages you saw the rise of kingdoms, rulers who brought with them security and your prosperity, in the early dark ages, there was no security and peace.

410 AD certainly is not the mark of the late dark ages. Shesh oh Pete!

[edit on 8/25/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I don't think the dark ages could really be characterized as "anarchy." The Holy Roman Empire and the supremacy of the Church in all human affairs certainly would be considered a "state" by any reasonable definition. An empire, in fact. All kinds of kings and lords under that umbrella as well. A system of control, different than today's systems, but certainly not anarchy.

I'm with the OP on his general point. Anarchy would work in the modern world IMO. Things have to get worse and crumble before anything like that would happen. But I think it comes down to one's personal view of humanity. I'm pretty sure the comparison between state-sponsored terror and death, and that caused by "anarchists" is a valid point that nobody will take seriously, because regardless of the obvious disparity, people have been conditioned not to trust themselves, their neighbors, or humanity in general of behaving decently without a system of control. I believe that is the big lie that keeps the controllers in power.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by joechip]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


Yes, I understand that the time of Charlemagne was a resurgence in Humanity. However, I was talking about the time just after Alric sacked Rome and plunged western Europe into the dark ages to begin with, that certainly can be classified as Anarchy. What you people are thinking of is feudalistic rule, it wasn't Anarchy. But that only came about after several centuries of anarchy and nearly constant warfare.

I believe that if the same thing were to happen today, it would be far worse for humanity.

[edit on 8/25/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I'm not a historian by any means, but I do believe I'm correct in asserting that nearly constant warfare requires armies which are instruments of states, whether those states be rigidly defined land masses with set borders or large "tribes" such as the Franks, Vandals, or whatnot.

Nearly constant warfare was a constant throughout recorded history. Whether it be the expansion of empires, such as the Roman Empire, or constant turf battles after Rome fell, warfare is more a characteristic of social organization than of anarchy. The more rigid the organization, the more effective and decisive the warfare tends to be. Hence you have what may appear to be an"anarchic" period in European history. It's still not anarchy in the political sense of the term, which I believe is what the OP is getting at.

The "peace of Rome" was hardly peaceful for the yet to be conquered. Their wars of expansion were also endless. And really let's not forget the very, very bloody 20th century. Again, we have nation-states to thank for that. The identification with a given social organization and acceptance of one's place within it is a necessary part of any nations ability to make war. Anarchy and war are irreconcilable in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
I'm not a historian by any means, but I do believe I'm correct in asserting that nearly constant warfare requires armies which are instruments of states, whether those states be rigidly defined land masses with set borders or large "tribes" such as the Franks, Vandals, or whatnot.


But how do you prevent this from happening in an anarchy? Do you know of any example of anarchy where no groups formed that seeked power and/or wage war?

I think this is the whole problem of anarchy. It just doesn't work because there will always be people that group up and seek power. The average anarchist with his gun, is totally chance-less, and can choose to either obey, or die. Or just die if these groups feel like killing that day. Or of course form his own group so they can defend themselves. But then he is no longer an anarchist is he?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Exactly, this is why humanity civilized in the first place, why they banded together in tribes in the first place. It was for security, protection, and to work together, and when they did that, they came up with rules of conduct. Anarchists don't like that idea of being a part of the group, a part of the society, and having to deal with "the man's rules".

In my opinion, those people that have chosen to be anarchists, (and please, don't be offended by this, it's just an observation) seem to be people who have issues with their parents and/or are trust fund babies.

See, it seems that those that grow up under an oppressive household choose anarchy as a way to break away and rebel against an overbearing parent who had a lot of rules for their children to follow. This seems to be the pathology of the anarchist.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I had an anthropology professor who asserted that if you took all of human history an graphed it on a clock, civilization would be less than a minute and the rest of the 12 hours would represent the time we spent as hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherer society (as we know by studying the few remaining examples in existence today) is characterized by non-hierarchical, egalitarian social organization. Though there are always social rules, and norms, the advent of agriculture and the resulting necessity of "civilization," brought the concept of private property, kings, the priesthood, codified law, etc. If what we know now as normal is a mere blip in the time we have spent on the planet, then yes, I can claim that something akin to political "anarchy" is closer to our "natural" state than what we accept as normal today. That is not to say that we should go back to that exact way of living, (though my professor believed strongly that civilization was an aberration, and a mistake) however, there is no denying that many of the ills of the modern world are the result of what is an unnatural state of affairs, or at least a long and difficult adjustment period in our social evolution.

What would keep groups from seeking power and asserting their will you ask? I think perhaps a few technological advances that we appear to be on the cusp of would make such notions nonsensical. Also a paradigm shift in terms of our ability to live in balance with the earth. After all, the roots of the violence and thirst for power, in my view, lie not in the heart of man, but in his imbalance with regard to the resources available to him. The problem, as see it, is that the system we currently have encourages the status quo, as limited resources are a vital part of why the powerful have power; ie., we'd have had electric cars thirty years ago, were it not for the oil industry, and the power it has to stifle innovation. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, the examples are endless. For one thing the wars that have depleted humanity of even more resources (and human potential) have a profit motive in the age of the industrial military complex.

I disagreed with my professor's views at the time, but I have begun to see his point.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I'd like to point out that your labeling of a political viewpoint as a "pathology," is one of the oldest tricks in the book. No, I'm not offended, merely disappointed. My argument about "constant warfare" requiring armies, which are the instruments of "states" must have scored points you weren't willing to concede. And you think an armchair diagnosis of someone you haven't the foggiest clue about is somehow a rebuttal. FAIL.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


In the early part of the dark ages those "armies" consisted of peasants and people who were starving and had no alternative.

Most of the raids that occurred during the early part of the dark ages were done by people who either raided or died.

Today, the anarchist is a mentality, it's a pathology because there is no reason for it. These kids are either rebelling against their parents, are trust fund babies that are just bored, or have another untreated serious mental illness like schizophrenia.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by joechip
 


Today, the anarchist is a mentality, it's a pathology because there is no reason for it. These kids are either rebelling against their parents, are trust fund babies that are just bored, or have another untreated serious mental illness like schizophrenia.



You assert this. Perhaps you don't understand, or don't want to understand the "reason" for it. I believe the modern anarchist is giving voice to a basic human drive, the desire to live in a state of freedom. I also believe that this being our natural state for the overwhelming majority of our time on earth, the anarchist is in a way a throwback. The stresses of the modern world may indeed be too much for him, but in my view, he expresses this in a much more direct and honest way that the typical modes of coping. Modern man is, by and large, a neurotic, conflicted mess. And he doesn't usually know why, or even have the time to contemplate it. The anarchist, however, usually does understand the systems of control that have undermined his basic natural state. And he rebells. Often with no real hope of changing anything, but nonetheless his drive is expressed rather than subverted and sublimated as is the norm for the rest of the sheeple. That seems psychologically healthy to me. I mean, really, how many anarchists do you know personally, anyway? I doubt you know enough to reasonably assert anything at all about their mental health.

edit for grammar
edit to add:
Civilization was the direct result of the advent of agriculture, not the result of a desire for safety, etc. as you claim.
[edit on 26-8-2010 by joechip]

[edit on 26-8-2010 by joechip]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


We can also look at history as a guide to what Anarchy brings.

BTW there is no such thing as functional anarchy, that's an oxymoron.

Look at what happened after the Visigoths sacked Rome on Tuesday August 24th 410 AD. It was not a pleasant millennium.

It's an interesting documentary, I hope you watch it. This is what happens when society falls into Anarchy.

So here we are exactly 1600 years later to the day, (yesterday in fact) that the Roman Empire fell, talking about another group who wants the same thing. I wonder, will history repeat itself?

[edit on 8/25/2010 by whatukno]


I actually have seen this, somewhat recently too.


There is a such thing as functional anarchy... humans lived it for over 90% of our history. We live it every day when we act/interact without hierarchies/authorities. Anarchy is NOT necessarily the absence of order, in fact most Anarchists WANT order, but what Anarchy disposes of is hierarchy, top-down authority, and in most cases property ownership/money.

The Visigoths, as far as I know, were not Anarchists. They existed in a society and a time WELL after the rise of civilization and the conquest/colonization/conversion of most of Europe to hierarchical/agricultural/imperialistic societies. Visigoth society was not an Anarchist society. A better example would be the Spanish Revolution and to an extent the Spanish Commune...

en.wikipedia.org...

flag.blackened.net...

en.wikipedia.org...

anarchism.pageabode.com...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by joechip
 


In the early part of the dark ages those "armies" consisted of peasants and people who were starving and had no alternative.

Most of the raids that occurred during the early part of the dark ages were done by people who either raided or died.

Today, the anarchist is a mentality, it's a pathology because there is no reason for it. These kids are either rebelling against their parents, are trust fund babies that are just bored, or have another untreated serious mental illness like schizophrenia.



You wanna talk childish? That's a completely childish and baseless character judgement of Anarchists. Anarchists run the gamut of society, and many of the GREATEST MINDS in history were essentially Anarchists to some degree.

You're thinking of Anarchism in terms of a mohawked punk spraypainting walls in a city somewhere, flipping off yuppies, and causing trouble. And IMHO... I still think it's a rad sub-culture... but besides that, such a characterization is absolutely WRONG. Most Anarchists (especially modern ones) are not a bunch of rich, trouble-making punks (at least not any more than any other group is)... they're actually composed of some of the smartest people you'll meet.

If you know who Noam Chomsky is... you'll find that he's quite the opposite of your stereotype:




[edit on 27-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


The Pittsburgh G-20 Anarchists are a perfect example of what I am talking about. Most of those kids looked as if they belonged at a burning man event.




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I highly doubt you have much of an understanding of the G20 event, the Anarchists there, and their actions... so please quit the weak insults.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I'm pretty sure the G-20 Anarchists there had no clue what they were protesting either. From what I have read on Anarchists posting boards is that they were planning on smashing windows, setting dumpsters on fire and getting into a fight with cops then crying that their 1st Amendment rights had been violated when the cops reacted. Which by the way is absurd for an Anarchist to hide behind the 1st Amendment at all.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I'm pretty sure the G-20 Anarchists there had no clue what they were protesting either. From what I have read on Anarchists posting boards is that they were planning on smashing windows, setting dumpsters on fire and getting into a fight with cops then crying that their 1st Amendment rights had been violated when the cops reacted. Which by the way is absurd for an Anarchist to hide behind the 1st Amendment at all.



Had no clue what they were protesting? Try again. Anarchists are probably the most educated on the institutions/policies/forces they're protesting.

Smashing windows, setting dumpsters on fire (or using them for barricades), and confronting police are just a part of the totality of the protest. And it is arguable that such tactics are legitimate, directed at the PROPER targets, and even effective. Even if they're ineffective... then so what? Sh*t happens, at least these institutions know they will face resistance, no matter how small or large. It's about sending a message... and fine, if you don't agree with their methods, not much I feel like saying ATM (as I've said it many times before), many people (even on the far left) disagree with their methods (which really aren't anywhere near severe), but every option should be on the table; there's a long long history of this kind of resistance in the streets, there is also an international precedent for it both within and outside of Anarchist activism.

While you think you may have "nailed 'em" by saying they shouldn't "cry" about their 1st Amendment rights... you fail to realize that WE DON'T LIVE IN A VACUUM and the police are supposed to follow their own laws. Part of the law/constitution is a BILL OF RIGHTS which the police/courts are expected to follow/uphold. It's ABSOLUTELY intelligent and unquestionable that Anarchists would utilize their constitutional rights and fight the police at their own game. The law/legal system is rigid, pervasive, and largely unavoidable. It's not as if activists can simply step outside of it whenever they please, they still function within society and with certain aims, and simply tolerating abuse of rights because they're Anarchists makes absolutely no sense. To add more- Anarchists are demanding MORE rights than our current system allows for... so why wouldn't they AT LEAST demand what constrained rights they have?? It's not out of step with their beliefs... it's simply called dealing with the current reality while working towards a better one, which is the ENTIRE NATURE of such protest/resistance.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Looks like you buy the lie. Have you never heard of government agent provocateurs? Here's a little info on what really went down.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Open your mind a little.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join