An Objection To Anarchism

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Chomsky notes in his pithy "government in the future" that all anarchists are socialists. Anarchy implies the eradication of the state, leaving only "industrialized organizations" in their place.

This all sounds nice and neat, and I know to many of you, this sounds downright utopian. But what does that mean, in practice? How would such an industrialized organization work? First, there's the issue of interests. Do we all have the same interests? Do we all agree on the same ends? or the same means? Since this is an inevitable stumbling block, whose ends and means will take priority? Within the framework of the "industrialized organization", there will be representatives, or, if you will, demagogues. Since becoming a representative requires election, the old rule that democracy serves the interests of demagogues is bound to come into play. So, these demagogues - people with deep interests, ideologies, whose interests will they advance? Lets say a particular workers union is made up of 40% conservatives and 60% liberals. Logically, only the interests of the majority can be advanced; and since this is a socialized system where only one end can be concentrated upon, a significant segment of the population is bound to feel themselves disenfranchised and unrepresented by the "industrialized organization". Anarchy becomes totalitarianism by another name.

In the Libertarian Socialist portal at wikipedia, many concepts are enumerated in the concept section. One idea - consistent with the metaphysical anarchist idea of critical pedagogy - is free love, which calls for the elimination of marriage, and a free association unhinged by relational commitment. Another is called 'queer theory', which lauds the merits of moral eccentricity. Clearly then, the designs of anarchism are by no means libertarian (that is, seeks to defend the interests of individual), but rather, is philosophically gnostic, interested more in changing the individual into an "anarchist" than in leaving an individual to choose for him or herself what he or she believes. Classical libertarianism, works only within a capitalist system, since the notion of private property and competition is the prerogative of individuals. So long as a private enterprise exists, people of all types can pursue their individual interests, and feel safe that neither a state nor the tyranny of the majority will interfere. Replace capitalism with socialism, and you replace the individual with the community. While capitalism leaves people truly free to pursue their own ends, socialism creates innumerable barriers to personal freedoms by erecting institutional frameworks that work along purely "democratic" lines. In this sense, the aims of the majority supplant those of smaller social groups. And since interests almost never converge, those at the top will seek to eliminate those at the bottom in order to create their more "perfect" utopian society.

A more fundamental problem with anarchism/socialism is the presupposition that the community is more primary than the individual. Realistically, in our everyday experience, we encounter and interact with individuals; we ourselves are individuals. The "community", although a useful concept, and real in that it is an aggregation of individuals, is still inherently abstract. It is vertical in that the individual derives meaning from some abstract notion called the community - which exists only in thought, and not from his own essential self. Conversely, seeing the individual as primary suits the American concept of E Plurabus Unum - out of many, one. First, the many, the individuals (many), than the community (one). This is a horizontal construct where individuals as individuals come together to make up a community. Whats most important is the individual and his right to believe what he or she feels compelled to


Another objection, besides the infeasibility of the economics and the infringement by the community on personal or smaller group beliefs, is the sheer atavistic inanity of Anarchic goals. Frederich Hayek has this to say:


One revealing mark of how poorly the ordering principle of the market is understood is the common notion that "cooperation is better than competition".Cooperation, like solidarity, presupposed a large measure of agreement on ends as well as methods employed in their particular pursuit. It makes sense in a small group where members share particular habits, knowledge and belief about possibilities. It makes hardly any sense when the problem is to adapt to unknown circumstances; yet it is the adaptation to the unknown which the coordination of efforts in the extended order rests. Competition is a procedure of discovery, a procedure involved in all evolution, that led man unwittingly to respond to novel situations; and through further competition, not through agreement, we gradually increase our efficiency.


Competition is a basic property of the Human experience. The Hebrews ingeniously recognized this in the tale of Cain and Abel. Adam and Eve, ejected from Eden (paradise, or Utopia), have two children who act out this process in Cains murder of Abel; it was from Cains own trials - his being condemned to a life of wandering - that civilization was born.

Stress is the salt of life. Without stress, without sufficient challenges, human beings becomes either lazy or aggressive.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Which is what we are beginning to see right now.

The more governments take over for people, making their decisions, paying their bills etc., the more lazy and violent society seems to be getting.

Nice thread.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 





The more governments take over for people, making their decisions, paying their bills etc., the more lazy and violent society seems to be getting.


The violent crime rate keeps falling though......
And people have to work harder due to stagnating wages and inflation....



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
"Anarchism" is a pretty broad term. It sounds like your objections are directed at the syndicalist school of anarchist thought. There are many others that presume the primacy of individual freedom, and still others that dismiss markets, industrialism, "labor" as we know it, and money altogether. For instance, some anarcho-primitivists argue that agriculture is the root cause of all of our problems and that humanity will inevitably have to revert (if you will) to its hunter-gatherer nature in order to survive.

At that point, the terms "socialist" and "capitalist" are irrelevant, yet they are still anarchists because they oppose hierarchical power structures--which includes the state. When I read the thread title, I was assuming a critique of the general philosophy of a stateless society. The thread addresses a specific ideology regarding the organization of a stateless society that is not representative of many others that would also be considered anarchist.

It's a pretty big tent. It necessarily has to be.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


The problem is you're looking at Anarchism as if the economy, and society, would be the same as it is under capitalism. There wouldn't be liberals and conservatives anymore, there would be no reason to divide people.

A little history; anarchists were socialists who apposed the political path of Marxist socialism and the statist socialism of Louis Blanc, who coined the term capitalism, Robert Owen etc.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

These people were as, or more, important to the socialist movement than Marx. Most people chose Marxist socialism over anarchist socialism, because the later takes more personal responsibility.

The present capitalist state system perpetuates the division of people, from racism to the ridiculous black and white divisions of politics.

To understand Anarchism you have to understand why capitalism is bad for us. And yes Anarchists are, or at least were, more concerned with the problems of capitalism than government, because they know/knew the government we have is a result of the economic system we have. The present governmental system is simply set up to protect privilege and capitalism. Adam Smith pointed this out...

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” ― Adam Smith

So anarchists wanted a socialist economy, where workers owned the means of production in common, no one would be denied the ability to provide for themselves, or their community. But no anarchist will provide a blueprint for how the future under anarchism would look, because it's not up to any one person but all of us together. You can not, how ever much you try, get away from the fact that Humans are social creatures and all this pseudo "individualism" is causing many social problems as people become more alienated from each other.

Even individualism implies socialism, and doesn't mean you isolate yourself from the rest of society and act like you can ignore it and simply exploit it.


Here we present a short summary of why individualist anarchism implies socialism and not capitalism. While it is true that people like Tucker and Warren placed "property" at the heart of their vision of anarchy, this does not make them supporters of capitalism. Unlike capitalists, the individualist anarchists identified "property" with simple "possession," or "occupancy and use" and considered profit, rent and interest as exploitation. Indeed, Tucker explicitly stated that "all property rests on a labour title, and no other property do I favour." [Instead of a Book, p. 400] Because of this and their explicit opposition to usury (profits, rent and interest) and capitalist property, they could and did consider themselves as part of the wider socialist movement, the libertarian wing as opposed to the statist Marxist wing....


G.2 Why does individualist anarchism imply socialism?

The biggest confusion about socialism is thinking you can't own anything, which is nonsense. When socialists talk about property they mean 'economic' property, not your personal property. Under socialism your personal property is safer than under capitalism. The property anarchists/socialists are apposed to is property used to hire wage labour, rental property, anything used to exploit people for profit.

You may say a person has the right to do what they want with their property, well I would agree they do, and under anarchism/socialism they would. But no one has the right to coerce someone to work for them for profit, because they have no other choice. Under capitalism the non-property owner has no choice but to work for someone else.
Under anarchism/socialism the workers would have access to the means to produce, and would own all they produce. So you can try and hire people to work for you for a wage, but why would anyone do that when they don't have to? It is quite clear that capitalism is only freedom for economic property owners.


Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.

The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism...


Capitalism, socialism & personal property

edit on 1/21/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
To continue...

As far as how anarchists propose to implement socialism varies.

The Syndicalists for example want labour to be organised through worker ran unions.

There are anarchist who don't want organised labour at all, and think we should all be individuals working our own plot of land. Nice idea, but not really practical imo.

In reality I think a mix of the two would be best. Those that don't want to be part of a collective would be given a plot of land to work by themselves, and would be outside of the community, and couldn't benefit from it. This is what they did during the Spanish revolution. No free handouts for those who could work because there was no unemployment. When profit is not the goal the means to produce can be put into full production, or as much as is required to meet peoples needs. Most capitalist production is for stuff we really don't need, the desire artificially created, simply to make profit for a minority class of economic property owners.

edit on 1/21/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 


The main anarchist movement since it's begging though has been socialist/communist. Primitives are a very small anarchist movement, and not of the traditional anarchist labour movement.


The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held
in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995


The Anarchist movement got it's start in the industrial revolution, in France and Britain, when capitalism was still fairly new, and didn't have the government oversights we do now. No overtime pay, 14-18 hour work days 7 days a week. No vacations, sick pay, health care at all. Brutal conditions with no concern for worker safety.

Utopian socialism came first. The idea that workers should own their own plot of land to farm, and not have to pay rent to a land "owner". Utopian socialism was the first form of socialism, Robert Owen was one of the main authors of it, and it came before capitalism. This movement was pretty popular and a lot of communal villages were practicing this. The land owners saw this as a growing problem, so they had the 'inclosure laws' enacted. This gave the land owners the right to fence off their land, and deny it's use to the 'commoners'.

The commoners were slowly pushed off the land and into what became cities, and had no choice but to take "jobs" in the land owners factories and mills. This eventually lead to the industrial revolution as the land owners suddenly started making mass wealth from the 'surplus value" of wage labour. During the industrial revolution wages were extremely low, and profits extremely high. The surplus value being much larger than in today's labour.

That is what was eventually called capitalism, by the French socialist, Louis Blank. By the 1840's utopian socialism was dying out, and being replaced by scientific socialism focusing on the labour movement and industry.

Anarchism as a movement got it's start in 1840 with the publication of 'Property is Theft' by the French socialist, Proudhon. He was the first socialist to call himself an Anarchist. By property he was referring to economic property, not personal property, and how it's used to exploit.

Marxism didn't become known until 1848 when the Communist Manifesto was published. Marx didn't invent socialism. The Manifesto, even though credited to Engels and Marx, was the words of the Communist League from a meeting they had in London. Engels wrote the original rough draft, and Marx was commissioned by the League to complete it.

In the USA the surplus value was almost 100% from the use of slavery, instead of wage labour. This obviously meant the capitalist owners made larger profits, and could invest more. In those days profits were used more often for investment in future ventures than it is today. The stock market first started as a way for capitalists to make money to finance new ventures. Now people use it like a bookmakers.

edit on 1/21/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
We don't need money to motivate when we can explore our own imaginings without the restriction of money.

Money only motivates a minority, not the majority. The majority work in dead-end low paying jobs, and they are motivated to do as little as they can get away with.

edit on 1/21/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 





humanity will inevitably have to revert (if you will) to its hunter-gatherer nature in order to survive.


Are you for freaking real?

Frederich Hayek in "the fatal conceit" discusses how he believes humanity progressed from a state of innate response to moral understanding - which he believes occurs through a process analogous to natural selection. In this sense, what works for civilization was selected, what doesn't is rejected - all this of course occurs unconsciously and over many generations.

People who think we would be better off returning to a state of hunter-gathering need to go back on their medication. They have a seriously unhealthy and hysterical take on contemporary civilization.




The thread addresses a specific ideology regarding the organization of a stateless society that is not representative of many others that would also be considered anarchist.


I should have clarified that I meant to critique whats called "libertarian socialism".

Although I still think anarchism goes too far - again, I think it's the root illness of extreme ideologies, both anarchic and theocratic, which thinks things should be either/or. What about a mixture? Hayek concedes to the need of a state - just a small state. When you start talking about eliminating the state altogether simply because you hold as a philosophical bias that "hierarchy is bad", seems to me to be patently unscientific. You let your philosophy lead you into the purely unreasonable belief that man can shape the world to his liking. As if the world, or nature, has nothing to say about it.

Hayek has an interesting theory about the origin of morality. Morality derives not from reason or emotion (although of course it is reason which rejects or accepts on evidence) but from a place between reason and emotion, which he calls tradition. This I think reflects the inherent dichotomy in the human experience: we are subject to nature and the demands of our body and environment, but we possess free will. Viktor Frankl described this difference as determinism, as opposed to the much more cynical 'pan-determinism', which imagines man as being totally determined. For example: you are diagnosed with a terminal disease. This is an irreversible determined fact; BUT, we are free insofar as we can determine for ourselves how we choose to respond to the fact. This is a paradox of sorts.

In the same way, anarchists and socialists dislike the state or capitalism because it works from the principle of competition (which is a morally "ugly" idea) and personal gain; yet, ironically, capitalism is a positive sum system. Everyone in society benefits. This to me reflects the dichotomy between determinism and indeterminism, the absolute and particular, etc; Because capitalism is so natural, and the aims of individuals are so natural, it seems to me, that the prosperity created by capitalism is divinely ordained, or, to use a less religiously packed term, a spontaneous development which man has unconsciously selected.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





There wouldn't be liberals and conservatives anymore, there would be no reason to divide people.


Who are you to say there wouldn't be "conservatives or liberals". Are you unaware that along the political spectrum anarchists are liberals? That philosophically speaking, many of them hold beliefs, premises, suppositions and feelings towards life's questions that are fundamentally different from those arrived at by a conservative?

Your whole attitude is insanely superficial. People care more about their beliefs then economics; the entire notion that equality is more primary than liberty is based on the supposition that the community (abstract) is more fundamental than the individuals which make it up.

At least have the decency to acknowledge this. I have different values from you. It's alright. It's human that people should think differently. Whats inhuman and downright tyrannical is to pronounce that I should think as you think or that the way I think is simply the product of "authoritarianism" (another idiotic myth) and not my own reasoned musings on life's questions.
edit on 21-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Who are you to say there wouldn't be "conservatives or liberals". Are you unaware that along the political spectrum anarchists are liberals?


Anarchists are not liberals, in the modern sense of Liberalism. Anarchists are liberal, but not liberals. The modern liberals and conservatives are just two sides of the same coin, both are right-wing. Liberalism is not left-wing, and never has been, other than in the US where the pseudo-left is used to divide, and create the illusion of choice.

Liberalism, and liberal, do not necessarily mean the same thing in politics.

"Liberalism is not socialism and never will be" - Winston Churchill, 1908 as the Liberal Party member for Dundee

Winston was a conservative, a Tory, from the privileged class. He was a conservative party member during WWII.
That is why he said young people should be liberal, and as you get older you should be conservative, not exact quote, but liberal and conservative meant a different thing than it does now in the US. It was not two different sides. You could be a Tory, and be liberal or conservative. Socialism had a conservative, and liberal side, so did Anarchism.

Modern liberalism was a middle class idea, a way to maintain capitalism while providing for the poor. Capitalism with a social safety-net provided by the state. That's not socialism.

The reason Marx used the term communism instead of socialism is because of Liberals appropriating the term socialism for their ideas.


Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.


The Terms “Socialism” and “Communism”

edit on 1/22/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I know this post wasn't a response to me but I felt compelled to reply.


Who are you to say there wouldn't be "conservatives or liberals". Are you unaware that along the political spectrum anarchists are liberals? That philosophically speaking, many of them hold beliefs, premises, suppositions and feelings towards life's questions that are fundamentally different from those arrived at by a conservative?


There are mindsets associated with liberal and conservative, that is certain. I think if we look closer at this certainty we have to ask ourselves if it is cultural or natural. However Anarchists are definitely not Liberal. Words have fixed meanings and one shouldn't philosophically interpret (nor spread those interpretations) the meaning of a word to do so is obfuscation. It is like math... 1 is always 1 and can't be anything else.

Anarchy = Stateless Socialism
Liberalism = Social Progress through reform and law (the state)


the entire notion that equality is more primary than liberty is based on the supposition that the community (abstract) is more fundamental than the individuals which make it up.


You're not understanding the meaning of equality. This is why word meanings are important. Opponents of Socialism associate equality with imposing laws that state everyone has the same amount of money. Equality means equal, without a superior. In application it means that my 'home' or ability to sustain my life or my families lives are never dependent on the will or whim of another.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Anarchists are not liberals, in the modern sense of Liberalism. Anarchists are liberal, but not liberals.


So following your logic, both left and right - as understood in the normal political sense, are actually "right" because they support some form of a state. Does that at all change my original objection? My point was a philosophical one, that people are in their very essence, different from each other. Thus, thwe only realistic political system is one which accommodates the widest number of people.

Anarchists are at the very far left of the political spectrum. Why? Because they imagine (and imagine is a perfect term, because thieir assumptions don't square with reality) human beings are in their essence, good. Now, of course, we can be good, but our goodness is fickle. With our ability to be good is a much more natural tenency towards selfishness, greed, lust, laziness etc. Opposed to those believe in mans inborn perfection, are those who acknowledge that man without rules and laws invariably destroys things; notice: civilization only developed because of the presence of a God-based morality and society which acknowledged the rule of law. Take away law, the very foundation of civilization, and the edifice will surely crumble.

Furthermore, I disagree with you, as do millions of other people. You, like the Islamist wanting a theocracy, are bound to encounter innumerable individuals who refuse to accept your ideology. Conversely, pluralism, liberalism, and libertarian capitalism, embraces the widest possible number of people. Albeit, the disenfranchised and quixotic maintain a hope in an alternative system, but they are a very small minority which society can tolerate so long as they don't engage in violence.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Did you read the whole post?

Right wing traditionally was the side for authority, and maintaining the established system.

Left-wing was those that wanted some kind of government reform, the anti-statists.

The liberals are not anti-statist, or apposed to the establishment. Modern liberalism came from the middle classes. Anarchism came out of the working class socialists.

Using liberalism and conservative is a relatively modern way to divide people. Prior to WWII liberals and conservatives were not polar opposites.

Modern politics has completely eradicated the real left, and replaced it with liberalism which is imo just right of center.


American versus European use of the term "liberalism"

Main articles: Liberalism and Liberalism worldwide

Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1956), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."[23] In continental Europe, liberalism usually means what is sometimes called classical liberalism, a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economics, and more closely corresponds to the American definition of libertarianism—itself a term which in Europe is instead often applied to left-libertarianism. However this is not consistently the case, as with the: Liberal Democrats (United Kingdom) - especially the Beveridge Group faction, Liberal People's Party (Sweden), Danish Social Liberal Party, and the Democratic Movement (France), for example. Some nominally liberal parties (e.g. VVD in The Netherlands) are actually conservative right wing "law and order" parties[citation needed].


We are disusing a political system that came from Europe, and trying to use modern American definition of terms just doesn't work. We need to be using the same original definitions to have a discussion that isn't anything but confusing.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





There are mindsets associated with liberal and conservative, that is certain. I think if we look closer at this certainty we have to ask ourselves if it is cultural or natural. However Anarchists are definitely not Liberal. Words have fixed meanings and one shouldn't philosophically interpret (nor spread those interpretations) the meaning of a word to do so is obfuscation. It is like math... 1 is always 1 and can't be anything else.


Being conservative or liberal, in my opinion, is not substantially different being born left handed or right handed. Some people incline to one philosophical perspective, while other people incline to another one. The common denominator may be our genetics: we just feel differently about the world, and so, incline towards developing a certain perspective which conforms to our feelings.

Notice that civilizations which didn't put too much of a premium on morality - Muslim world, India and China - failed to reach the advanced level of civilization developed in the Judeo-Christian western realm. Now, of course, civilization took a large step forward once it adopted a more philosophically 'neutral' position, which required some loosening of our metaphysical positions. For example: both Orthodox Jews and Christians (protestants and catholics alike) looked at the world in symbolist terms; woman stayed home, not simply because they preferred to (which is true) but mainly because woman had become associated with the concept of inwardness, privacy, nurturing etc. Even if such a perspective had religious validity and worth, it hamstrung the growth of the sciences by seeing the world in strictly symbolic ways. In contrast, the scientific method is based on observation of a things basic properties; its mechanics, appearance, etc, in conforma with the rules of logic. Still, western civilization didn't quite 'give up' the symbolic vantage point; instead, a compromise was made between both perspectives, correlating with other dualisms like the division of church from state.

India, China, and Islam, have one basic common element: a philosophical preponderance on the Absolute. Islam went so far as to say that causality doesn't exist. In the Quran, this is symbolically expressed with the statement in Sura 5:64 "And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases;". Al Ghazali argued that what we see as cause and effect is really just the arbitrary will of Allah. Whereas Judaism argues that God is BOUND by the rules of His creation (see the Sodom and Gomorrah episode where Abraham challenges God to conform to the principle of Justice, as understood by human beings), Islam finds that idea offensive; God cannot be bound. To say that He HAS to act in a certain way is to delimit Him. Hence, science failed to develop in the Islamic world beyond a brief period between 900 CE and 1200 CE where Muslim philosophers and thinkers translated prominent Greek writers into Arabic. But since the late 12th century, the Asharite school of Islamic theology has predominated in the Sunni world, which many scholars believed led to the intellectual degradation of their civilization.

The west was primed both by Judaism (and Christianity) and Hellenistic philosophy to create a technological civilization, bound by the rules of morality, and the laws of nature. This occurred because of an emphasis on the natural world; "fact" was not in the ether; fact was something tangible, something found only in the world of objects, things and experience. For example: being kind, or being friendly to someone, is not necessary for an anarchist. In fact, to be told or impressed by someone that only one type of action is the right one, is revolting to them. But, experience shows that being kind and doing good lends to a happy life. Therefore, its the inherited wisdom of the ancients which impels upon thinking people to accept as moral fact that being good and kind is best.

But again, I accept that people are different. Just as Judaism developed organically in the levant, so too did Hinduism and Buddhism develop organically in Asia. Who am I to challenge Buddhists, Hindus or Atheists how they should live? While I definitely subscribe to a definite morality, one in which I think objective morality exists (in a situational sense), experience shows that pushing your way of thinking on others ineluctably leads to insurmountable conflict. Thus, the only rational political system is one which includes as many people, this being classical liberalism, as described in John Stewart Mill, and more recently by Ludwig Von Mises or Frederich Hayek. Also, since anarchism starts from an asinine assumption - that people are inherently good (even though that assumption ignores the fact that civilization was largely developed by people who subscribed to the essential importance of rules and law) you can see that it is an eastern influenced ethos (with a large dose of western naivete) which judges things by abstract ideas like "community", and " wish".

Ideals almost never become reality. There is always some compromise to be made with nature, with environment or our genetics. I'm not tall. I'm not happy about being 5'7. But, I try to make due with it. It's not so big a problem. This is an example of me reconciling my expectations and desires with irreversible facts. My attitude can help, but it can't free me from the basic conditions of the situation.
edit on 22-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Using liberalism and conservative is a relatively modern way to divide people. Prior to WWII liberals and conservatives were not polar opposites.


But a dichotomy still exists, no? If I'm a conservative who favors a small government, and your a liberal who favors the abrogation of government, we are at opposites ends of a political spectrum.

To complain about how contemporary political discourse replaced anarchists with statist liberals as the true left is still completely irrelevant to my point.

Do you not notice that you still resist acknowledging the differences between me and you? You're talking about something which clearly has importance to you: but its importance is contained by your truncated perspective. To acknowledge my problem with anarchism requires you to suspend your belief that anarchism is the "perfect" system. It requires you to acknowledge that philosophically, anarchism originates in the philosophically sanguine belief that man is inherently good. Thus, anarchism is predicated on a philosophical optimism about man. Hence, in order to accept anarchism, one must first accept the premise that man is inherently good. If one doesn't think man is good, or that man is more animal than angel, and hence, dangerous without the rule of law, then anarchism is logically unfeasible.

I am such a person. Is it reasonable or unreasonable to believe that everyone can be converted to your belief that man is inherently good? Given history, I think not.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


But your problems with anarchism are based on myths, and a misunderstanding of what anarchism is. Your OP starts with asking about the elimination of marriage, from a blog. To understand anarchism you have to read the original anarchists.

That is what I have been trying to explain to you.

I can not address you problems with anarchism, when they are not problems with anarchism. Only you think they are.


edit on 1/23/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
We don't have real capitalism right now and government is not obeying the Constitution. I think if liberties are made the prime focus we should be able to rid corruption and restore checks/balances.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logan13
We don't have real capitalism right now and government is not obeying the Constitution. I think if liberties are made the prime focus we should be able to rid corruption and restore checks/balances.


Yes we do.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. A term coined by the French left-wing socialist Louis Blanc.

There are no rules other than those imposed on it by governments.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





a blog


It appears you're incapable of speaking about anything other then politics, even though politics is a consequence, not a starting point, in terms of philosophy. One builds towards a political philosophy from a personal philosophy: ones personal philosophy thereby becomes "extended" into the political sphere. This is the natural progression. One who jumps onto a political philosophy without first considering questions of existence is rather shallow and dull if you ask me.

Until you decide to meet me on the personal level, this conversation probably isn't going to go anywhere, because my problems with anarchism originate in the philosophical assumptions which make it appear attractive to people.

To quote Frederich Hayek, yet again:


So,priding itself on having built its world as if it had designed it, and blaming itself for having not designed it better, humankind is now to set out to do just that. The aim of socialism is no less than to effect a complete redesigning of our traditional morality, law and language, and on this basis to stamp out the old order and the supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom and justice.


My point is this. Socialism affords a society power over its individuals. It may be an economic concept, but as all people know, economics and politics are inextricably tied at the waist. A socialist system has power over every sector in society, from education, to health, to the media, etc. This is all undeniably dangerous from a libertarian perspective. As I argued in earlier posts, and as you repeatedly choose not to acknowledge, a healthy society is one in which individuals can be left alone to make decisions for themselves; a society which deigns to design for others what their morals should be, influence their philosophical outlook on life to conform with its intellectuals beliefs, is not only a society that has mutilated the very concept of liberty, but they have also diluted the pool of diversity which made civilization so successful.

A market order is indispensable to protecting the liberty of individuals. Life is more than having a place to sleep, food to eat, etc. I want to believe as I choose to believe. I want to follow a morality which meets my existential needs. I writhe at the thought of liberals, atheists and scientists planning to undermine other peoples belief systems because it seems 'irrational' to them. That doesn't matter. Morality is completely subjective, and as long as it is subjective, that means all people have an equal right to develop it however they see fit. Implying, that individuals should as a rule be proscribed from seeking to influence other individuals in what they should believe.

To date, every socialist system has used the system, education and media in particular, to engineer the morality and belief system they wanted their citizens to have. Hence, my opposition to it.

To be honest, I think their interests are more in the negative than the positive. I think they care more about attacking the traditional moral order than about giving people a place to sleep, food to eat, healthcare, etc. There's a vile totalitarian urge which accompanies socialism. I reject it, and always will.





new topics
top topics
 
7

log in

join