Thoughts on Anarchism

[Quantum Windbag]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

How were they failing to live up, or down, to our standards of anarchy, and what are your standards?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

@manifold @gnarlylove @TakeAStepBack

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

I disagree, all anarchy means is no formal government, not a refusal to ever go along with others. An example that comes to mind is the Quakers, they make all decisions through consensus. Everyone has a chance to speak their mind, and no one ever forces a dissenter to go along simply because the government said it works that way. If ther is one person who has an objection to what the group wants the decision is tabled for further discussion.

 

[gnarlylove]

How do we know that private property preceded the State? Because human beings in and of themselves must have preceded the State, and since every human being has an innate property right in and of themselves (This must be axiomatically true, because to deny such a claim proves the claim)

I wish my philosophy could state that any objection to is is necessarily false. The trouble is this sort of philosophy immediately excludes itself from criticism and therefore does not allow certain kinds of discussion. This is not free thought and is the anti-thesis of freedom.

But I will take your comment with less severe consequences as to simply mean I doubt it can be proven false or reduced into absurdity. I however think it can be on certain grounds.

If a human being owns himself, he is capable of rightly selling his in-essential parts (liver). However I think it is highly destructive concept for property to become the basis for human value. A society that considers themselves a property will agree to get advertising casino tattoos on their forehead for money, $10,000. This therefore reduces human life to a market commodity. But we know that markets corrode the value of a thing they deal in. (http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/339496-the-problem-with-a-market-society.html)

In other words, the market system has polluted your thinking into the delusion that human beings innately own things, namely themselves. People are not born with the right to property. The government declared it and you have defined man in new terms: property rights. But not all people have the right to property, just those whom the state agrees (a current case exists in Nevada somewhere where the government is taking someone's property and surely corporations ).

There is no reason to think humans innately own themselves other than for retro-justification. Human beings can be easily manipulated into doing the opposite of what's good for them. They can easily be persuaded to vote against their interests in the name of freedom all the while denying their own capacity for action. You have no proof other than tautological which is just erudite nonsense. No one has any good reason to think they own themselves other than the will to believe it. Other than defining humans this way, what makes you think people are property? Before capitalism the prevailing idea was the people have a right to exist, albeit a crummy place. Now we drive people from their land in order to access the rich resources and deny people access to life sustaining resources and consider this "as the market wishes."

The only justification I see that would lead me to think property is natural is if you can demonstrate that you take something with you to the grave. But the fact is we don't take our body, we don't take the stuff we are buried with, nothing transitions from this life to the next. So property does not exist. Property has an owner and that owner can do with it whatever desired except continue to keep it. That doesn't sound like a genuine concept of ownership: involuntary giving up of something (i.e. death)?

The more substantive piece is in regards to what manifold said. A power vacuum will be created upon the dissolution of the state. People desire to have the right to deny certain people access to water, food, and life (property is a simple way of doing this). If you do not have a state to control the mass of people someone else will need to do that. And in a free society it is very expensive: not only do you need force but you need framing, propaganda to keep the masses appeased.

Well you can disagree with it being axiomatic, but you're not really making a convincing argument. You're simply looking for reasons to dismiss what I said.

As far as the bold portion goes, you're simply applying your own value judgments to these ideas rather than making any rational argument against what I said. What does it matter to you if people want to sell their organs or tattoo brands on themselves for money? Nobody would be forcing you to do so.

My question, however, is if people don't own themselves, then who does and where did they get said ownership?

That is a good question. We don't have ownership of anything and nothing is inherently owned. We exist, we interact and use things (some things we use exclusively and so we imagine it as property) but there is no meaning to ownership. We take nothing with us when we leave this world. We own nothing. We are born with nothing. Our bodies are instruments of consciousness and I don't see why consciousness entails property.

If we want to sell our liver we can (a natural value system, a pre-capitalist system however would not value money over parts of one's body) but just because I can hand you a piece of me for money does not mean I own it. It simply means I sold a part of me. I can sell things back to you that I stole from you if you aren't paying attention. I don't necessarily own what I sell. If we did, I guess I better load up some carts at walmart and the like and claim it as my property since I already have buyers for my items.

 

[gnarlylove]

I must say you are a noble defender of your position and deserve credit for thinking differently than most. Anarchy is a radical stance insofar as it challenges institutions that dominate. However, the radical idea of capitalism is that people are only granted rights they earn in the market. Outside the rights they gain the market place they have none. So deprivation becomes the natural state of human beings, which is radically different than freedom. Freedom cannot exist in conditions of deprivation. So certain groups are excluded from participating in freedom because of their individual failing of earning rights in the market. This naturally produces unrest and how would the beneficiaries of this system defend against unrest and malcontent?

I think you care about human beings and believe they should be treated fairly and that deprivation is not being treated fairly. We claim to exist in a capitalist economy and indeed there exists lots of global deprivation. Surely you don't think that everyone pursuing their own interests holds a society together? Pursuing self interest alone is neglects community interests and neglects deferred personal gratification for the sake of the common good. How can the common good exist in a system that defines the good as individualistic?

Regarding what anarchists do is what everyone does: lives. But they go one further so Anarchists tend to be more evolved than the average citizen. They not only ask "Why do I suffer?" but they also ask the crucial question "Why do we all suffer?"

The answer is evident: systems of elite dominance, wealth/power and propaganda framing (by NYtimes and mass media) create a reality where we can be exploited to create surplus, not for ourselves, but for a master that we likely won't ever meet. If you run your own business, you are that master but you have the institution and authority weighing over you of profit motive, pressuring you to do for yourself primarily and consider your employees later if at all. This is a detrimental take on how to arrange human beings: by earning rights rather than giving inalienable rights. I don't expect you to agree with me as I'm sure these criticisms sound wild but I ask you allow them to simmer. If you really care about human beings I don't think you can only be concerned with yourself. It is pathological to pursue wealth, forgetting all but self.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The word, "anarchy" means different things to different people. I tend to believe the old definition of 'no government' so those who take advantage of certain govt-afforded niceties while saying they don't agree with that same government are, in my estimation, frauds.

YMMV

 

[whitehall]

Wasn't the "weather underground movement" anarchist? Bill Ayers wasn't even charged with a crime when a friendly judge blamed the unfortunate bombing incidents and manslaughter on illegal FBI surveillance and now he is a mover and shaker in left wing politics and an adviser to the president.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Wasn't the "weather underground movement" anarchist? Bill Ayers wasn't even charged with a crime when a friendly judge blamed the unfortunate bombing incidents and manslaughter on illegal FBI surveillance and now he is a mover and shaker in left wing politics and an adviser to the president.

How about you keep the fiction in the other forums?

Hmmmm?

 

[whitehall]

Wasn't the "weather underground movement" anarchist? Bill Ayers wasn't even charged with a crime when a friendly judge blamed the unfortunate bombing incidents and manslaughter on illegal FBI surveillance and now he is a mover and shaker in left wing politics and an adviser to the president.

How about you keep the fiction in the other forums?

Hmmmm?

I sincerely wish the "weather underground" and Bill Ayers was fiction but it wasn't. Ayers was clearly guilty of felony murder when the last bomb he was making blew up prematurely and killed his girlfriend and three others instead of Soldiers at a Ft. Dix dance.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wish my philosophy could state that any objection to is is necessarily false. The trouble is this sort of philosophy immediately excludes itself from criticism and therefore does not allow certain kinds of discussion. This is not free thought and is the anti-thesis of freedom.

But I will take your comment with less severe consequences as to simply mean I doubt it can be proven false or reduced into absurdity. I however think it can be on certain grounds.

If a human being owns himself, he is capable of rightly selling his in-essential parts (liver). However I think it is highly destructive concept for property to become the basis for human value. A society that considers themselves a property will agree to get advertising casino tattoos on their forehead for money, $10,000. This therefore reduces human life to a market commodity. But we know that markets corrode the value of a thing they deal in. (http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/339496-the-problem-with-a-market-society.html)

In other words, the market system has polluted your thinking into the delusion that human beings innately own things, namely themselves. People are not born with the right to property. The government declared it and you have defined man in new terms: property rights. But not all people have the right to property, just those whom the state agrees (a current case exists in Nevada somewhere where the government is taking someone's property and surely corporations ).

There is no reason to think humans innately own themselves other than for retro-justification. Human beings can be easily manipulated into doing the opposite of what's good for them. They can easily be persuaded to vote against their interests in the name of freedom all the while denying their own capacity for action. You have no proof other than tautological which is just erudite nonsense. No one has any good reason to think they own themselves other than the will to believe it. Other than defining humans this way, what makes you think people are property? Before capitalism the prevailing idea was the people have a right to exist, albeit a crummy place. Now we drive people from their land in order to access the rich resources and deny people access to life sustaining resources and consider this "as the market wishes."

The only justification I see that would lead me to think property is natural is if you can demonstrate that you take something with you to the grave. But the fact is we don't take our body, we don't take the stuff we are buried with, nothing transitions from this life to the next. So property does not exist. Property has an owner and that owner can do with it whatever desired except continue to keep it. That doesn't sound like a genuine concept of ownership: involuntary giving up of something (i.e. death)?

The more substantive piece is in regards to what manifold said. A power vacuum will be created upon the dissolution of the state. People desire to have the right to deny certain people access to water, food, and life (property is a simple way of doing this). If you do not have a state to control the mass of people someone else will need to do that. And in a free society it is very expensive: not only do you need force but you need framing, propaganda to keep the masses appeased.

Well you can disagree with it being axiomatic, but you're not really making a convincing argument. You're simply looking for reasons to dismiss what I said.

As far as the bold portion goes, you're simply applying your own value judgments to these ideas rather than making any rational argument against what I said. What does it matter to you if people want to sell their organs or tattoo brands on themselves for money? Nobody would be forcing you to do so.

My question, however, is if people don't own themselves, then who does and where did they get said ownership?

That is a good question. We don't have ownership of anything and nothing is inherently owned. We exist, we interact and use things (some things we use exclusively and so we imagine it as property) but there is no meaning to ownership. We take nothing with us when we leave this world. We own nothing. We are born with nothing. Our bodies are instruments of consciousness and I don't see why consciousness entails property.

If we want to sell our liver we can (a natural value system, a pre-capitalist system however would not value money over parts of one's body) but just because I can hand you a piece of me for money does not mean I own it. It simply means I sold a part of me. I can sell things back to you that I stole from you if you aren't paying attention. I don't necessarily own what I sell. If we did, I guess I better load up some carts at walmart and the like and claim it as my property since I already have buyers for my items.

Then why can't I just kill you and take your liver since you don't own it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I must say you are a noble defender of your position and deserve credit for thinking differently than most. Anarchy is a radical stance insofar as it challenges institutions that dominate. However, the radical idea of capitalism is that people are only granted rights they earn in the market. Outside the rights they gain the market place they have none. So deprivation becomes the natural state of human beings, which is radically different than freedom. Freedom cannot exist in conditions of deprivation. So certain groups are excluded from participating in freedom because of their individual failing of earning rights in the market. This naturally produces unrest and how would the beneficiaries of this system defend against unrest and malcontent?

I think you care about human beings and believe they should be treated fairly and that deprivation is not being treated fairly. We claim to exist in a capitalist economy and indeed there exists lots of global deprivation. Surely you don't think that everyone pursuing their own interests holds a society together? Pursuing self interest alone is neglects community interests and neglects deferred personal gratification for the sake of the common good. How can the common good exist in a system that defines the good as individualistic?

Regarding what anarchists do is what everyone does: lives. But they go one further so Anarchists tend to be more evolved than the average citizen. They not only ask "Why do I suffer?" but they also ask the crucial question "Why do we all suffer?"

The answer is evident: systems of elite dominance, wealth/power and propaganda framing (by NYtimes and mass media) create a reality where we can be exploited to create surplus, not for ourselves, but for a master that we likely won't ever meet. If you run your own business, you are that master but you have the institution and authority weighing over you of profit motive, pressuring you to do for yourself primarily and consider your employees later if at all. This is a detrimental take on how to arrange human beings: by earning rights rather than giving inalienable rights. I don't expect you to agree with me as I'm sure these criticisms sound wild but I ask you allow them to simmer. If you really care about human beings I don't think you can only be concerned with yourself. It is pathological to pursue wealth, forgetting all but self.

How is deprivation the natural state of humans under capitalism?

 

[gnarlylove]

Then why can't I just kill you and take your liver since you don't own it?

Fair question. I would like to think we can respect one another's right to exist and my liver is a definite part of my existence. But we must acknowledge there is no non-circular justification for not harming another person. Richard Rorty explains this very well:

For liberal ironists, there is no answer to the question "Why not be
cruel?" - no noncircular theoretical backup for the belief that cruelty is
horrible. Nor is there an answer to the question "How do you decide
when to struggle against injustice and when to devote yourself to private
projects of self-creation?" This question strikes liberal ironists as just as
hopeless as the questions "Is it right to deliver n innocents over to be
tortured to save the lives of m x n other innocents? If so, what are the
correct values of nand m?" or the question "When may one favor members
of one's family, or one's community, over other, randomly chosen,
human beings?" Anybody who thinks that there are well-grounded theoretical
answers to this sort of question - algorithms for resolving moral
dilemmas of this sort - is still, in his heart, a theologian or a metaphysician.
He believes in an order beyond time and change which both determines
the point of human existence and establishes a hierarchy of
responsibilities.

Maybe you don't think humans have natural rights and I do not think they are inherent myself. However, bands, communities, tribes, nations simply cannot exist without some level of trust. Game theory speaks of this in unique terms where the barrier of trust is lowered in order to conduct business. This means we can benefit each other by not killing one another. That instead of simply gaining a liver one time I can gain multiple rewards from keeping you alive. Certainly cultural inculcation is important: teaching people that incentives naturally involve the self and others is important, even if altruism is really just a form of self-exultation (which is argued very well by Mark Twain in "What is Man?") though I believe and know in my immediate experience I forgo personal desires at times to serve others because I love them and care about them as I do my own personal self. This seems to be utterly natural human activity and its hard to act as if others do not matter when they don't influence my profit-maximization.

 

[gnarlylove]

"How is deprivation the natural state of humans under capitalism?"

The radical idea of capitalism is that people are only granted rights they earn in the market. This was identified by David Ricardo and considered the new science (economics). That Ricardo proves with certainty that it is best for each person to solely consider their own interest as he writes he had proven to the degree of the laws of Newton. Thus, outside the rights gained in the marketplace humans have no rights. Humans without rights thus have no right to exist or access to water. This is the definition of deprivation and if the natural state of human beings is to have no rights (until they gain them in the market) then deprivation, the lack of rights becomes the natural state of human being.

 

[TGN]

Most anarchists are just wannabes, playing at something they would never actually do. I can't remember the last time I knew of a self-described anarchist who actually lived like one.

Its just talk.

What about scott crow? (He doesn't capitalize his name)

"In the first three years of the Common Ground Collective, over twenty-three thousand mostly middle class and white volunteers aided communities that most had no direct connection to apart from the bond of humanity...These are my observations and feelings about my involvement in the formation of the Common Ground Collective in its rapid path from an idea to being the largest anarchist-influenced organization in modern U.S. history." scott crow - Black Flags and Windmills: Hope, Anarchy, and the Common Ground Collective.

The CGC provided much needed aid to thousands and thousands of Katrina survivors.

Also, there's the IWW or the Wobblies:

"Around the turn of the century, the Wobblies and other anarchists played the central role in winning workers the 5-day week and 8-hour day." Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber. Graeber is an anthropologist who helped organize the Occupy Movement.

"Clearly, the movement did not succeed despite the anarchist element. It succeeded BECAUSE of it." The Democracy Project by David Graeber.

And don't forget, the next time you have the weekend off or are paid time-and-a-half for working more than 8 hours, thank a Wobbly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"How is deprivation the natural state of humans under capitalism?"

The radical idea of capitalism is that people are only granted rights they earn in the market.

They have a term for arguments like the one you just made.

Not even wrong - RationalWiki

This was identified by David Ricardo and considered the new science (economics). That Ricardo proves with certainty that it is best for each person to solely consider their own interest as he writes he had proven to the degree of the laws of Newton. Thus, outside the rights gained in the marketplace humans have no rights. Humans without rights thus have no right to exist or access to water. This is the definition of deprivation and if the natural state of human beings is to have no rights (until they gain them in the market) then deprivation, the lack of rights becomes the natural state of human being.

You do know that Ricardo promoted mercantilism, not capitalism, don't you? If you recall, mercantilism failed and Adam Smith won that debate.

 

[gnarlylove]

Murray Rothbard and libertarianism:

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

19.For samples of Rothbard's vision, see for example, Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, New York: Macmillan, 1973, especially chs. 10-13. An excerpt (pp. 202, 210, 214-216, 220-221, 229, 269-270):
Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital. . . . Any maverick road owner who insisted on a left-hand drive or green for "stop" instead of "go" would soon find himself with numerous accidents, and the disappearance of customers and users. . . . [W]hat about driving on congested urban streets? How could this be priced? There are numerous possible ways. In the first place the downtown street owners might require anyone driving on their streets to buy a license. . . . Modern technology may make feasible the requirement that all cars equip themselves with a meter. . . . Professor Vickery has also suggested . . . T.V. cameras at the intersections of the most congested streets. . . .
f police services were supplied on a free, competitive market . . . consumers would pay for whatever degree of protection they wish to purchase. The consumers who just want to see a policeman once in a while would pay less than those who want continuous patrolling, and far less than those who demand twenty-four-hour bodyguard service. . . . Any police firm that suffers from gross inefficiency would soon go bankrupt and disappear. . . . Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients' friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue. . . . Possibly, each individual would subscribe to a court service, paying a monthly premimum. . . . If a private firm owned Lake Erie, for example, then anyone dumping garbage in the lake would be promptly sued in the courts.

Excerpt from Understanding Power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While quotes from others can be useful, I don't think that simply posting those quotes by themselves without any of your own thoughts, or telling us to read this book or that book, is entirely conducive to discussion. I'll address your points more fully tomorrow, however, as I'm tired now.

 

[AntiParty]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchy, by definition, CAN'T be collectivist in nature. When collectivist agitators claim the mantle of "anarchists, they are in reality progressives wrapping themselves in the mantle to hide their true motives. Just like progressives claim to be liberal (they aren't) when in fact they are the opposite of that. Progressives are elitists who favor dictatorships which they, of course, control.

This statement has 4 likes?!?!?

Anarchy means, "a state of society without government or law." So all Anarchists hate the Government in general and can't be persuaded otherwise. Government is bad no matter what, therefor, the Constitution is BAD under the Anarchist realm.

And again, he's correct, they can't be "collectivists. They can't collect information. They are set up as anti-Government no matter what information. Information doesn't matter to them.

This kid just exposed a lot about himself in this post.

 

[AntiParty]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Anarchists believe in ZERO Government.

As a Libertarian, you probably see that the most Liberty thrives in ZERO Government.

As a WORLD we saw the greatest chaos in zero government.

If you are truly a Libertarian you probably read the Constitution and notice that it's 100% Government. Yes, the Constitution is Government.

Strange how we set standards after killing the Indians that History books said didn't exist so we could discover 'Merica.

EVERY PARTY should focus on LIBERTY. But the Libertarian party ONLY focuses on Liberty instead of thinking for themselves. They see Liberty no matter what, they even cross the Constitution they hold dear to make their perspective clear.

I stand by common sense, not a party.

 

[tywins]

Well no

Sent from my VS870 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[tywins]

Anarchism collectively with its expected drawback has the potential for an explosive (not nuclear, sorry republicans) future.

Sent from my VS870 4G using USMessageBoard.com mobile app