Russian analyst predicts 'breakup' of USA; France surrenders

[cookiecutter]

That's a sad battle these days

 

[Death Aflame]

How the fuck would you abolish work?! HOW?! What the fuck are you talking about?! Do you think anarchy is going to be a bunch of people holding hands and magically having enough food to survive without farming?

Obviously not (strawmans and ad hominems should be left out of this don't you think?). And you did read my original post correctly--Anarchism does seek to abolish both 'profit' and 'work', just not in the ridiculous and nonsensical way that you assume.

If you don't want to spend your entire day proving your point, then stop raising your point.

First, it is not my point--I am simply regurgitating anarchist thought which I happen to agree with. Like I have said previously, if you honestly want to critique anarchism from a more well-rounded and useful perspective, do some of your own research and then perhaps we could have a truly productive discussion. Until then I have neither the time nor the effort required to answer every basic question or critique you may have about how I have presented the theory.

With that being said I will take your advice and stop discussing it for the time being.

Finally, Leafs and Sabres both suck

 

[Zephyrus]

 

[Dak]

lol

 

[Death Aflame]

Anarchy is not anti-organization, nor has it ever been.

Why are people so generally misinformed about what anarchism actually involves?

 

[Zephyrus]

Because it's the internet, and we like to make fun of idealists.

 

[skeptik]

First, it is not my point--I am simply regurgitating anarchist thought which I happen to agree with. Like I have said previously, if you honestly want to critique anarchism from a more well-rounded and useful perspective, do some of your own research and then perhaps we could have a truly productive discussion. Until then I have neither the time nor the effort required to answer every basic question or critique you may have about how I have presented the theory.

With that being said I will take your advice and stop discussing it for the time being.

Finally, Leafs and Sabres both suck

If you agree with it, it's your point. You wouldn't be saying all of this if you didn't agree with it, so it is your point. If you want to discuss something, it's your job to inform, educate, and rebut. If you are not willing to do this, preferably don't bring it up, or, failing that, don't complain when people laugh and/or don't care when you don't have the willingness to see the discussion through. You know how debates work, I'm sure. The onus is on you.

 

[Death Aflame]

Because it's the internet, and we like to make fun of idealists.

If you want to critique the ideas of anarchism, you ought to make sure you know what you are talking about first so as to save revealing your own ignorance.

If you agree with it, it's your point. You wouldn't be saying all of this if you didn't agree with it, so it is your point. If you want to discuss something, it's your job to inform, educate, and rebut. If you are not willing to do this, preferably don't bring it up, or, failing that, don't complain when people laugh and/or don't care when you don't have the willingness to see the discussion through. You know how debates work, I'm sure. The onus is on you.

I agree with all this. All I was saying is that to try to engage in a discussion about such a thing as anarchism with people who generally have no or very little idea of the theory behind it, other than what I tell them, makes it much harder to have a productive discussion because, as you say, it becomes my job both to educate and debate. And I really don't have the time to educate nor do I really have the means to do it properly.

Its like trying to discuss microbiology with those who are completely unfamiliar with the field--to achieve anything close to productive extensive background knowledge is required and, as I have said, I quite simply don't have the time to do this. If this is deemed to be an 'unwillingness' to see the debate through, then I suppose it is, because in this case I assumed there was more knowledge of anarchism in this community than there actually was. I assumed this since much of what has been brought up in terms of critique of government, local and international, seems to echo anarchist thought. Though, obviously, I was incorrect, so I accept that as my mistake.

 

[Zephyrus]

If you want to critique the ideas of anarchism, you ought to make sure you know what you are talking about first so as to save revealing your own ignorance.

If I read Plato's Republic and every commentary on it ten times each, that doesn't make his political theories any more valid to me. Something so fundamentally idealistic as anarchism requires not much more than common sense to justly dismiss it.

 

[Death Aflame]

If I read Plato's Republic and every commentary on it ten times each, that doesn't make his political theories any more valid to me. Something so fundamentally idealistic as anarchism requires not much more than common sense to justly dismiss it.

Apparently it requires more than common sense since labeling anarchism as 'anti-organization' is just plain wrong and this is what I was principally referring to.

Regarding your idealism critique, it is far too broad and generalizing to be of much use. And though you could be content with the conclusions you draw from your own 'common sense' assumptions, it is pretty clear to me that you don't know much about what you speak of in this case so I see no point in furthering this discussion.

 

[Ender Rises]

I see no point in furthering this discussion.

So shut the fuck up already.

 

[Death Aflame]

So shut the fuck up already.

fair enough.

 

[Zephyrus]

That picture was clearly a joke, but it speaks some truth in that, as Locke saw it, humans are naturally inclined to organize for the sake of protecting individual freedoms. What kind of government they choose is variable from that point.

The larger number of people in a society, the less able it is to embrace anarchism. Currently we have hundreds of millions of people in our own society, dependent on way too many things provided for them either by the government or the economy.

I think anarchism is great. It's just inconvenienced by the existence of 6 billion people.

I'll end this discussion as well, because you continue to assert that our lack of knowledge on the subject is the only reason we're disagreeing with it. Good day.

 

[skeptik]

Death Aflame: The one question you've never answered is where anarchism could possibly happen, successfully on a long-term scale, in the current global society.

 

[Ender Rises]

Death Aflame: The one question you've never answered is where anarchism could possibly happen, successfully on a long-term scale, in the current global society.

.

I'm interested in the answer to this question.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm interested to know what the fuck he even means by "Anarchism".

Seriously DA, how hard could this be to explain? Give an example of how a society under an anarchist "government" would operate differently from the mainstream governments of today.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm really gonna doubt that the one opinion he holds on it is one which other anarchists, past and present, would agree with. From just skimming articles on this stuff, I'm noticing that lots of anarchist philosophers and people of that sort don't agree at all on what constitutes anarchy.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't see how the idea of anarchy could make any sort of practical sense at all, unless it's a model which would just collapse into libertarianism.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

because man, we don't get it, it's like...totally awesome but we just don't get it.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't see how the idea of anarchy could make any sort of practical sense at all, unless it's a model which would just collapse into libertarianism.

anarchism is libertarianism.

I'm really gonna doubt that the one opinion he holds on it is one which other anarchists, past and present, would agree with. From just skimming articles on this stuff, I'm noticing that lots of anarchist philosophers and people of that sort don't agree at all on what constitutes anarchy.

There are a variety of streams of anarchist thought, no doubt--the position I advocate for is essentially libertarian socialism, which is the oldest and most dominant type of Anarchism, Anarchism proper if you will.

Since I have agreed to shut the fuck up, I intend to do so.

However, I will leave you with this example of a society that is embracing bottom up organization, at least on some levels (though clearly it isn't an anarchist society proper): http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/12/democratic-socialism-moves-forward-in-venezuela/

Edit: Also, if you want a more thorough answer to your question, you might want to check out some of the writings of Hakim Bey, particularly TAZ: Temporary Autonomous Zone.

Final Edit: Here is an older audio interview with Chomsky about anarchism, maybe this will help clear up confusion. I'll only post the first part, but if you are interested I think it is about an hour or so long, and in 7 or 8 parts.