Anarchy

[Anarchist]

Anarchist, you've somewhat undone a lot of the really good arguments Yeti has been making...

I'm generally pretty socialist in my political stance, and I sure as hell don't agree with capitalism, but from you I get 'my-first-politics teenage angst' and from Yeti I get 'well reasoned political argument'. Don't come and say things like you're starving, because we all know that you live in a house with the internet. You're as well off as everyone else on this site. You don't seem to have thought through your arguments too well and its doing more harm than good in this debate.

On the other hand, good work Yeti. You've convinced me of a couple of things I'd never really thought about before.

I agree with you, wasnt enough harmony in my words and they were anal.
Yeti is doing a much better job argueing and i will shut up, Ive had my weed today and find im much more appreciative of the whole situation.
As for me supporting Iraq and starving to death, I never supported america nor any of the bullshit reasons they gave for going there. I am obviously not starving to death, it was meant as an artistic expression which failed to make its point. We are all still learning,including myself.

"A fertile land will bare more fruit"
India before it was ever united was quite wealthy, in Kaling noone went to sleep hungry.

As for anarchist communities succeeding in Spain i found this on Wiki

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

The anarchist held areas were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers. Under this system, goods were often up to a quarter of their previous cost.

(it was a good read alltogether)

Nope, if you want to go backwards to reach sustainable technology don't think decades, think millennium. Foolish_yeti was discussing a return to tribalism, that's approximately 3/4000BCE.

Wouldnt 200AD still have forms of tribalism? Thinking the Celtics and Lombards,etc...

[foolish_yeti]

Could you please provide a source for this statistic? (Preferably not a card carrying communists like Chomsky )

Okay, I know I said I was done. Ad Hominem: (don't believe it's a logical fallacy? Go check any writing on logical fallacy's, or ask all those people with PhD's teaching that it is) you want to refute a source, refute what they say. Read some Chomsky and check his arguments, and check his sources. And for the record, you might want to check out what Chomsky actually writes on communism, or any of his writings on politics.

Okay, now I'm done.

Cheers.

[chewyman]

Wouldnt 200AD still have forms of tribalism? Thinking the Celtics and Lombards,etc...

Of course, tribalism is still around today. But the technology and political thinking that first brought people out of tribalism sprang up thousands of years ago and so that's the date I'm using.

Okay, I know I said I was done. Ad Hominem (don't believe it's a logical fallacy? Go check any writing on logical fallacy's, or ask all those people with PhD's teaching that it is).

I didn't say I don't believe it, I said I don't see why it is. In other words, I was hoping you'd explain it because to me they seem like two different things.

You want to refute a source, refute what they say. Read some Chomsky and check his arguments, and check his sources. And for the record, you might want to check out what Chomsky actually writes on communism, or any of his writings on politics.

Of course, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Surely you'd agree with me though that it's better to read a news report on an issue rather than an analysis from a clearly biased source?

Okay, now I'm done.

You'll be back. I'll leave your seat at the table for your return

[foolish_yeti]

I didn't say I don't believe it, I said I don't see why it is. In other words, I was hoping you'd explain it because to me they seem like two different things.

Okay, so for example: a suspected serial killer with random victims argues that unprovoked violence is wrong. You point out the fact that he is a serial killer as a counter argument- that may or may not be correct, but it's irrelevant to his argument.

Of course, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Surely you'd agree with me though that it's better to read a news report on an issue rather than an analysis from a clearly biased source?

You truly believe the news is unbiased? One of the main problems with the media is the pretense that they are objective....not to mention facts like, for example, the vast majority of the media (and by vast I really do mean vast) in the States is owned by five corporations. Also you could look at where these media sources get their information (look into the Associated Press). News isn't in the news business, they're in the making money business. A very helpful way to determine biases in the media is to take a look at what advertisements are associated with it to determine their target audience- media corporations work to build up an audience to sell to advertisers. So no, I totally disagree with you. I say it's best to critically get your information from a variety of sources.

[chewyman]

Okay, so for example: a suspected serial killer with random victims argues that unprovoked violence is wrong. You point out the fact that he is a serial killer as a counter argument- that may or may not be correct, but it's irrelevant to his argument.

Except that I didn't argue that anarchy was wrong because you didn't do it. What I was showing was that people aren't about to give up their wealth for no reason other than a theory (however likely that theory may be) that won't effect them or their children and quite possibly not even their children's children.

There's a difference between media bias as in 'let's have slightly more Democrats than Republicans on the show' and 'I'm a card carrying member of the IWW' bias. Oh, and welcome back

[foolish_yeti]

Except that I didn't argue that anarchy was wrong because you didn't do it. What I was showing was that people aren't about to give up their wealth for no reason other than a theory (however likely that theory may be) that won't effect them or their children and quite possibly not even their children's children.

I think you underestimate the ease of getting out of the capitalist system. You do not know me whatsoever, so you are not in the position to determine that I am an example of a person not willing to give up their wealth. As I stated before, believe me- I'm working on it. Also removing oneself from the system does nothing to change the fact that it still exists. Thus, I will most likely never sever all ties with capitalism. Also, as I've stated before, I think you greatly underestimate the time line of a possible collapse.

There's a difference between media bias as in 'let's have slightly more Democrats than Republicans on the show' and 'I'm a card carrying member of the IWW' bias. Oh, and welcome back

First of all- if you think the media bias is limited to they have more democrats than republicans (just different corporations) on the show, then you need to more reading into theories of the media. Secondly, the IWW is not communist- they are a labour union. Chomsky is showing his support for those exploited by capitalism. Again- you're more than welcome to go up against any of his arguments if you don't agree with him.

And I realize you fished me in with more ridiculous statements.

[chewyman]

I think you underestimate the ease of getting out of the capitalist system. You do not know me whatsoever, so you are not in the position to determine that I am an example of a person not willing to give up their wealth. As I stated before, believe me- I'm working on it. Also removing oneself from the system does nothing to change the fact that it still exists. Thus, I will most likely never sever all ties with capitalism. Also, as I've stated before, I think you greatly underestimate the time line of a possible collapse.

Please give some examples of you 'working on it'.

First of all- if you think the media bias is limited to they have more democrats than republicans (just different corporations) on the show, then you need to more reading into theories of the media. Secondly, the IWW is not communist- they are a labour union. Chomsky is showing his support for those exploited by capitalism. Again- you're more than welcome to go up against any of his arguments if you don't agree with him.

I haven't had a chance to read it, I'm far too far behind on uni because I keep posting here lol. When I read it I'll be able to challenge his assumptions, until then I'm simply mentioning that I'll be approaching his work hesitantly. Oh, and the IWW is about as left wing as they come, you just don't expect anything else from unions.

And I realize you fished me in with more ridiculous statements.

Don't worry, we've all been caught out for saying that line and being back the next day ready for more.

[foolish_yeti]

Please give some examples of you 'working on it'.

I really don't feel the need to go into my personal life- but a general example would be acquiring a knowledge of my local landbase- edible plants, plants with other uses, animals, seasonal changes and cycles, etc.- stuff that was learnt from childhood in sustainable cultures but I have limited knowledge of.

I haven't had a chance to read it, I'm far too far behind on uni because I keep posting here lol. When I read it I'll be able to challenge his assumptions, until then I'm simply mentioning that I'll be approaching his work hesitantly.

As you should be. It' a really short piece, by the way- a summing up of things.

Oh, and the IWW is about as left wing as they come, you just don't expect anything else from unions.

Left =/= communist.

[chewyman]

Left =/= communist.

No, but communism is a position on the left hand side of the political spectrum. Am I seriously arguing with you about this??

I really don't feel the need to go into my personal life- but a general example would be acquiring a knowledge of my local landbase- edible plants, plants with other uses, animals, seasonal changes and cycles, etc.- stuff that was learnt from childhood in sustainable cultures but I have limited knowledge of.

So you're preparing for when everybody just lays down their wealth and decides to get along. That's fine, I've got nothing against you spending your time however you want. Thing is, that isn't contributing to anarchism becoming a reality, which was my initial point. The only way people are going to give up on their hard earned wealth, hold hands and sing Kumbaya is if a demagog does it first.

[Anarchist]

wouldnt it be better if we planned it out first?

only an idiot wouldnt prepare for changes we cause, or that will probably happen on their own. Its like sailing through a storm and not bothering to learn how to swim.

[Neutrino]

So you're preparing for when everybody just lays down their wealth and decides to get along. That's fine, I've got nothing against you spending your time however you want. Thing is, that isn't contributing to anarchism becoming a reality, which was my initial point. The only way people are going to give up on their hard earned wealth, hold hands and sing Kumbaya is if a demagog does it first.

No-one is stupid enough to change from one form of government to a radically different one (or lack of such) quickly. At least, not unless they have a very, very large army and a lot of jail room.

[foolish_yeti]

Left =/= communist.

No, but communism is a position on the left hand side of the political spectrum. Am I seriously arguing with you about this??

Ummm- well you started off calling Chomsky a commie, then a card carrying communist, then a card carrying member of IWW and finished off by further stating that the IWW is on the Left. So I don't really know what you're trying to argue.

So you're preparing for when everybody just lays down their wealth and decides to get along. That's fine, I've got nothing against you spending your time however you want. Thing is, that isn't contributing to anarchism becoming a reality, which was my initial point. The only way people are going to give up on their hard earned wealth, hold hands and sing Kumbaya is if a demagog does it first.

First off- what is with people always accusing anarchists of wanting everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? It's just a blatant misrepresentation and shows how little you're even looking into what you're arguing against. Total peace is never an expectation. Everyone getting along is never an expectation. As for preparing when everyone lays down their wealth (which is a misrepresentation- it's more like 10% of the population laying down their wealth- for everyone else it's an upgrade), that is a possibility- another one is a crash scenario. As for the whole knowledge thing- I'm not certain how you would expect to live in an anarchist society if you didn't have this knowledge- anyways, that was just an example of what I am doing to live out my beliefs.

And I'm for sure done now.

[Anarchist]

I find either acceptable,

[chewyman]

wouldnt it be better if we planned it out first?

only an idiot wouldnt prepare for changes we cause, or that will probably happen on their own. Its like sailing through a storm and not bothering to learn how to swim.

Your point being what exactly? Maybe it would just be easier to agree with you so that's what I'll do

No-one is stupid enough to change from one form of government to a radically different one (or lack of such) quickly. At least, not unless they have a very, very large army and a lot of jail room.

But I thought we didn't have that sort of time? Remember all that stuff about 99.3% of the world's population dying out in a few days? Remember all that stuff about capitalism destroyed the universe with and living way too far beyond its means. Remember big bad capitalism with the vengeance and the blood-rain and the 'hey hey it hurts me!'? Now you're telling me that any change to anarchism would have to be done slowly??

Ummm- well you started off calling Chomsky a commie, then a card carrying communist, then a card carrying member of IWW and finished off by further stating that the IWW is on the Left. So I don't really know what you're trying to argue.

That I don't trust a single word that comes out of his mouth

First off- what is with people always accusing anarchists of wanting everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? It's just a blatant misrepresentation and shows how little you're even looking into what you're arguing against. Total peace is never an expectation. Everyone getting along is never an expectation. As for preparing when everyone lays down their wealth (which is a misrepresentation- it's more like 10% of the population laying down their wealth- for everyone else it's an upgrade), that is a possibility- another one is a crash scenario. As for the whole knowledge thing- I'm not certain how you would expect to live in an anarchist society if you didn't have this knowledge- anyways, that was just an example of what I am doing to live out my beliefs.

Honestly I don't think that at all. It's just a classic joke to make fun of anarchists/communists/greenies/hippies/a whole heap of other people. Ever since you said you'd had enough and I claimed victory by default I haven't been treating this thread particularly seriously.