What is Anarchism

Akrasia

SetantaL wrote:

I agree here also. However it is not the inherent failings of the institutions but of the people running them and as we know from the tribunals the bribery that resulted in bad planning.

The nature of the institutions themselves are a major factor in the behaviour of the people who work within them. The failures of the planning process come from allowing individuals the power to make these unilateral decisions with little if any oversight.

I'd like to hope that lessons have been learnt but looking at some of the recent planning decisions I know thye haven't. Still it's no reason to dissolve the whole affair. We should make the decisions more transparent and increase the imput of an impartial assessment by an Bord Pleannala. I fail to see how anachism could counter this as there is no development plan as there is no structured leadership.

Well first, why do you consider 'An Bord Pleannala' more impartial than the local planning authorities? Corruption follows power. (and the definition of corruption itself is severely limited... Why is it corrupt for one man to hand another a brown paper envelope, but it's not corrupt for a developer to 'donate' substantial sums of cash to a political party? Both of those are instances of buying influence (an option that is unavailable to those with fewer economic resources) Planning in Ireland as a whole over the last 15 years has been appalling and I would say corrupt (the results are beginning to manifest themselves through the poisoned drinking water in Galway and Ennis and the stupid corrupt planning will stand out the most the next time there is heavy rain and there is severe flooding because all our flood plains are now under concrete)

So competition is good?



So competition is bad?

Apples and oranges. Intellectual property damages society through suppressing ideas and innovation. In capitalism, the 'marketplace of Ideas' is what separates good from bad. But in an anarchist society, Ideas and innovation would be spread through cooperation and mutual aid. Wikipedia, open source software and copyleft are all examples of non competitive sharing of knowledge and information. Proprietary knowledge is the opposite (betamax versus VHS is the perfect example. The better technology lost because the owners guarded the technology too carefully

Also intellectual property rights and patents are the cornerstone of modern development. People should be protected when they develop a new an innovative idea. How would you feel if you spent years and thousands if not millions of your own money developing something totally new and someone just copied it. Your back to demanding a place to live for free off your landlord again my freind. How just is that?

Yes, intellectual property has a use in a competitive economy where there are winners and losers, but in a Cooperative society, developing new technology would benefit everybody. Sure, the individual inventor might lose out on wealth and fame, but he/she would be able to do much more effective inventing if he/she wasn't so constrained by the intellectual property minefield and if he/she had access to the ongoing research of other scientists and in the end, he/she would reap the same benefits as the rest of society, which IMO is a better outcome than the 'winners and losers' model of capitalism.

I disagree. Real sustainable change is gradual. Trial and error. The trick is to recognise what works and what doesn't. For example, rent control was tried and shown to actually increase rents by moving development from the residential sector to the commercial. Real life is more complicated and things need to be attempted.

That's an example of how attempts at social responsibility in a capitalist environment are frustrated by the selfish 'maximising profits' motive.

Anarchists have identified the single most influental causes of war, poverty and oppression as the private ownership of capital and the political hierarchies in 'representative democracies' for over a century now. Nothing has happened since then to demonstrate that we were wrong. If anything, many of the testable predictions made by anarchist theorists have come true with the passage of time.

Pish Posh. Capitalism is just a word. It's like Bush's war on "terrorism"

Nope, Capitalism is a very well defined term, Characterised by the Private ownership of capital, the Profit Motive and the use of Market forces to determine value

The only social systems that collapsed were the communist contries and the feudal states that didn't accept new economic ideas. Capitalism isn't a system, it's a method of economic organisation, that works and works through trial and error.

No, it is a system, much like an organic system that has evolved throughout time, but with input from man to have certain characteristics. It is not a natural or inevitable system, but it is a system nonetheless, and like all systems, the overall influences how the particular operates. Within a selfish competitive individualistic system, it is not a shock to see a great deal of selfish competitive individualistic behaviour because that is the kind of behaviour that does the best in this game we call capitalism

And if you had studied economics you may have come accross Schumacher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher

Yeah I've come across him before. Many of his ideas are brilliant (though not that original) and he would probably have a lot of support for most anarchist positions

El Stuntman

Akrasia, has anarchist theory ever been translated into successful practice (on a large scale) for any prolonged priod of time?
(Please don't use the example of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War)

if not, why not?

Akrasia

El Stuntman wrote:

Akrasia, has anarchist theory ever been translated into successful practice (on a large scale) for any prolonged priod of time?
(Please don't use the example of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War)

if not, why not?

Important elements of Anarchist theory has been implemented by anarchists in loads of places around the world (but there are few examples of fully functioning anarchist societies due in a very large part to the dominant force of capitalism and without the structural changes required, many elements of anarchism are not sustainable.

In Italy, the factory occupation movement that started in Turin still survives to this day. In Mexico, the Zapatista revolution has replaced State law with local autonomous councils and common property and they have been doing very well since 1994

The reason why anarchism hasn't taken off to a much larger scale, is because fascism is a very formidable opponent (world war 2 should have demonstrated that. Even 'democracies' like the United States, Italy, Greece, Spain, Germany etc etc have fallen to fascism. Anarchism by comparison has practically no resources with which to challenge the overwhelming domination of the ownership society.

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

Even 'democracies' like the United States, Italy, Greece, Spain, Germany etc etc have fallen to fascism. Anarchism by comparison has practically no resources with which to challenge the overwhelming domination of the ownership society.

I must have missed that page in the history book!

can you expand please on when the USA has been a fascist regime?

Akrasia

El Stuntman wrote:

I must have missed that page in the history book!

can you expand please on when the USA has been a fascist regime?

Sorry, I meant to say 'are vulnerable to falling into fascism'

There was a fascist plot to overthrow Roosevelt's government that could very well have worked if the man chosen to lead the army hadn't blown the whistle (none of the people or corporations implicated in the plot were ever prosecuted... which says a lot)

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

Sorry, I meant to say 'are vulnerable to falling into fascism'

There was a fascist plot to overthrow Roosevelt's government that could very well have worked if the man chosen to lead the army hadn't blown the whistle (none of the people or corporations implicated in the plot were ever prosecuted... which says a lot)

interesting, got a link please?

I've never heard of any attempted coup d'etat against the Roosevelt presidency

Akrasia

Here's the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

It was also discussed in Adam Curtis' documentary The Trap which is on google video

Carbiens

[((Dissent ≥ (A) Non-Conformity) (Perceived Questions of Motive))] ≥ Irrational Process – Intention +/- Results (Harmony)² ≥ Realized Thought ≤ √Prime.

Carbiens

btw, Akrasia i find your sig i little contradictory

Akrasia

Carbiens wrote:

btw, Akrasia i find your sig i little contradictory

it's supposed to be

Dontico

Let Dontico explain why anarchy and all left-wing crap is stupid.

Dontico works in a pizza place. Dontico makes and pizzas and talks on the phone. Dontico gets paid the same as people who just make pizzas.
Soon Dontico gets promoted to manger. Now Dontico will make pizzas, talk on the phone and do the paper work. Donticos job now harder but Dontico gets paid more.
Doctors work harder than Dontico, doctors also get paid alot more.

In stupid anarchy world, Dontico wouldnt work more if not get paid more.
Doctors wont be doctors if not get paid more. No doctors mean when Dontico gets sick, Dontico stays. Dontico gets mad

Horray for capitalism!
Its not called the wrong-wing!

Donticos first post here in over 3 weeks.
Dontico greatfull to nice person to unban me. Who ever you are.

Spectator#1

Horray for capitalism!
Its not called the wrong-wing!

If you're referring to capitalism there, it isn't called the "right wing" either. Right and left distinctions don't directly dictate what sort of economic system you endorse.

Anarchism is, first and foremost, an objection to centralised forms of government. Yes, capitalist economic policies do feature highly on the list of problems for lots of forms of anarchism but it's not nearly as simple as you've made out there. There is such a thing as anarcho-capitalism as well, which is left completely unscathed by your attack there.

Perhaps the reason you think anarchism and "all left wing crap" is stupid is because your understanding of them is quite basic? Just a suggestion.

Dontico

Spectator#1 wrote:

If you're referring to capitalism there, it isn't called the "right wing" either. Right and left distinctions don't directly dictate what sort of economic system you endorse.

No. Capitalism is right-wing. It supports free-market, thus right-wing. Anarhco-capitalism, being the furthest right posible.

My main beef with anarchy is that I dont like the idea of people just taking other peoples land, willy nilly. Just it because it suits them. Squating, theres another thing I dont like.

Akrasia

Dontico wrote:

No. Capitalism is right-wing. It supports free-market, thus right-wing. Anarhco-capitalism, being the furthest right posible.

My main beef with anarchy is that I dont like the idea of people just taking other peoples land, willy nilly. Just it because it suits them. Squating, theres another thing I dont like.

What makes it 'their land'?

People don't squat in houses that are being used, they only squat in property that is being left empty to decay and fall apart. Why should some property developer get to own loads of houses and just leave them empty waiting until property values increase enough to enable them to make a big profit.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

What makes it 'their land'?

What makes the clothes you're currently wearing 'your clothes'?

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

What makes the clothes you're currently wearing 'your clothes'?

There is a significant difference in anarchist theory between property and possessions.

I can't oppress others by wearing clothes to keep myself warm or to express myself (unless they're a uniform of authority or some kind of symbol of hatred)

oscarBravo

Who am I opressing by owning my house?

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

Who am I opressing by owning my house?

Nobody, Anarchists are opposed to landlords and property speculators, not home owners.

On the first page of this thread I talked about effective ownership as opposed to absolute property rights

Dontico

Akrasia wrote:

What makes it 'their land'?

People don't squat in houses that are being used, they only squat in property that is being left empty to decay and fall apart. Why should some property developer get to own loads of houses and just leave them empty waiting until property values increase enough to enable them to make a big profit.

What makes it there land?
Those who work hard, get more money. The money you have, the stuff you own. If someone works thier arse off, builds up the cash, then buys some property. Its thiers. They may not be using it niw but they may want to develope it into something later.

Now heres capitalism for dumbies.
I need milk. There is nothing I have that the man who provides the milk needs, so I cant trade with him.. There is no work he needs done for him or service. So I work for someone else. They give me some special paper. I give the special paper to the man who provides the milk. He gives me the milk and then he uses the magic paper to get soemthing he needs.

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

What makes it there land?
Those who work hard, get more money. The money you have, the stuff you own. If someone works thier arse off, builds up the cash, then buys some property. Its thiers. They may not be using it niw but they may want to develope it into something later.

Yes. You just described capitalism. Badly, and approximately, and with a little bit less attention to communicative convention as most literate people would desire, but nonetheless, capitalism. Yes. There you have it.

Consider, however, Dontico, that in suggesting an alternative system to capitalism, Akrasia's point cannot, in fact, be assailed by simply restating what capitalism is.

Akrasia essentially is saying "imagine a world where people don't own property." And you're objecting by saying "but what about the people who own the property." They don't. There are none.

In a world where X is not the case, X is not the case. Saying, "but x is the case" isn't an argument. It's just being an idiot.

Believe it or not, Akrasia actually does know what capitalism is. In fact, in our world, where currency and ownership are so much a matter of course, only someone with a scant hold on reality could imagine that an understanding of capitalism is in any way novel, or hard to understand.......

Now heres capitalism for dumbies.....

Indeed. From the world authority.

I find myself wondering why you are posting on a forum with "theory" in the title.

Dontico

Calling me an idoit isnt much of an arguement either.

Using your "logic", does anyone own anything?
Allowing people to own stuff and trying to keeping it proportional to thier value and hard work in society, has worked. I dont see people living in jungles having such great civilisations.

I'll explain it to very simply
Anarchy=less doctors=more people dying and sick=crap way to live.

Akrasia

Dontico wrote:

Calling me an idoit isnt much of an arguement either.

Dontico, You are using a straw man argument to try to convince people who really know better.

I don't normally explain common terms, but i will this time, just in case.

A straw man argument is where you either deliberately, or by accident, misrepresent the position of someone else in order to argue against it.

In this case, you 'defined' Capitalism as simply an alternative to a simple barter system, but the fact is, Anarchism isn't a simple barter system. It isn't 'each man for himself' it's a socialist system where people work together to produce mutually beneficial outcomes.
Sometimes capitalism promotes team work, but ultimately, it's a competitive system where there can only ever be a few winners.

Allowing people to own stuff and trying to keeping it proportional to thier value and hard work in society, has worked.

So you're saying that someone who earns 10,000 a day, works a hundred times harder than someone who earns 100 a day? What about the people (mostly young girls) who work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week for 40c an hour to make the products that are sold to pay the huge salaries of executives? Do they really work 1562 times less hard than the CEO who controls their factories?

I dont see people living in jungles having such great civilisations.

Define a 'great civilisation'? Is it the ability and propensity to go to war whenever they need more resources? Is it the ability for the rich to be able to consume hundreds of times more resources than the poor, to such an extent that they are destroying the entire biosphere? Or is it a just, peaceful, sustainable society? There are many many indigenous non capitalist commnities around the world that provide a far better quality of life for their people than capitalism does.
Is the luxury of capitalism for the few worthwhile if it destroys our habitat and brings war famine and pestilence upon the world?

I'll explain it to very simply
Anarchy=less doctors=more people dying and sick=crap way to live.

That's why Cuba has more doctors than any capitalist country and a life expectancy far higher than people of a similar income living in the so called civilized world?

Dontico

Akrasia wrote:

Dontico, You are using a straw man argument to try to convince people who really know better.

I don't normally explain common terms, but i will this time, just in case.

A straw man argument is where you either deliberately, or by accident, misrepresent the position of someone else in order to argue against it.

In this case, you 'defined' Capitalism as simply an alternative to a simple barter system, but the fact is, Anarchism isn't a simple barter system. It isn't 'each man for himself' it's a socialist system where people work together to produce mutually beneficial outcomes.
Sometimes capitalism promotes team work, but ultimately, it's a competitive system where there can only ever be a few winners.

Ironically, that was a strawman itself.

Akrasia wrote:

So you're saying that someone who earns 10,000 a day, works a hundred times harder than someone who earns 100 a day? What about the people (mostly young girls) who work 16 hour shifts 7 days a week for 40c an hour to make the products that are sold to pay the huge salaries of executives? Do they really work 1562 times less hard than the CEO who controls their factories?

Ireland we have minimum wage, it is more than 40c an hour. How much people from crap countries get paid is no concern of mine. Screw Africa.

Akrasia wrote:

Define a 'great civilisation'? Is it the ability and propensity to go to war whenever they need more resources? Is it the ability for the rich to be able to consume hundreds of times more resources than the poor, to such an extent that they are destroying the entire biosphere? Or is it a just, peaceful, sustainable society? There are many many indigenous non capitalist commnities around the world that provide a far better quality of life for their people than capitalism does.
*Is the luxury of capitalism for the few worthwhile if it destroys our habitat and brings war famine and pestilence upon the world?*

I'll go with the underlined one. Like Ireland.

Yes and; socialism and communism have been amazing for the world. People whp live in jungles have a amazing way of life.:rolleyes:

Akrasia wrote:

That's why Cuba has more doctors than any capitalist country and a life expectancy far higher than people of a similar income living in the so called civilized world?

As I would agree Cuba has a good health system, but they also dont have democratcy. Also Cuba isnt an anarchist country.

FionnMatthew

Calling me an idoit isnt much of an arguement either.

Correct. That's why I threw it in in the middle of a bunch of proper "arguements", so that you wouldn't be left wanting.

Using your "logic", does anyone own anything?

Nope.
Also, I'm not using my "logic". I'm using my brain. I recommend it.

I dont see people living in jungles having such great civilisations.

Why do you keep talking about jungles? He's asking you to imagine a developed anarchistic society. Ostensibly, one that does not exist in a jungle, or in actual fact. Hence "imagine". That's where the "theory" in "political theory" comes in. In order to differentiate it from "political reality". You're lost aren't you?

Ironically, that was a strawman itself.

Ironically, no. It wasn't.

Ireland we have minimum wage, it is more than 40c an hour. How much people from crap countries get paid is no concern of mine. Screw Africa.

Do you have any idea why we have a minimum wage, Dontico?

Akrasia

Jhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/rams/lecture_20070425.ram

this is a half hour lecture by Jeffery Sachs, a world respected economist that extols the virtues of cooperation over competition. He explains far better than I can, why competitive capitalism is destined to catastrophic failure and how we need to find a new way of cooperation to save our species from the imminent destruction path that we are doomed to follow if we continue on our current path.

Competition does not work anymore, it will destroy us. We can not continue to spend at least 300 times more on our destructive military, than we spend on solidarity and cooperation.

DadaKopf

Funny that Sachs is saying this!? He's a fairly bog-standard economist, though. His solutions to the problems of the global south are technical. Typically economistic. Stiglitz is better by comparison, I think, though they tackle similar problems at different ends.

Sachs still remains wedded to the idea of a competitive capitalist market, but tweaks the recipe here and there. Doesn't he?

eoin5

Hi, I like a lot of what Anarchism aims to achieve over the current system. In Ireland the loss of public space to shopping centres and big business franchises is dreadful and the control that corporations have over the government is scary and makes you wonder why you would vote at all. Outside of the country the wars, media control, effect on the enviroment and the terrible working conditions in export processing zones are just mind boggling.

I accept that Anarchism would probably be a better system even though I find its ideas a bit underproven and to be a little bit fuzzy in places, but for me as a member of the current system there are things that I cant just drop too easily. Things like a sense of national pride and the urge to own my own turf, and even the fact that if I get up off my arse and work harder to get someplace I get a bigger reward. Is there any plan in Anarchism for these hangups or do people just have to unlearn the way theyre programmed to live?

Would there even be a world cup anymore?

Sand

Would there even be a world cup anymore?

Depends on whether the nightmare police state that rises from the ashes of my learned colleagues anarchist society likes footie I guess.

stovelid

Sand wrote:

Depends on whether the nightmare police state that rises from the ashes of my learned colleagues anarchist society likes footie I guess.

Oh I dunno

(sorry for long paste, no direct link to section)

Football to the Footballers!


"We footballers belonging to the various clubs in the Paris region have today decided to occupy the headquarters of the French Football Federation. Just like the workers are occupying their factories, and the students occupying their faculties. Why?

IN ORDER TO GIVE BACK TO THE 600,000 FRENCH FOOTBALLERS AND TO THEIR THOUSANDS OF FRIENDS WHAT BELONGS TO THEM: FOOTBALL. WHICH THE PONTIFFS OF THE FEDERATION HAVE EXPROPRIATED FROM THEM IN ORDER TO SERVE THEIR EGOTISTICAL INTERESTS AS SPORTS PROFITEERS...

...Now it's up to you: footballers, trainers, managers of small clubs, countless friends and fans of football, students and workers - to preserve the quality of your sport by joining us to...

...DEMAND THE IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL (by means of a referendum of the 600,000 footballers, controlled by themselves) of the profiteers of football and the insulters of the footballers.

FREE FOOTBALL FROM THE TUTELAGE OF THE MONEY OF THE PATHETIC PRETEND-PATRONS who are at the root of the decay of football. And demand from the state the SUBSIDIES that it accords to all other sports, and which the pontiffs of the Federation have never claimed.

So that football may remain yours, we call on you to MAKE YOUR WAY WITHOUT DELAY to the headquarters of the Federation which has again become YOUR HOUSE, at 60 Avenue d'Iena, Paris.

United, we will make football once again what it ought never to have ceased to be - the sport of joy, the sport of the world of tomorrow which all the workers have started building. EVERYONE TO 60 AVENUE D'IENA!"

- Footballer's Action Committee

From: Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations Movement, May '68 by René Viénet (Autonomedia/Rebel Press, 1992)

Akrasia

Forget everything I've said so far in this thread. I've decided to change to a new definition of anarchy.

Definition of Anarchy

Anarchy

(3) A system (or disorganised coincidence of social norms) where people (or non-people) of all kinds (or unkinds), with many differing (or identical) beliefs (or unbeliefs) can live (or die) together (or seperate) creating (or destroying) their own little (or large) habitats cohabiting with others (or living alone) as hermits (or socialites) unmolested (or molested) by people (or animals) who think (or acting pre-intellectually) they should be living (or dying) a different (or the same) way.

(1) What happens on the first day of the January sales.

(4) When you leave the kids unattended for more than three seconds.

(2) What happens inside my brain whenever I try to follow orders.

(18) Ignoring repressive bull**** like numerology.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Anarchy