Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is Anarchy?

1…6791112

Comments

  • #242
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    McDougal wrote: »
    Stalin obviously:rolleyes:

    You clearly weren't asked that. But it is revealing nonetheless. It is my contention that socialism and communism has been proven to fail, as it facilitates the emergence of tiny elites through which all revolutionary change is negotiated. That kind of power is obviously bad for people, and leads to their corruption - ipso facto, man is a fundamentally violent, obnoxious and insane beast.

    Another socialist (George Orwell) would agree with that.


  • #243
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Denerick wrote: »
    You clearly weren't asked that. But it is revealing nonetheless. It is my contention that socialism and communism has been proven to fail, as it facilitates the emergence of tiny elites through which all revolutionary change is negotiated. That kind of power is obviously bad for people, and leads to their corruption - ipso facto, man is a fundamentally violent, obnoxious and insane beast.

    Another socialist (George Orwell) would agree with that.

    That's a load of rubbish and Eric Arthur Blair would not agree with that. The USSR example just proved how difficult it is for communism to work in a backward and primitive society like Russia was in 1917 which was full of illiterate peasants who believed in witchcraft and other backward nonsense. An intelligent elite would always come to dominate in that situation. Of course you can have democratic socialism as long as the proletariet are sufficently educated.

    You're just going around spreading reactionary nonsense like equality leads to tyranny. In fact it is the free market which really ruins peoples lives.


  • #244
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Valmont wrote: »
    Ok, considering your opinions here, why do you think people are motivated to become libertarians? If I tell you I'm a libertarian, what does that tell you about me?

    The only libertarians I have encountered are Americans who believe they have a right not to let blacks eat in their family Diner and some daft law students in UCD who think the world gives a toss about their theoritical bulls1t


  • #245
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    I watched a documentary about the Amish in the U.S. As far as I can tell, they live in an anarchist community and they seem to be doing pretty well. They have no elected leaders, no politicians, no priests, no police, no hospitals, no nothing. They do pretty much everything for themselves and seem pretty happy doing it that way.

    Any opinions on the Amish and similar groups that live their lives away from mainstream society? I'm sure they don't consider themselves anarchists but they seem to be by definition.


  • #246
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Denerick wrote: »
    You clearly weren't asked that. But it is revealing nonetheless. It is my contention that socialism and communism has been proven to fail, as it facilitates the emergence of tiny elites through which all revolutionary change is negotiated. That kind of power is obviously bad for people, and leads to their corruption - ipso facto, man is a fundamentally violent, obnoxious and insane beast.

    Another socialist (George Orwell) would agree with that.

    Socialism IS Bad, I'll, sure you'll
    agree after watching this ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    lemonjelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 141 ✭✭lemonjelly


    Anarchy is/was a great idea....but it could never work only in small communes

    A bit primitive maybe :o

    http://vodpod.com/watch/218100-crass-there-is-no-authority-but-yourself-trailer-2


    Noam Chomsky on Anarchism...

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm


  • #248
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    lemonjelly wrote: »
    Anarchy is/was a great idea....but it could never work only in small communes

    A bit primitive maybe :o

    http://vodpod.com/watch/218100-crass-there-is-no-authority-but-yourself-trailer-2

    Good movie, did you hear the Jeffrey Lewis album of Crass covers?
    Great album, way better than Crass' actual music :p

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwM2n-kkjHI


  • #249
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Denerick wrote: »
    You clearly weren't asked that. But it is revealing nonetheless. It is my contention that capitalism and imperialism has been proven to fail, as it facilitates the emergence of tiny elites through which all revolutionary change is negotiated. That kind of power is obviously bad for people, and leads to their corruption - ipso facto, man is a fundamentally selfish, greedy and insane beast.

    Another socialist (George Orwell) would agree with that.

    Fixed that for you.


  • #250
    lemonjelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 141 ✭✭lemonjelly


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Good movie, did you hear the Jeffrey Lewis album of Crass covers?
    Great album, way better than Crass' actual music :p

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwM2n-kkjHI

    No. I haven't heard of him until now. must look him up him thanks.


  • #251
    lemonjelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 141 ✭✭lemonjelly


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLu7p9bTJ84


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    McDougal wrote: »
    That's a load of rubbish and Eric Arthur Blair would not agree with that. The USSR example just proved how difficult it is for communism to work in a backward and primitive society like Russia was in 1917 which was full of illiterate peasants who believed in witchcraft and other backward nonsense. An intelligent elite would always come to dominate in that situation. Of course you can have democratic socialism as long as the proletariet are sufficently educated.

    You're just going around spreading reactionary nonsense like equality leads to tyranny. In fact it is the free market which really ruins peoples lives.

    Oh so its about their 'education'? Those who refuse to get educated will be forced to do so? Those who prefer to read Hegel to Marx will be 'forced' to get the 'proper' education? Socialism is an inherently elitist ideology, it has been proven to fail because it refuses to countenance the dark heart of man. The only system that in anyway works is one which limits political power.


  • #253
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Denerick wrote: »
    Socialism is an inherently elitist ideology, it has been proven to fail because it refuses to countenance the dark heart of man.

    How has socialism failed? I believe the values of socialism are the reason
    why people that have been laid off due to the economy are able to live,
    yet you'll call that a failure?

    As for this "dark heart of man" if you read my huge post just a page ago I
    exactly predicted we'd hear this waffle from someone arguing for
    some form of libertarianism - go back and read it - it's so predictable ;)

    You have to explain to me how man has such a dark heart when
    contemporary murder rates are extremely low historically speaking:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk


    All you'll need to watch is the first 4 minutes & explain to me why our
    foul nature should be taken as an axiomatic ingredient in a political
    philosophy when the evidence clearly shows this to be a declining
    number. Furthermore we have every reason to believe this will
    continue to decline. It's such a childish argument to further an argument
    about a political philosophy, i.e. arguing we're ultimately bad - it's like
    some religious belief ffs... Just as religious people have us convinced that
    atheists have no morals etc... while humanity itself is inherently bad &
    needs religious guidance to cleanse itself we have libertarians arguing we're
    all inherently bad underneath it all & need political freedom for some
    unrelated reason :p Is it so that you can go off & indulge in your dark
    nature without governmental restriction?

    Just explain the graph @ the 4 minute mark in that video after
    watching the first 4 minutes, I'd love to see it ;)

    It's obvious youy're spouting a propaganda line that is so commonly
    found to originate in a bad education - you need to prove to us
    you're not just making sh*t up & promulgating nonsense when you say
    socialism has failed... So far we've only read reactionary posts from
    you with absolutely no substantive content & I believe you really
    don't know the history of the ideology you're spouting seeing as
    you're asking for books on the subject to learn about it in the
    economics forum. Here's my recommendation:
    "Ha-Joon Chang - Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade &
    the Secret History of Capitalism


  • #254
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    [/B]This is just standard, as part of a libertarian philosophy there is always a
    general attitude that people are bad or that they'll never be good to one
    another i.e. we're not altruistic we will only do something if it's in our
    interest     but it's always taken as axiomatic that company owners will
    Au contraire, Libertarians most definitely believe that people are altruistic and care about each other. So much so that we don't believe a gun is needed to be placed against people's heads so that they "give" to those less well off. It comes to a deep down cynicism on behalf of the statist. It is actually the statist, not the libertarian, who believes people are selfish and have no altruistic sentiments because the state supports and endorses violence as a means of achieving any particular social agenda. When it comes to the idea of people voluntarily working together for a common good, you scoff at the idea. Thus, libertarians are optimistic and have a well-founded belief in the abilities of the productive capacities of people working together. The statist thinks the only way to get anything significant done is to order the masses around with a gun, because they don't know any better. So, looking back on your post, things are in fact the exact opposite to your proposed state of affairs.


  • #255
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    "Tell that to Steven Pinker"

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66255348&postcount=80

    SponsoredWalk, how do you think these stats from the CSO can be reconciled with Pinker's analysis?


  • #256
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Denerick wrote: »
    Oh so its about their 'education'? Those who refuse to get educated will be forced to do so? Those who prefer to read Hegel to Marx will be 'forced' to get the 'proper' education? Socialism is an inherently elitist ideology, it has been proven to fail because it refuses to countenance the dark heart of man. The only system that in anyway works is one which limits political power.

    Yep that's exactly what I said, "re-education" camps for all.

    Actually socialism is the least elitist ideology as it aims to abolish class and elites but never bother with the facts eh? The real fact is that any healthy democracy requires educated and informed people. That is why capitalists try to keep the working class ignorant.


  • #257
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Valmont wrote: »
    "Tell that to Steven Pinker"

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66255348&postcount=80

    SponsoredWalk, how do you think these stats from the CSO can be reconciled with Pinker's analysis?

    I can say that the snide comment about welfare rates isn't in the least
    surprising, au contraire it is to be expected ;)

    There are two seperate ways to analyze what he said so we'll take
    them in turn.

    Well, my answer to this on a general level would be the famous
    phrase "correlation does not necessitate causation"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW1IEqKuf6s

    (Really worth watching as it has it's own merit!)

    The first minute of the video really has to be watched though for my
    point to be further elucidated. ;)

    His addendum at the end implying welfare has something to do with this
    is ridiculous, the logical implication of this addendum is to conclude that
    the higher welfare is for people - the higher the murder rates but
    we're dealing with a politically charged argument here so his incorrect
    logic will hold for those who'll blithely/willingly accept the implication.
    In mathematical parlance, murder rates are a function of the amount
    society spends on welfare :cool:
    ƒ(murder) = 2.5(murder) + C, (1950 ≤ murder ≤ 2007) :P
    Seeing as we're not going to use correct logic I'll deal with the point
    he was trying to make there, even though it holds no merit.
    Arguing that higher rates of violence by those on welfare is a good
    argument but the very fact that poverty is so intimately tied with
    murder & crime rates points out an extremely obvious correlation that
    is found throughout the whole world onsistently time & again.
    Claiming that these murder rates have anything to do with welfare
    increases has absolutely no relevance unless you're trying to incorrectly
    argue a correlation in order to argue against welfare.
    That's the only way the inclusion of that addendum makes any sense...

    On a closer inspection the increased rates of crime, homicide etc... must
    have a root cause. If we look at this in a vacuum then it does seem
    strange but if we look around the world we get a better understanding....

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-crime_x.htm

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

    http://www.overthelimitentertainment.com/profiles/blogs/080810-jamaica-crime-rate?xg_source=activity (shocking!)

    Now, all these links point to declining rates of crime etc... in the U.S.
    Canada Jamacia but here in Ireland it's increased. Well, it increased
    in the U.S. too from the 60's on but declined...

    Basically, if we use the faulty logic of donegalfella I can just as adamantly
    assert that the increase in crime is due to the baby boom & pull out
    statistics of population increase, measure it etc... (good idea actually!) but
    it's got nothing to do with the point I was making    .

    The point I, and Steven Pinker, were making - if you watched the video -
    was that factoring in all of the current peaks & troughs in human
    violence it's nothing compared to the levels of murder/rape etc... that
    would have occurred if we retained the violent nature of humanity
    as it lived a hunter-gatherer mode of life.

    The argument that humans will always murder and kill each other
    has no legs to stand upon. If that were true then we would
    be murdering each other @ the rate which Steven Pinker, quoting
    anthropologist Lawrence Keeley

    maledeaths.png

    shows shows this to be false.

    Again, in mathematics parlance if our instinct to murder others
    & always continue to do so was constant then it shouldn't
    be any different to the Jivaro or Yanomamo tribes in the graph,
    but it's not constant it's a variable & therefore the claims that
    it will always continue to be prevalent is simply false, there is
    absolutely nothing written in stone (or our genes) on the matter so
    when we read those lies I think it's best to challenge them regardless
    of your political predisposition - I hope you'll agree with me there.

    As we've read, the libertarian argument makes no claim on the axiomatic
    bad nature of humans, yet here (bottom of the post) & here we have
    people that are arguing for libertarian ideology propagate the myth that
    humans will always be bad to each other.

    I'm glad you too appreciate the irony in a sense because you claim that
    libertarians argue for the altruistic nature of human beings. I don't
    understand how they can claim humans will both be altruistic when the
    government gets off their backs all the while claiming that murdering etc...
    is a fundamental aspect of human nature as the two posters did in the
    linked posts above. It's just plain inconsistent...

    I agree with the point you're making about humans not requiring a
    smoking gun to their heads in order to provide for the poorer & less
    fortunate but you really have to understand that there is currently
    an ongoing case study proving that you're idea will never ever
    come to fruition.
    As people feel the need to give to poorer countries like Africa, or
    go to Haiti & try to rebuild a grief & tragedy stricken area of the world,
    others whose economic predisposition makes it in their interest to do so
    will exploit the misery & suffering to their greatest advantage & pervert
    the well meaning attempts of people.
    It's companies who, under free market principles, are exploiting those
    in 3rd world countries & remaining unchallenged except by some
    consumers (think nike, nestle etc...) but you're claim is that people
    will not do this once the government gets off their backs.
    If it weren't for government regulations these companies would have
    it the same way for us here simply because it's in their interest to
    pay less while producing more.
    I can continue but I've written another huge piece that probably
    no-one will read or will just skim at best :pac:


  • #258
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    McDougal wrote: »
    Yep that's exactly what I said, "re-education" camps for all.

    Actually socialism is the least elitist ideology as it aims to abolish class and elites but never bother with the facts eh? The real fact is that any healthy democracy requires educated and informed people. That is why capitalists try to keep the working class ignorant.

    Actually capitalists only seek to make a profit - its irrelevant if they (The poor) are informed or not. This is why they sell tabloids and why their constituent market is the working class.

    Socialism may aim to abolish class and elites, but has been proven to fail in practise and is widely impratical in theory, due to the necessity of creating a vanguard socialist movement that will necessarily lead to the withering away of the State. That stage of socialist progression is the one that is flawed and which horrifies any humanitarian, and proves that socialists are incapable of treating the world as it is.


  • #259
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Denerick wrote: »
    Socialism may aim to abolish class and elites, but has been proven to fail in practise and is widely impratical in theory, due to the necessity of creating a vanguard socialist movement that will necessarily lead to the withering away of the State. That stage of socialist progression is the one that is flawed and which horrifies any humanitarian, and proves that socialists are incapable of treating the world as it is.

    Again, these tiny posts are making no substantive claims - you're going to
    have to give us some compelling reasons if you want us to listen.

    I can only guess, due to the lack of substance, that you're talking about
    Russia when you talk of socialism & I'd agree it was an abomination but
    that makes no claim on the theory of socialism as you'd know if you
    were reading up on these topics instead of promulgating comments like
    the above.
    Denerick wrote: »
    This is why they sell tabloids and why their constituent market is the working class.

    :eek:

    Seriously???

    :eek:

    I mean Noam Chomsky spends quite a good bit of his book Manufacturing
    Consent answering this question in detail, you could hardly be more
    wrong in what you've just said...


  • #260
    Denerick
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Again, these tiny posts are making no substantive claims - you're going to
    have to give us some compelling reasons if you want us to listen.

    I can only guess, due to the lack of substance, that you're talking about
    Russia when you talk of socialism & I'd agree it was an abomination but
    that makes no claim on the theory of socialism as you'd know if you
    were reading up on these topics instead of promulgating comments like
    the above.



    :eek:

    Seriously???

    :eek:

    I mean Noam Chomsky spends quite a good bit of his book Manufacturing
    Consent answering this question in detail, you could hardly be more
    wrong in what you've just said...

    This is tiresome stuff.


  • #261
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Denerick wrote: »
    This is tiresome stuff.

    Lol, alright sorry I don't mean to have a go at you but I don't agree
    with what you're saying & am challenging you to provide some solid
    reasons for these claims. Maybe I shouldn't challenge :p

    Anyway, most papers over the last 150 years were working class
    ones with a socialist tint due to a lot of union influence, they used
    to be very critical of governments until the monopoly of corporate
    capitalism infected this business & slowly found it's ways to curb
    dissent & build up a framework of what's fit to report.
    Now they're tabloid's with no substance but it wasn't always like
    that. It's really unfortunate that there's so much homogeny in what
    is printed nowadays but it wasn't always like that.

    Read that book & you'll see plenty of charts showing the decline in
    independent media & the rise of corporate ownership, when there
    was a socialist tint to it they were critical of government - namely
    exercising the muscles on which the media are based - checks &
    balances of government, now - well pick up the paper & have a looksee :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    uggghh socialism is such a rank ideology. For the past five minutes Ive been trying to think like a socialist and I feel ill.

    If I applied basics of socialism to my personal life and acted on them I would first have to believe that I am somehow entitled to my neighbors wealth and that I have a right to take it from them if they have more than me.
    Then I would have to convince myself that if I was ever successful in life somebody else should have the right to hold a gun to my head and take my hard earned wealth. This to me genuinely seems like a sickness how could I have such a lack of respect for myself and for others to wish this on them?:(


  • #263
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Denerick wrote: »
    Actually capitalists only seek to make a profit - its irrelevant if they (The poor) are informed or not. This is why they sell tabloids and why their constituent market is the working class.

    Socialism may aim to abolish class and elites, but has been proven to fail in practise and is widely impratical in theory, due to the necessity of creating a vanguard socialist movement that will necessarily lead to the withering away of the State. That stage of socialist progression is the one that is flawed and which horrifies any humanitarian, and proves that socialists are incapable of treating the world as it is.

    Capitalists are interested only in profit, that is true. But their long-term profits depend on the working class consenting to being exploited.

    And spare me your bar stool sociology, you can't use any science to prove your nonsense ie man is evil, man is greedy, man is stupid etc etc


  • #264
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    simplistic2 wrote: »
    uggghh socialism is such a rank ideology. For the past five minutes Ive been trying to think like a socialist and I feel ill.

    If I applied basics of socialism to my personal life and acted on them I would first have to believe that I am somehow entitled to my neighbors wealth and that I have a right to take it from them if they have more than me.
    Then I would have to convince myself that if I was ever successful in life somebody else should have the right to hold a gun to my head and take my hard earned wealth. This to me genuinely seems like a sickness how could I have such a lack of respect for myself and for others to wish this on them?:(

    Why would you be entitled to the personal belongings of your neighbours? You would be entitled to your share over the gas and oil reserves off Ireland though and a say in how the country's public resources are used.


  • #265
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    McDougal wrote: »
    Capitalists are interested only in profit, that is true. But their long-term profits depend on the working class consenting to being exploited.
    Which they seem perfectly content to be, if by "exploited" you mean "paid for work".


  • #266
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which they seem perfectly content to be, if by "exploited" you mean "paid for work".

    So as long as anyone is paid for work they are not exploited?


  • #267
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Which they seem perfectly content to be, if by "exploited" you mean "paid for work".

    No I'll refer you to the post I made quoting all those report of what Nestle
    were getting up to via strike breaks, inadequate labelling of products,
    marketing products as viable when they lead to untold numbers of infant
    mortalities etc... But that doesn't appear to fall under your definition of
    the contented working classes...


  • #268
    simplistic2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭simplistic2


    McDougal wrote: »
    Why would you be entitled to the personal belongings of your neighbours? You would be entitled to your share over the gas and oil reserves off Ireland though and a say in how the country's public resources are used.

    If there every was a socialist revolution and I decided I was keeping my wealth to myself what would happen?


  • #269
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    No I'll refer you to the post I made quoting all those report of what Nestle
    were getting up to via strike breaks, inadequate labelling of products,
    marketing products as viable when they lead to untold numbers of infant
    mortalities etc... But that doesn't appear to fall under your definition of
    the contented working classes...
    I'm not sure how it falls under the definition of consenting to exploitation either.


  • #270
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,848 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    McDougal wrote: »
    So as long as anyone is paid for work they are not exploited?
    Oh, so you weren't referring to the entire working class, then? Just the exploited ones?

    Now all we need is a definition of exploitation that we can all agree on.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not sure how it falls under the definition of consenting to exploitation either.

    If you buy products from these people you consent to their exploitation
    of people in the third world, that will fall under the definition of
    consenting to exploitation in the general sense you imply here.

    The more specific case above talks about capitalists long term interests are
    dependent on having the working classes consent to their exploitation by
    not only working for these same companies but also buying from them,
    accepting whatever wage it is they offer which is usually on the
    margin of what that dastardly governmental regulation indicates, in many
    cases striving to hug the margins of safety regulations as mandated by
    that horrific governmental standard, etc...

    Furthermore, I don't think people actually consent to being paid so little
    that they have to get a second job to survive unless you define
    consent as simply the act of participating in an exchange of time &
    services. We'd get into a messy situation when reading a definition of
    rape however & a lot of court cases would need re-examination :pac:


Advertisement