Originally posted by StarValleyWyThat's a very interesting post! I totally agree with you. We have to never forget that we are only some kind of an advanced chimpanze. The big difference is that we can comes out with abstract ideas like "anarchism". All our societies have been designed to answer to our primal instincts. There's the pattern of human behavior:
Several people have made reference to the fact that we are ruled by our base nature. I propose that we are omnivore's (not omnilash's <snicker chuckle>😉 who do NOTHING BUT strive for dominance just as our cousins the chimpanzee's. EVERY INSTITUTION, be it an organization, a club, a group or a gathering (see RHP) of humans involves DOMINANCE behavior. ...[text shortened]... nto space and establish a viable system wide civilization. Then clean up and preserve the Earth.
getting money to have powers --> Having powers to get females (or the best female) --> Transmit our genes to our descent.
That's how we have evolved, that's how we'll continue to evolve. Stronger you are, the better chance you have to reproduce yourself. There's the basic lines of human behaviors... That's my opinion based on natural selection theories.
So, an anarchist society is impossible because it doesn't answer to our needs of powers or dominances.
Yan
Originally posted by StarValleyWyActually, much of what you told me about "chimp credits" in our game may be germane here.
Several people have made reference to the fact that we are ruled by our base nature. I propose that we are omnivore's (not omnilash's <snicker chuckle>😉 who do NOTHING BUT strive for dominance just as our cousins the chimpanzee's. EVERY INSTITUTION, be it an organization, a club, a group or a gathering (see RHP) of humans involves DOMINANCE behavior. ...[text shortened]... nto space and establish a viable system wide civilization. Then clean up and preserve the Earth.
Originally posted by eddie andersThe discussion centers around "is government really inductive to the greater good of the whole community".
i read a little and came to the conclusion you are all off you`r heads ofcourse we need a goverment . 😠😠😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
Some form of government is needed to keep the "bad" people at bay, whilst helping the "good" to prosper. Bad and good being relative to your perspective.
Originally posted by eddie andersThank you for that thoughful and useful post.
i read a little and came to the conclusion you are all off you`r heads ofcourse we need a goverment . 😠😠😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
On to the discussion:
I think this discussion has focus only on what governments prevent people from doing, and has not mentioned what sorts of things governments actually do that could be lost in an anarchist system. Governments represent an organization of huge numbers of individuals, including their capital, their specializations, and their means of production. Some of the greatest achievements in human civilization have been a result of governmental organization. They illustrate the fact that the ability to do great things can often come at a price. The ancient egyptians built the pyramids, and yet only as a result of enforced slavery and an autocratic, hereditary monarchy that most of its inhabitants probably did not like. The ancient Chinese built the great wall, again at the cost of having a ruling class and enforced labor. Flash forward and see how it was only through government cooperation and funding that the human genome could be sequenced, the atom could be split, humans could go to the moon and outer space, the internet could be created. This isn't even mentioned the artistic and literary contributions to civilization that would never have been possible in the absence of government grants and funding. I'm certainly not forgetting the fact that it is government work that created the atomic bomb, cruise missiles, biological weapons, chemical weapons, concentration camps, internment camps, and gave dictators the ability to commit mass genocides.
But we should accept the fact that governments are capable of doing things that aid as well as harm humanity before we decide just to discard all government in favor of localized self-administrative bodies. Take this example: If I take one dollar away from each of you, will it have effected you in any significant way? Of course not, it's only a small amount, not even enough for a cup of coffee and a doughnut (at least in New York city). However, if I have a large enough group of people, and combine all of those single dollars, I can build a solar power plant that provides cheap, clean electricity to millions of people.
Collective efforts accomplish more than any individual or small group of individuals is capable. They can also destroy more than any single person or group of people ever could. If we try and believe that the better part of human nature will often (although of course not always) prevail in the struggle towards creation rather than destruction, then maybe keeping governments in place is not such a bad thing.
-mike
Originally posted by bbarrI lay in the anti-capitolist camp. i believe that the government could be an excellant institution if it were not for the crippling control of corperations.
I'm not sure which of these radically different anarchisms you advocate, but I think it's hardly fair to accuse me of stereotyping your anarchist position when you have failed to be clear about which type of anarchism you are talking about.
posted by mike
t was only through government cooperation and funding that the human genome could be sequenced, the atom could be split, humans could go to the moon and outer space, the internet could be created.
this shows my view in its entiraty, capitolism has meant that researchers can not invent these great things without help, so the government intervines, but at a cost, capitolist enforcement has meant that basic infrastructure comes at a high price, the government must juggle who gets what and as a result to make progressmoney is cut from another area and those people suffer.
while i fall into this camp, i will still defend anarchists from other groups, because we share a common goal, to improve society.
I am very happy that there have been so many well thought out ideas in here. Kudos to all of you! Even the points I may disagree with give me new insight. Thanks everyone, I couldn't have hoped for better feedback. 🙂
I consider the a big problem with our culture to be that "legality" has become more important than "morality". In fact, there is a large number of people who hold that "what is legal is moral. what is illegal is immoral". This disturbs me severely. Just how man issues can you number off the top of your head that are controversial? What of the "consentual" crimes? Most of this can certainly be explained as a by product of capitalism, but what distubs me so much is the lack of opposition to is, and what more how many people support it for reasons NOT of their own making.
I firmly believe that the best product any single mind can produce requires two things: open evaluation and honest reflection. I find these things lacking in the popular concensus. How much do we rely upon "big brother" to formulate our opinions? Too much in my book. If we want to attain something better than what we have now, it is imperative that we first understand that there IS something better than what has been offered to us.
"We were all raised to beleive that we would all grow up to be rock stars and millionaires,.......but we're not. A whole generation of white collar slaves, pumping gas and serving food. We're slowly realizing this, and we are very pissed off." - Fight Club -
The ancient egyptians built the pyramids, and yet only as a result of enforced slavery and an autocratic, hereditary monarchy that most of its inhabitants probably did not like. The ancient Chinese...Not trying to pick holes, but I thought you might be interested: the latest thought is that the Egyptions who built the pyramids weren't slaves, but rather volunteers who would do 6 months hard graft for their king/god. They would have been very well fed & looked after & their families likewise looked after. They do a favour for god (who wouldn't sign up for those merit points) & the system gets a big pointy thing. The idea that the pyramids must have been built by ruthless use of slave labour was a steriotype that civilisations before us must have been brutal.
The Great Wall however is still thought to have been built by use of slaves until they died of exhaustion.
The problem with this thread is there is no common point of reference. We have had 24 different posts, with 24 different conceptions (or misconceptions) of what anarchism is. As Bbarr indicated, we need to define our terms before this thread can proceed in a coherent fashion.
The term “anarchism” has been bastardized by the media and the powers-that-be over the years. Today it is commonly thought to mean a complete absence of any rules, laws, or government, where there is chaos and people commit whatever foul deeds they want. This has nothing to do with the type of anarchism envisioned by Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldmann, and other prominent anarchist theoreticians and activists.
Anarchists advocate the abolition of the political state, which is manifested by the exploitation of one class over another. All previous societies and economic systems have been based upon the management and distribution of insufficient material goods. Since they were unable to produce enough goods for everyone, the political state was a necessary byproduct of those societies.
The productive increases made possible by the industrial revolution have made it possible to provide a superabundance of wealth. We have the productive capacity to adequately clothe and feed everyone in the world. We have the ability to construct a system free from class exploitation. We have the power to abolish the political state.
So, what will be the upshot of this bold action? Will civilization come to a halt? Will laws be abolished? No, not at all. Murderers will still be punished. Society will still be organized. The difference is that it will be the workers who will manage their own affairs from the bottom up, and not be exploited from the top down. The state will be run through the free, collective association of workers. I don’t have the room to expound upon the intricacies of such a system. Do a web search under anarcho syndicalism to research the topic more.
Is such a system idle dreaming? No, it isn't. Can it be made to work in the actual world? Yes, it can. I have seen it firsthand. It exists at places like East Wind Community (http://www.eastwind.org/index.html), which exemplifies the core anarchist principles as closely as any system you will find. I lived at East Wind for nearly a year, several years ago. East Wind and its sister communities in the Federation of Egalitarian Communities (http://www.thefec.org/) provide a viable alternative to capitalist wage slavery.
I can see that kind of community working in the short term (years to decades), where everbody has "bought in" to the idea, where there is little stress on the community, and where the community is small.
I can't see the concept working in the longer term (decades to millennia) because the original ideals (and guiding personalities) will disappear with time. I can't see the idea working in a "real" society where a proportion of the population are out to exploit the system for their own benefit. Although initially these people can be controlled, they will seize upon times of stress in the community (shortage of food or water, external threat, epidemic) to take control or to cheat the majority. I can't see this model working for a population of millions because a population of millions needs central authority to organise defences, coordinate mojor projects, distribute food to areas of shortage etc. Any any central authority will sooner or later become an elite class.
If nothing else, world history shows that nation states with exploitative governments "succeed" and populations without central authority don't,
Mick 🙂
Originally posted by DanforthFemales have complicated preferences. This renders the pattern non-trivial 😕
That's a very interesting post! I totally agree with you. We have to never forget that we [b]are only some kind of an advanced chimpanze. The big difference is that we can comes out with abstract ideas like "anarchism". All our societies have been designed to answer to our primal instincts. There's the pattern of human behavior:
getting money ...[text shortened]... society is impossible because it doesn't answer to our needs of powers or dominances.
Yan
[/b]
Originally posted by belgianfreakThat's more of an argument for family loyalty, which has always been a very prominent feature of human behaviour. However, by 'race' we usually mean Caucasian, Mongoloid etc. These have surprisingly little relevance when it comes to genes; for example, I have heard that there is more genetic diversity among East Africans than the rest of the world put together, and that some individual groups of chimps have more diversity within them than the entire human race.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but not this bit. If you look at man as an animal, who's primary evolutionary aim is to pass on his genes, then hatred towards people who are different races is perfectly natural as they are from a different gene pool. Wrong, but natural - that pretty well sums up all the actions that we have urges to do that civilis ...[text shortened]... women, passing on my genes.
All "natural" male responses which society tries to discourage.
Originally posted by rwingettIn a way this is suggesting a return to an earlier form of society, with clans rather than nations. What you say about sufficient vs infsufficient production is interesting, though.
The problem with this thread is there is no common point of reference. We have had 24 different posts, with 24 different conceptions (or misconceptions) of what anarchism is. As Bbarr indicated, we need to define our terms before this thread can proceed in a coherent fashion.
The term “anarchism” has been bastardized by the media and the powers-that-be ...[text shortened]... an Communities (http://www.thefec.org/) provide a viable alternative to capitalist wage slavery.
I would say that, in a sense, there have always been sufficient resources; over the long term, the population will not grow beyond its means of supporting itself (though this may entail a high death rate to compensate for a high birth rate.)
In another sense, I don't believe universal plenty is ever achievable: take, for example, jewelry. Suppose, in 10 years' time, we can produce twice as much per person as we can now. Then, jewelry's value as a status symbol will halve, because it's that much more common, so people will wear twice as much, or rather twice as elaborate jewelry to compensate. We can never achieve satiation until we abandon our desire to own more than others; but that desire is as fundamental to human nature as the competition for sexual partners.
Originally posted by AcolyteI guess that humans are "programmed" to collect in groups, and that in evolutionary terms groups that are tight-knit and aggressive are more likely to prevail. This tight knitting is most effectively generated by grouping with others very similar to oneself, and by forming a fear or contempt reaction to differing groups. So racism may be caused by the same brain processes as those that help create successful groups. Of course that doesn't make racism acceptable or useful nowadays.
Hatred of other races for example is stupid and pointless, and doesn't help the haters at all