[Napuljun]

This topic is contradicting itself. Anarchist society is a society were eevrybody does everything they want without hurtign others. In an archist society its impossible to have killing/raping/beating becuase it's an anarchy.

[Liberal]

This topic is contradicting itself. Anarchist society is a society were eevrybody does everything they want without hurtign others. In an archist society its impossible to have killing/raping/beating becuase it's an anarchy.

Anarchy is more like the pre-social period described by Hobbes.

[Kamil]

What is governing? It is the making and enforcement of rules.
What is government? It is any body that makes and enforces rules.

If the masses agree to annihilate any threat, this the act of making and enforcing rules. Those that do that are the government.

Your conception of government is too simplistic and derogatory. There is a whole lot more on government that goes beyond the process of making and enforcing rules, which is a subsidiary function, a constituent of the entire structure of government. As Infoshop notes:

"1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature; and
3) A hierarchical nature, centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few."

Also, if you look back to my previous post, you'll notice that I have included some points on how exactly our system functions.

What you cannot comprehend is the fact that it will be inherent that if there is a physical threat in society, it should be abolished. I don't really think everyone makes a decision, rather, is in accord with such a thought. If someone goes on a killing frenzy, what do you think will happen? If it's a single murder, it'd be logical to judge the case before acting on anything. In an anarchist society or commune, if the people come to a concensus on what their approach is for such a problem, that's fine. I don't care whether the entire society is deemed a "government." As long as there are no bosses and no slaves, everything's fine. It could also be said that each individual is their own state. Our society is based on freedom and equality. What we do frown upon is the violation of freedom made by one to another. If one perpetrates a deliberate and enslaving act, they shouldn't be excused. I wouldn't see such actions being done too oftenly in an anarchist society.

If any body (that is to say any group of people) collectively decide what is right and what is wrong, then carry out actions based on that decision, then those people are the government. When the masses agree to do anything as a cohesive group, they are a government. Once done, you no longer have the state of anarchy.

Get it?

Well, you're the expert on this. You must be right!

Actually, yes they do. Not most as you correctly state, but certainly enough to make the remainder of society uncomfortable. Look at how many we have now who will plot and scheme to steal or otherwise commit fraud upon others. Many if not most of these people are perfectly capable of earning a living honestly. They prefer to cheat and steal.

That does not happen. In the majority of murder cases, there must be some sort of an incentive or apparatus, it is only seldom that there is an unjustified and meaningless murder.

In anarchism, people would not need to cheat and steal since they would be able to take anything they'd like. Also, such cases are usually caused by their impoverished social conditions created by government imposed class hierarchy into social, political, and economic aspects. As I reiterated many times before, social conditions of all would ameliorate so that the necessity for crime, theft, and murder would drastically diminish.

Don't think so? Check out Charles Manson. Check out Ted Bundy. Check out Jeffry Dahlmer. (that name may not be exactly right) Check out all the Catholic priests that molested and raped young boys. These preists were supposed to be the best of the best. The most moral of all. How many well to do people shoplift just for the fun of it. The lists and examples go on almost without end.

What an elitist view. I am not an elitist, however. I don't give a fuck whether you're a priest or a janitor, everyone in my eyes is consider an equal. Perhaps not in socioeconomic aspects but in individual aspects.

Those that think people tend to be good honest people have not a clue as to human nature. You think you do, but you clearly do not.

I don't think that you yourself understand human nature. Human nature consists of a matter of characteristics and attributes in humans that determine one's actions and reactions. Therefore, human nature is ephemeral. New discoveries, new enviroments all modify human nature. Whether such discoveries make humans more dependent on certain things or whether such enviroments cause humans to adapt to different lifestyles or qualities. The entire question of what humans are reacting to brings upon the question of how they will act. In anarchism, the basis of such a society will be free association, voluntary co-operation, etc... It is most likely that humans will adapt to a line of thought and action that corresponds with such a milieu.

I reiterate the point, you have not a clue as to what makes people tick. Humans will always want to control material things and other people. Always have, always will. Why? Because those that control the most, breed the most, and their tendancies get passed on to the next generation.

Don't bother arguing this point. I have done some studying in psychology and pholosophy. I can confidently say you have not.

Taking your claim of studying philosophy into consideration, I can easily tell that you did not study philosophy thoroughly.

People will not always want to control others. Anarchist lifestyle and tendencies took the form of a philosophy in response to such manipulation. Another thing you've gotten wrong is that humans have not always wanted to control others. For the majority of human existence, man lived in primitive anarchy, and through gerontocracy and patriarchy came the notion of domination within systematic and professional form. As you noted:

"Because those that control the most, breed the most, and their tendancies get passed on to the next generation."

That backs up my motion. As I have incessantly reiterated, in order for anarchism to exist, the majority must be in correspondence with such a movement. The goal of anarchism is to abolish classism, poverty, and domination and implement free association and egalitationism while eradicating classism. Since the majority adheres to such measures and conditions, such qualities and tendencies will be dominant within the society. Such tendencies will get passed onto the next generation more and more until "crime" just disappears, if possible.

One of the functions of government is to do what the individuals cannot do. Such as building roads. Notice that you did not answer the question. Rather than just saying I am wrong, say who will build the roads and why they will do it. Describe the rewards that these road builders will achieve. Tell me how a road will be designed and constructed without a heiarchy. (remember, heiarchy is totally disdained by anarchy)

Haha, how pathetic. You honestly believe it is a necessity to have domination present in society to contruct roads and things of that nature? I don't even know whether to bother with you.

Lets skip to a critical question that you ignored. There are a number of countries today in which anarchy is the effective rule of the land. Instead of continuing your babbling about why capitalism should be abolished, tell us why you choose to not go to those countries and live in anarchism.

You want it, go Live it!!! Right now! Today!

In order for anarchy to exist, world-wide proletarian-run society must be implemented. I do not see that. Plus, chaos does not equate to anarchy. I did not answer such a question because it's completely pathetic. It's not that any of your other comments are not pathetic, this one is in a whole different category.

This topic is contradicting itself. Anarchist society is a society were eevrybody does everything they want without hurtign others. In an archist society its impossible to have killing/raping/beating becuase it's an anarchy.

Here, here.

[Bryan]

In order for anarchy to exist, world-wide proletarian-run society must be implemented.

Absolute and total crap. To say that any given type of society will not work until the whole world adopts is completely vacuous.

Plus, chaos does not equate to anarchy.

You are right. But the opposite is true. Anarchy does indeed equate to chaos.

This topic is contradicting itself. Anarchist society is a society were eevrybody does everything they want without hurtign others. In an archist society its impossible to have killing/raping/beating becuase it's an anarchy.

Here, here.

I am quite surprised to find that anyone with enough intellegence to actually master a langauage, can be so incredibly stupid as to believe that crap. I supose I should not be, but I will always continue to hope that people will learn to think before taking a stand.

[Kamil]

Absolute and total crap. To say that any given type of society will not work until the whole world adopts is completely vacuous.


It's logic. If we were to rid ourselves of every government in the world, I concede to say that there'd definately be chaos. That is without any ideological transition within the epoch of capitalism. The people, would surely implement a new governmental structure to make sure that their previous status quo is regained. Where obedience is conveyed through fear and confinement. If the masses realized their confinement and their slavery and came to the conclusion that a world without bosses is possible, they would emancipate themselves. Since I do not have much time, let me once bring up a point by re-posting the following comment I made in the earlier post:

"I don't think that you yourself understand human nature. Human nature consists of a matter of characteristics and attributes in humans that determine one's actions and reactions. Therefore, human nature is ephemeral. New discoveries, new enviroments all modify human nature. Whether such discoveries make humans more dependent on certain things or whether such enviroments cause humans to adapt to different lifestyles or qualities. The entire question of what humans are reacting to brings upon the question of how they will act. In anarchism, the basis of such a society will be free association, voluntary co-operation, etc... It is most likely that humans will adapt to a line of thought and action that corresponds with such a milieu. "

You are right. But the opposite is true. Anarchy does indeed equate to chaos.

Typical straw man. Anyways, since you're into philosophy, I'm sure you must've heard of Nietzsche's quote: "Chaos is order."

I don't want to get to hostile terms with you, but I recommend that you read up on some anarchist literature. Perhaps you can see things from a different point of view from very intellectual individuals far more articulate than I am.

I am quite surprised to find that anyone with enough intellegence to actually master a langauage, can be so incredibly stupid as to believe that crap. I supose I should not be, but I will always continue to hope that people will learn to think before taking a stand.

I suppose you've never heard of Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Leo Tolstoy, and many other prominent intellectuals who happened to be anarchists. Such individuals have grasped excessive knowledge in their main fields, far more than any of us here, yet, they are anarchists. There's something about almost every ideology that attracts a certain crowd, it all depends on whether your thoughts or your mind have the ability to correspond with such measures. Whether you're eager on getting into power and ruling other people or whether you want to implement a free classless society. Anarchism, as I see it, is a viable "historical tendency, a tendency of thought and action," as Chomsky describes anarchism. What I formulated about a month ago was the thought that this indigenous lifestyle anarchism took the form of an ideology, a political philosophy, with the arisal of the state. It's a philosophy, most notably introduced by Proudhon, that renders a viable surrogate lifestyle, a workable reality, to our prevalent hierarchical nature. Anarchism, like Marxism, can be recognized as a religion, a secular religion, however. As noted somewhere, one man comes to the conclusion that Marxism is a secular religion since it holds several various common traits found in religious thought. Such as how evil came into the world and how it will come out, etc....I really don't remember too much. Anyways, I view anarchism as a deterministic lifestyle. I don't believe that we will perpetuate such conditions, since sooner or later, people will prompt a revolution against such a society. But, this can also mean that we can destroy everything that we have and blast ourselves to ruins.
----

Oh, and if you go to the following link, and scroll down to the short 'Section A.4," you'll read an interesting paragraph or two relating to parts of our discussion.

[Kamil]

Oh, and the link is: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/sectionA.pdf

[Bryan]

I am aware of Noam Chomsky. Are you? Take a look.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/ ... homsky.htm

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=1020

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

He does have a lot of good things to say. But he have a side he doesn’t want you to know. Remember that he teaches at MIT, one of the more hierarchical institutions you will ever find.

[Kamil]

All the articles that you have provided are reactionary bullshit.

Remember that he teaches at MIT, one of the more hierarchical institutions you will ever find.

He teaches at the MIT University, big deal. Anarchists are not opposed to all forms of hierarchy, many forms of hierarchy are inevitable. What anarchists would like to do away with is political, economic, and social hierarchy, in which there is domination, coercion, slavery, etc....
----

As you have mentioned in one of your early replies, I didn't respond to some of your comments because I apparently, did not know what to say. If you would look at yourself for a second, you've merely responded to one, out of the many, points that I have provided you with.

[Napuljun]

I am quite surprised to find that anyone with enough intellegence to actually master a langauage, can be so incredibly stupid as to believe that crap. I supose I should not be, but I will always continue to hope that people will learn to think before taking a stand.

Never had such an abstract comment before.

[Kamil]

I second that.

[El Infiltr(A)do]

If a nation was to turn anarchist, what would stop someone from killing/raping/beating another person. Laws today do not scare someone from committing a crime, so why would abolishment of law and government remove the need for someone to commit a crime against another?

Why do crimes exist in first place? And do you really think laws avoid crimes? Do you really think crazy people suddenly stops and thinks: "I might go to jail if i do this"??
And we shouldnt forget that the police is not very efficient and honest in it's modern style. Privatized police will be almost the same.

"Take the most hardened criminal or the man with the poorest mind, provided that t neither has any organic lesion causing idiocy or insanity; the criminality of the one, and the failure of the other to develop an awareness of his humanity and his human duties, is not their fault, nor is it due to their nature; it is solely the result of the social environment in which they were born and brought up." - Mikhail Bakunin

If there were no laws, wouldn't the crime be increased?

I'll tell you a little secret: Anarchism doesn't necessarilly implies an abolition of "government" and laws. Anarchism is more of a methodlogy nowadays. Do you think workplaces will not have some kind of "government"?? Think about it. And maybe read a bit about anarchism.

The question is not how many will not commit crimes, but how many will? When but a few people start takeing what they want, when they want, things will go down hill fast.

The popular assumption that "anarchists want to abolish the government all off a sudden".
And supposing an anarcho-communist economy would be established, why would you go to a store and take more food than the one you can eat? Unless you're Homer Simpson, your food will probably end up in the trashcan because it's been expired. That's stupid.

Why should I wait for a green light. I think I can make it across now so I will go now.Why shold I limit myself to 30 mph in residential areas, much less 15 in a school zone. I will drive what ever speed I please. Why should I pay for that gas I just pumped? HEY YOU, Get the xxxx out of my way. (Read that with completely unrestrained anger.)

I see. You want to cross a street at a red light even at the risk of dying or killing somebody. How will you do to carry on the fact that you killed somebody for the rest of your life? Do you think people is that stupid as to allow that to go unpunished? DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF RESPECT FOR PEOPLE??? WOULD YOU REALLY LIKE THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU??? DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT EXAMPLE TO OTHERS SO THAT THEY DO THAT TOO??

What would keep the clerk in the local convience store from just emptying the cash register and leaving. He would not even have to leave town.

That somebody would realize.
Note that most anarchists are socialists (excepting anarcho-capitalists, which I'm not sure if should be called "anarchists" and some of the individualist ones), and they recognize that in fact the capitalist state, with its glorious property laws, was the one who massacred thousands of aborigins in places like the U$A and Argentina so that the rich oligarchy could steal the lands in that they lived and claim it was their property. Of course you seem to support capitalism and private property. Think about it again.

Lets go big time. With no regulatory agency, the stock market as we know it could not exist.

Stock market??? Who cares?!

Banks would be ripped off left and right by their own people.

Good since banks would tend to be useless in that kind of society or it would end up being obvious.

What would stop people from falsifying credentials and opening their medical offices. They will prescribe medicines that his brother makes in the kitchen sink for the pharmacy next door. Or even open you up with a scalpel. It happens now.

What about an "Federation of Medicine and patients?"

Some time ago I read an article by a guy from a city in Canada. (I did some searching but am not good at it and failed to find the item.) He wrote about his nice town and what happened when the police went on strike at something like 8:00 AM. By 9:00 AM, the first bank had been robbed. He went on to list the ever worsening condition and ended with all out rioting and looting with the militia being called in before 5:00 PM.

Again, you should read about what anarchism advocates before making stupid assumptions.

Socialism has been shown to be an abject and complete failure everywhere it has been tried. People do not work for the common good.

Blah blah blah. Was there ever "socialism"? Unless you refer to the Leninist countries, the closest thing to that did pretty well it seems (remember Makhnovites and the Anarchist Spain during the Civil War). Let's see what George Orwell has to say about Anarchism in the Spanish Civil War:

"The essential point of the system was social equality between officers and men. Everyone from general to private drew the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes, and mingled on terms of complete equality. If you wanted to slap the general commanding the division on the back and ask him for a cigarette, you could do so, and no one thought it curious. In theory at any rate each militia was a democracy and not a hierarchy. It was understood that orders had to be obeyed, but it was also understood that when you gave an order you gave it as comrade to comrade and not as superior to inferior. There were officers and N.C.O.S. but there was no military rank in the ordinary sense; no titles, no badges, no heel-clicking and saluting. They had attempted to
produce within the militias a sort of temporary working model of the classless society. Of course there was no perfect equality, but there was a nearer approach to it than I had ever seen or than I would have thought conceivable in time of war."

"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Señor' or 'Don' or even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos dias'. . . Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine."

Anarchy would be infinitely worse.

Probably thanks to people like you I suppose.

No one has established any such thing at any time. You need to rethink the fundamentals. Anarchy is a complete lack of government. That is the definition of the word anarchy. Go look it up. I have Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in front of me. Definition 1a: absence of a government.

More blah blah blah. I guess you obviously forgot that most of this "anarchy is chaos" misconception is thanks to politicians (mostly those from the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century).

By definition, there can be no laws under anarchy. This can be verified by considering the question: Who would specify the laws. There are only two methods of establishing a law: 1) a dictator declares law, 2) an agreed upon (elected) body writes the laws. Both methods constitute a government, and that is not anarchy.

There's not such a thing as "no government" by your sense. You would be surprised by the fact that Anarchists advocate attacking authority and hierarchies, and in fact WANT government. Just not a state. Closer to a consensus and direct democracy.

If you believe in anarchy, try to write a detailed position paper describing the behaviors of the individuals in that society. How would trade be conducted? What you you do when someone walked into you neighbors garden, ate their fill, and left. Justify those statements within the concepts of anarcy. If you try to analyze and predict the behaviors of a society of people under anarchy, you will quickly find that an implementation of anarchy is fundamentally impossible. Give it a shot. Start a new thread and post your results. Better yet, start a web site and lay your plans out there. (You can get a web site for less than a hundred bucks a year) The whole worlds need to see this. Post the link here in your new thread.

Great idea. Btw, do we need trade??

1. If this is a group decision, then you have a government.

Then we will have to change our name I guess.

2. If the individuals carry out this function, then I, an individual, can declare anyone objectionable and annihilate them for any reason. After all, who is to say it is wrong. This significance is that I can do what I want when I want.

I see. So if somebody declares the creation of an organization to prevent crimes you would go and kill them? It seems to me that the one who wants to rape and kill in such a society is YOU.

If you don't like it, move to another collective/city. And do you think people in such a society will allow others to dictate rules for them? I don't think so.

Do you want to have money? Who will determine the currency of the land? Who will make it. Or will we each just have to barter with what we have? Not a chance.

Currency? Barter? "what we have?". That's not very anarchistic.

How about transportation? Who will build and maintain the roads? Any collective effort is indeed a government.

Some organization will do it.

Lets return to trade. If I make a product, and I sell indirectly to anyone, how do I get my return value? There will be no one to guarentee that. Under anarchy, there can be no commerce other than local face to face. And even that will be difficult.

All those "nice" capitalist terms. No thank you.

Under anarchy, no society can progress beyond substinance living.

So people is so stupid that they do not want progress?

According to your logic:
- most people is dumb and doesnt repsect others and wants to kill, steal and rape them
- anarchy is impossible because of that
And sinfce most people who doesn't seem to support anarchism thinks that, I guess you are one of those.

BTW, you want anarchy, move to Iraq, Afganistan, or a number of African nations. What are you waiting for, you can live in your anarchy right now. Catch the next plane out there.

Doesn't seem very anarchistic.

Oh, I'm sorry. You can't fly or sail there without using GOVERNMENT SERVICES!!

Blah blah blah blah blah.

What is governing? It is the making and enforcement of rules.
What is government? It is any body that makes and enforces rules.

If the masses agree to annihilate any threat, this the act of making and enforcing rules. Those that do that are the government.

In an anarchist society there can't be any kind of "body" that enforces rules, excepting the people.

If any body (that is to say any group of people) collectively decide what is right and what is wrong, then carry out actions based on that decision, then those people are the government. When the masses agree to do anything as a cohesive group, they are a government. Once done, you no longer have the state of anarchy.

It's called self.government. Nobody enforces you to do that. If you kill somebody you are being authoritarian. You are in fact becoming a "government". People has the right to protect themselves from authoritarians like you.

Lets skip to a critical question that you ignored. There are a number of countries today in which anarchy is the effective rule of the land. Instead of continuing your babbling about why capitalism should be abolished, tell us why you choose to not go to those countries and live in anarchism.

I suppose you consider Iraq and Afghanistan (2 new stars for the yanqui flag) as living in "anarchy". [/b]

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And supposing an anarcho-communist economy would be established, why would you go to a store and take more food than the one you can eat? Unless you're Homer Simpson, your food will probably end up in the trashcan because it's been expired. That's stupid.

So what do you propose as the solution? I think everyone in an anarchist society should live in communes rather than family units, this would kill 2 birds with one stone, in other words it would abolish privacy and private property and this would solve many problems, and especially in the aforementioned context it would end all waste of food and would end the phenomena of some people over-eating while others suffer because of this by starving. Starving is the worst thing for a society based on intellect and equality rather than emotion and aristocracy, because every time a person starves (different from mere hunger) they loose brain cells and loose the ability to have self-control and not resort to cannibalism.

If you kill somebody you are being authoritarian. You are in fact becoming a "government". People has the right to protect themselves from authoritarians

I concur (agree).

Lets skip to a critical question that you ignored. There are a number of countries today in which anarchy is the effective rule of the land. Instead of continuing your babbling about why capitalism should be abolished, tell us why you choose to not go to those countries and live in anarchism.

I suppose you consider Iraq and Afghanistan (2 new stars for the yanqui flag) as living in "anarchy". [/b]

What do you think is a very brief definition of anarchism?

I think it is: the factories to the factory laborers, the farming lands to the farm laborers.

I got this from an anarchism web site that I can't remember the URL of.

By the way at this web site on "An Introduction to Anarchism":
http://www.black-rose.com/articles-liz/intro-@.html

On the last sentence of Currents within the Modern Anarchist Movement which comes right before Conclusion , it says:

Other anarchists oppose electronic communications, both because they resist "mediated," non-face-to-face interaction and because of the detrimental environmental effects of technology.

That is my main most strongest objection to the idea presented by the sentence that preceded the aforementioned:

Electronic communications provide a way to transcend national borders, and may minimize the importance of cultural barriers such as race and gender as well.

I disagree with neo-Anarchism (pro-industry/pro-machinery) Anarchism. The first and true Anarchists are Agrarian and ruralist, hence they are nowadays termed "Utopianist" and in favor of Utopianism, by neo-Anarchists and others.

[Kamil]

In an anarchist society there can't be any kind of "body" that enforces rules, excepting the people.

The process of enforcing rules is not anarchistic trait. Rather, what you're proposing is a Marxist communist society, not an anarchist society.

[Bryan]

Language is not an asset unless we agree upon the meanings of the words we speak. Dictionaries do not define the words. Language is a continuously evolving concept. Dictionary writers such as Websters and all the others report the usage and meanings of the words that make up our language. That said, what is the definition of anarchism:

1: a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.

Take not of the part: “... opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint…”

What is government? Any body that governs is a government.

What is governing? The creation and enforcement of policy and rules.

If there is anarchy, there is no government.
If there is no government, there are no laws.
If any group of people decides that anyone should follow their rules or guidelines, then they are a government.
At that point, anarchy no longer exists.

These are the definitions of the words. Don’t believe me, take a trip down to Barns & Noble, Books-a-Million, or any other decent book store. Take a tour down dictionary aisle and read the definition of anarchy for yourself.

There's not such a thing as "no government" by your sense. You would be surprised by the fact that Anarchists advocate attacking authority and hierarchies, and in fact WANT government. Just not a state. Closer to a consensus and direct democracy.

Absolute crap. See the definition of anarchy. Any “anarchist” that wants government is not an anarchist. See the definition of anarchy.

What do you think is a very brief definition of anarchism?

I think it is: the factories to the factory laborers, the farming lands to the farm laborers.

Another idiot spouting off about anarchy when (s)he doesn’t even know the basic definition of anarchy.

Great idea. Btw, do we need trade??

I am absolutely amazed that anyone can live in this society (any society so advanced as to use the internet) and actually propose that question.

Without trade, there can be no society any more advanced that basic subsistence. Without trade, each person must grow or hunt all their food. They must make all their tools themselves. If you want steel, you must dig the ore out of the ground, smelt it, and fashion your own tools. If you share food and tools with your neighbors you are engaging in trade.

Again, look up the definitions of the words you are using.

1. If this is a group decision, then you have a government.

Then we will have to change our name I guess.

This is incredible. The man actually made a logical progression from one thought from another.

If you don’t want complete lack of government, and complete lack of laws, they you are not advocating anarchy. Read the definition of the words.

Quote:
How about transportation? Who will build and maintain the roads? Any collective effort is indeed a government.


Some organization will do it.

And what organization would that be? Rather that trying to be flip, try and answer the question. And if you do try to answer the question, which you won’t, remember to read the definition of the words you use.

Quote:
Under anarchy, no society can progress beyond substinance living.


So people is so stupid that they do not want progress?

You don’t understand trade, you don’t understand capitalism, and most important, you haven’t a clue as the how any why people do what they do. (Not to mention the fact that you don’t understand the words you use.)

Jump to it boys. Lets see if any of you anarchists can read a dictionary.

[Kamil]

I'd actually have to agree with Bryan. El Enfiltr(A)do, don't try to take the "no government" in a metaphorical sense of some sort. Bryan is right, anarchists do abolish the government, therefore having no government. There is no presence of government since any type of governance is abolished.

[Morpheus]

I am aware of Noam Chomsky. Are you? Take a look.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/ ... homsky.htm

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html#anchor13840

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=1020

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html

These are pretty weak, and in some cases intentionally dishonest. The claim that Chomsky is an anti-semite is absurd, Chomsky is a Jew. Chomsky is not a holocaust denier and has repeatedly condemned the holocaust. Chomsky just defended the free speech rights of holocaust deniers, which right-wingers distort to smear him.

The Cambodia part is also a smear. Chomsky's work on Cambodia focused on the media's treatment of it. He pointed out that the media would believe any allegation of atrocities in Cambodia no matter how little credibility it had. He contrasted this with the media's treatment of the genocide in East Timor, which happened at the same time. This was supported by the US and recieved far less attention from the media, in contrast to the genocide in Cambodia. He also contrasted this to the US assault on Cambodia prior to the seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, and with the period after Vietnam threw pol pot out of power, when the US supported Pol Pot. In each case, the media emphasized the atrocities of the enemy while downplaying or ignoring the atrocities of the US & allies. He said:

“When the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations [of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge] were in fact correct. But even if that turns out to be the case, it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.” - After the Cataclysm, p. 293

“In the case of Cambodia there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression” p. 135

“The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” p. 136

The article by Horowitz doesn't really attempt to refute any of his claims, it just calls him names, restates claims which Chomsky already attacked and adds in a few distortions of his claims. For example, Chomsky has never claimed that "America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world." Chomsky supported the US in WW2 and his critique extends beyond American imperialism, but Horowitz prefers the standard "if you disagree with me you hate Amerca" BS.

There's a refutation of DeLong's piece at http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political32.htm Of course DeLong has an "allergic reaction" to Chomsky. DeLong is a former clintonite official who's complicit in many of the crimes Chomsky criticizes. It's pretty hypocritical for him to criticize Chomsky about Cambodia considering his support for Clinton, who killed at least as many people as Pol Pot (mainly via sanctions on Iraq).

There are some things Chomsky is wrong about, like his endorsement of Kerry, but his basic theses about the media & US foreign policy are correct. Rightists can't refute it so they spread these smears about Chomsky being an anti-semitite, supporting Pol Pot, etc.

Remember that he teaches at MIT, one of the more hierarchical institutions you will ever find.

ad homien

"You say you're an anarchist. Maybe you shouldn't take any benefits
from the state?"

"That view is published, repeatedly. For example, I remember a book by
Norman Podhoretz, some right-wing columnist, in which he accused academics in
the peace movement of being ingrates because we were working against the gov-
ernment, but we were getting grants from the government. That reflects an ex-
tremely interesting conception of the state, in fact a fascist conception of
the state. It says the state is your master, and if the state does something
for you, you have to be nice to them. That's the underlying principle. So the
state runs you, you're its slave... Notice how exactly opposite that is to
democratic theory. According to democratic theory, you're the master, the
state is your servant. The state doesn't give you a grant, the population is
giving you a grant. The state's just an instrument. But the concept of democ-
racy is so remote from our conception that we very often tend to fall into
straight fascist ideas like that, that the state is some kind of benevolent
uncle, ... it's not your representative, and of course it's true, but it's not
supposed to be; and therefore if your benevolent uncle happens to give you a
piece of candy, it's not nice not to be nice to him back. But it's a strictly
fascist conception. That's one of the reasons why fascism would be so easy to
institute in the United States. It's deeply rooted in everybody's mind al-
ready."

--Noam Chomsky, interview on 1/28/88, printed
in _Language and Politics_, pp. 747-8

[walkingbeard]

Just to wade in deep here, anarchy is not the absence of government, it is the absence of hierarchy. Anarchists believe that the people should govern themselves as they see fit. An anarchist society does have rules. They might not be codified, like they are now, but for example, if a murder is committed, the justice they will be brought to will be a justice defined by the community in which the crime has been perpetrated.

When an anarchist says that he wants the abolition of government, that means that he wants the abolition of government as a separate entity. There will still be people who think that they can get one over on the other people, by taking a large share of an item that there is not much of, by murdering someone in the heat of passion. An anarchist does not propose that such things should be left unchecked, they propose that that action should be weighed up by the whole community affected, and not by a chosen few.

It is also worth pointing out that an anarchist society is not a utopia. Not everyone on this planet can live as a multi-millionare does now. We simply do not have the resources. Any society that we live in will have problems to be overcome. It is foolish to suppose that all exploitation of others will immediately cease upon reaching anarchy. All we are saying is, "this is a better way of doing things!".


As for the definitions of words, you only have to look at present society:

To Marx, communism was close to anarchism.
To the Soviets, state capitalism was communism.
To Americans, libertarian is corporate liberty, to everyone else, social liberty.
To liberals, democracy is representative, to libertarians, democracy is direct.

To short-sighted fools, anarchy means what it says it the dictionary, to everyone else, it means a multitude of things, but in the political sphere, a classless - hence self-governing - society.

[El Infiltr(A)do]

Sorry for my delayed reply (I had to change my HD and lost everything but who cares anyway, let's go to the point).

So what do you propose as the solution? I think everyone in an anarchist society should live in communes rather than family units, this would kill 2 birds with one stone, in other words it would abolish privacy and private property and this would solve many problems, and especially in the aforementioned context it would end all waste of food and would end the phenomena of some people over-eating while others suffer because of this by starving. Starving is the worst thing for a society based on intellect and equality rather than emotion and aristocracy, because every time a person starves (different from mere hunger) they loose brain cells and loose the ability to have self-control and not resort to cannibalism.

Hmmm...there have been many suggestions by anarchists about this kind of things. I don't like this idea very much. Concerning how should the system work, I could go on for hours explaining but I don't like explaining this kind of things so much since it sounds stupid, so I'd leave this for those leaving in that kind of society.

The process of enforcing rules is not anarchistic trait. Rather, what you're proposing is a Marxist communist society, not an anarchist society.

I was talking about dealing with murderers for example.

Language is not an asset unless we agree upon the meanings of the words we speak. Dictionaries do not define the words. Language is a continuously evolving concept. Dictionary writers such as Websters and all the others report the usage and meanings of the words that make up our language. That said, what is the definition of anarchism:

1: a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.

Take not of the part: “... opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint…”

What is government? Any body that governs is a government.

What is governing? The creation and enforcement of policy and rules.

If there is anarchy, there is no government.
If there is no government, there are no laws.
If any group of people decides that anyone should follow their rules or guidelines, then they are a government.
At that point, anarchy no longer exists.

Blah blah blah. I'll quote Eduardo Duhalde (Argentinian president from 2002-2003) in his speech when he was declared president:

"...What no population tolerate is the chaos, the anarchy.

Dictionaries only try to represent what a word "means" but people uses words with different, subjective meanings. According to Duhalde and to you, anarchy is "chaos" and "people eating each other". Obviously, anarchism is against what this corrupt politicians try to represent ("I will bring you order! Vote for me! Support me!"), so they use words to convince people that they are the "glorious leaders" that they "need".
To me anarchy is the absence of authority. I found here an amazing site at http://www.etymonline.com which says that anarchy is:

anarchy - 1539, from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader," noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" + arkhos "leader." Anarchist (1678) got a boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism is first recorded 1913.[/i]

-archy - suffix meaning "rule," from L. -archia, from Gk. -arkhia, from arkhos "leader, chief, ruler," from arkhe "beginning, origin, first place."

So, if anarchy means "lack of ruler" or "no governor" as many sources claim, I'm right and I'm an anarchist as well as most of those that call themselves anarchists (excepting anarcho-capitalists) since I advocate the absence of individuals governing others.
So if "an"+"archos -> anarchy, I'm an anarchist. You define government in the utopian sense as the "organizations that protects us". We define government as an organization that establishes and enforces rules over a group of individuals, which is obviously not the same as the state and other simmilar forms of "legitimate" authority and hierarchy. The lack of such institutions leaves us with no system for governors to rule over us and thus without a "government".

I hope this wasn't very confusing.

Absolute crap. See the definition of anarchy. Any “anarchist” that wants government is not an anarchist. See the definition of anarchy.

I'm talking about things that do require some kind of "control" like workplaces.

This is incredible. The man actually made a logical progression from one thought from another.

If you don’t want complete lack of government, and complete lack of laws, they you are not advocating anarchy. Read the definition of the words.

1) You define any group of people which makes decisions as a "government".
2) If you are right then we will have to change our name
That's what I meant.

And what organization would that be? Rather that trying to be flip, try and answer the question. And if you do try to answer the question, which you won’t, remember to read the definition of the words you use.

Such organization will be managed by those working on it. It might work either in a market socialist/mutualist economy or an anarcho-communist one. The way they work will change according to that. In a mutualist economy they might work trying to get profits, in a communist or collectivist economy they might base the way they act according to aims specified by any kind of council or assembly of local users. The way the organise things would be as democratic as possible. I don't know how they would do it though, that's up for them.
In a transport organization they might gather occasionally, decide who should do each task (if necessary), they might decide if allowing new workers in, and various other issues.
An organization that is in charge of building roads will be regulated by a council of those living in that area. That people will only pick "representatives" if necessary, or they might unite some day and come to a consensus or just vote through direct democracy to establish everything, or just what they want to (they might, for example, leave roles to those workers in charge of carrying that project), or just leave the meeting if they are wasting too much time, leaving the rest taking the decisions in their name (people will probably try to take part in decisions as much as possible in an anarchist society). Then those working on the project will try to reach those aims. They will establish how they would organize to reach their aims, but I will leave the rest for you to think about, since it seems you are soooooooo smart.

You don’t understand trade,

What is it that I do not understand sir?

you don’t understand capitalism,

you mean the economical system where a minority holds most of the private property over means of production, and because of that they are allowed many benefits (just because their daddy was a rich bastard that financed campaigns to slaughter indians to claim the lands in that they were living as "private property"), like exploiting the rest of the population for a small wage and selling the products they produced at the market and getting the added value for themselves just because they "own" and his poor wage slaves are forced to work for them or they might die from starvation and easily-preventable diseases, and like controlling indirectly most of the production and advertising and the government?

and most important, you haven’t a clue as the how any why people do what they do.

It seems our nice friend Bryan knows everything, right? I guess you are a conservative (or a "liberal western democracy" advocate), and I suppose you think that "without a state, people would kill each other and eat themselves because of human nature and we are all greedy", right? Now the thing is: would you go around killing people if the state wouldn't exist? Do you really think our "best interest" is being "greedy" and that it benefits us? Do you think monopolies are good?

(Not to mention the fact that you don’t understand the words you use.)

And I guess you didn't learn to speak until you finally finished reading your dictionary, right? And the funny thing is that I have just proved that what I said wasn't "bad use of words".

Jump to it boys. Lets see if any of you anarchists can read a dictionary.

Since it seems you read so much, you might want to read some anarchist texts at http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_ar ... index.html to understand what we defend. And you might, by the way, visit an Anarchist forum at http://www.theideal.tk
See you there once you have learnt a bit more about anarchism.[/i][/quote][/url]