[SecretSquirrel]

the notion of anarchism as I understand it is MUCH older than bombthrowing, collectivist "left"-anarchism that goldberk and you (seemingly) subscribe to. I'm talking thousands of years.

Even if that was NOT the case, it makes no sense to oppose one involuntary societal structure founded on violence by destabilizing it with random violence in order to install another type of involuntary societal structure and call it "anarchism"

[Demosthenes]

the notion of anarchism as I understand it is MUCH older than bombthrowing, collectivist "left"-anarchism that goldberk and you (seemingly) subscribe to. I'm talking thousands of years.

Regardless, the line of thought follows a linear pattern, just as any modern philosophy does. Whether or not circumstances happened or didn't happen in the past is largely irrelevant to the concepts being discussed in this thread.

Also, there is no "seemingly", I do support many of these things. I'm not going to be tied to all of them, simply because there are some lines I do feel are too far, but I also recognize they are arbitrary. Remember, because of your family's history with the Soviets, you tend to view all leftists with the same lens. That isn't very accurate, and if you can't feel the difference, you aren't trying.

it makes no sense to oppose one involuntary societal structure founded on violence by destabilizing it with random violence

Who said anything about random violence? You seem to be confusing the actions of drunk thugs at a party with those supporting the philosophy behind the ideas. Anyway, random violence is an end, not a means, and therefore not what I was talking about. Blocking ports is controlled passive-aggression. I like that. Throwing a Molotov through the Korean grocery store because you don't like them is just being a shit head.

install another type of involuntary societal structure and call it "anarchism"

Now you're just being obtuse and disagreeable just because you can. You've seized on the letter of Paradigm's comment and are obsessing on it as if that were where his emphasis was. It wasn't and you're just wrong about the way you are going about sabotaging his argument.

[SecretSquirrel]

I cant reply to everything because I'm too busy atm (at work) but I wanted to clarify one thing. I only used the term "seemingly" because I do not know your ideological position in regards to this issue. I was going on one sentence where you seemed to support goldberk (whose positions i do know).

[Demosthenes]

Fair enough, I wasn't really offended either, even though as I reread, I could see where it seemed I was. I don't mind taking the time to hash this out correctly anyway.

[Goldberk]

the notion of anarchism as I understand it is MUCH older than bombthrowing, collectivist "left"-anarchism that goldberk and you (seemingly) subscribe to. I'm talking thousands of years.

They are part of the same continuim, the term left doesn't realy sit weel with anarchism as it's been hijacked by liberals and social democrats, socialism used to but that word was hijacked by marxists. You are right in some ways that a lot of anarchists treat the 19th early 20th century movement as the genesis where as there is a traditon that extends throughout all human history.

it makes no sense to oppose one involuntary societal structure founded on violence by destabilizing it with random violence in order to install another type of involuntary societal structure and call it "anarchism"

We're not talking random violence, instead violence that disrupts the state and liberal norms, breaking the spectacle as it were.

[SecretSquirrel]

I can understand assassinating Kings a la Princip and stuff even if its still murder and evil (and unjustifiable IMO). At least that makes some sort of rudimentary sense.

But blowing up a car bomb on wall street killing dozens of random passerby and injuring HUNDREDS? Sending bombs through the mail where they might kill any of the dozens of random folks in the chain of custody between you and your targets? Tossing grenades into crowds? Kidnapping and extortion of randoms to finance your insurrection?

Nope

[Demosthenes]

I can understand assassinating Kings a la Princip and stuff even if its still murder and evil (and unjustifiable IMO). At least that makes some sort of rudimentary sense.

But blowing up a car bomb on wall street killing dozens of random passerby and injuring HUNDREDS? Sending bombs through the mail where they might kill any of the dozens of random folks in the chain of custody between you and your targets? Tossing grenades into crowds? Kidnapping and extortion of randoms to finance your insurrection?

Nope

Well again, I cite my example above, with the Korean grocery store, but again there comes a point where each person makes their own context. To some the Iraq war is the ultimate car bomb/mail bomb extravaganza, to others it's nation building and freedom fighting, and blah, blah, blah.

Violence always takes a context to be acceptable simply because everyone, nearly universally in the liberal western society we live in, condemns naked aggression for no apparent reason.

The issue then, becomes meaning and justification. Obviously, those who support the status quo will never condone street level violence, but will go right along with the Iraq war (at least many did).

I'm just not sure it's really accurate to condemn violence outright.

I'll reiterate, as a means to an end, it can be a necessary evil, as an end unto itself it's not right.

[SecretSquirrel]

Violence cannot be universally condemned nor universally condoned. This much is clear to me at least, and I think you agree.

However, in my opinion, an absolute (but not sufficient) prerequisite in order for a violent act to be justifiable is for the act to be discriminatory in the sense that all negative fallout or effect which a reasonable planner could predict would fall squarely on the chosen (deserving) target, with as close as possible to zero chance of bystander effect. If the last bit cannot be ensured, the act must not be perpetrated.

This is why car bombs are absolutely precluded from ever* being justifiable. Or nuclear weapons, etc, etc

*Unless its a car in the middle of the desert and no humans other than your target are anywhere nearby, or some other cartoonishly outlandish scenario

[VALIS_]

Demosthenes

Why exactly do you find yourself at least essentially agreeing that the primitive is our natural state? That is basically what I cannot wrap my head around with primitivism. As I see it, it wasn't some planned conspiracy that we moved away from a hunter gatherer society, quite the opposite really. I view it as a natural evolution. If we were only meant to forage for berries and take down the occasional deer why did nature endow us with these big ol' complex brains that are capable of so much more?

Your comment about the State being a Western concept of the last 4-500 years intrigues me. From what I understood the State (or at least some kind of political organizing) arose alongside agriculture in Mesopotamia a very long time ago, probably as a response to various issues: population growth, security against competitors, etc. I suppose the idea of the naturally evolved State is kind of problematic for anarchists.

I really don't know that much about anarchism so I can't comment. I will say though that the modern State is a far cry from the kind I just described. I can see distancing ourselves from the modern State as a plausible scenario. Perhaps that is the disconnect with anarchists like Ted K. and the more mainstream views. Ted believes in a regression to a time before the State (which I believe would have come about no matter what) and the others view it as finally moving beyond the State. I don't know.

[Ombrageux]

VALIS - Simple, it's because of evolutionary mismatch. Our genetic code is "designed" for small bands and African savanna. Hence we can only personally "know" about 200 people at most, we like fats and sugars, and we dislike repetitive activities.

These traits are not really compatible with modern civilization or at least they are not ideal. They lead to the problem of relations with strangers and large hierarchical societies, to obesity, and to hatred for one's daily work. In agricultural societies, the main kind that has dominated human history, other problems would have been poor diet, strong hierarchy between peasants and others (due to specialization), and excess diseases because of high human/farm animal density.

I am not saying that primitive societies have no problems or suffering. I am suggesting that those that exist more appropriate to our genetic character. Social change has enormously outpaced genetic chance, so now our natural inclinations are very different from what is useful in modern civilization. We have reached a point where the power of our civilization means that we are likely (in the wealthy countries at least) to be physically better off than an average hunter-gatherer, this was not necessarily true of most agricultural civilizations however.

[anarchist6]

What kind of fascist are you? Jewish fascist, Nazi fascist, black fascist (n.o.i), syndicalist fascist (Mussolini)

[VALIS_]

What kind of fascist are you? Jewish fascist, Nazi fascist, black fascist (n.o.i), syndicalist fascist (Mussolini)

Well, I don't want to turn this into a fascist thread but lets say first that fascism is a misnomer. So, while I can be very critical of immigration policies, the liberal worshiping of diversity, politically correct culture and my nations preference toward Israeli's I'm by no means a white nationalist/nazi sympathizer.

Basically, I believe in the power of a strong State to at least partially correct a lot of things I see wrong with the modern world. Economically, I like the idea of corporatism and of the State acting as a mechanism for disputes between labor, business and other sections of society. It just seems safer and a bit more dynamic than the alternatives.

My political ideology is informed by a lot of different sources / disciplines. I really don't have the time to explain right now but hopefully you get the gist.