After the Revolution... Now what?

The spirit of resistance is strong here on ATS, with many calls for action, ranging from peaceful civil disobedience, to all out Revolution. Many scenarios are painted, yet many people don't seem to have a clear idea of what it is that they desire to be the outcome of any drastic change to the status quo. Some even think that simply replacing all members of the government will cure the system, while others believe it is the system that corrupts the people, not vice versa, and so simply replacing the people will not be a satisfactory solution.

The funny and sad thing here is that most people, even here on ATS, have been indoctrinated to be appalled with the prospect of what may very well be the best solution: Anarchy...

There already is a debate on ATS on the viability of Anarchism, and many other threads about this subject, but I hope I can bring a unique version to the table here. Forgive me for the lengthy read...

There seem to be as many 'anarchisms' as there are anarchists, which I consider to be a good thing because rather than being a static blueprint for society that should (hypocritically) be enforced, I see it more as being a road map to a better situation with less problems and suffering, continuously improved and updated, with different flavors and colors in different parts of the world.

At this point in time I believe there are so many distortions of what Anarchism stands for, (even among anarchists themselves) that it may not be a bad idea to stop associating myself with the term, even if the ideas and theory behind Anarchism are still viable and applicable in my opinion.

Nevertheless, the ideas and theories behind Anarchism should not go down the drain along with it's distorted term, so here's a checklist of popular beliefs on Anarchism:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/577ff483e7ec.jpg[/atsimg]

A little self reflection never hurts, so go ahead and ask yourself: how many of these beliefs do you share and how have they been established in your perception of the world? If you do happen to share some of these beliefs, don't be ashamed; you are definitely not alone.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78a3ef7b099f.jpg[/atsimg]
The bomb carrying Anarchist terrorist... how many were false flag ops?

For reasons unclear to me, I have been researching and dreaming of a different world since I first truly realized I was my own person, around the age of 12 or so. More and more I noticed the injustices around me, first in school and at my dad's job, and soon a bigger picture formed.

While most kids my age embraced pop culture, I vehemently rejected it, and instead spent a lot of time in the library reading Bakunin, Tolstoy, Kropotkin and Proudhon online.

However, at one point I started to get the idea that the philosophical musings about anarchism became it's own obstacle, as far as it's popularity amongst the masses was concerned. I thought I pretty much got the gist of it, and should stop the intellectual masturbation and instead start to think of ways to keep it simple and easy to grasp in everyday common language. If the masses couldn't understand it, there would have to be an elite of intellectuals in an anarchist society or movement, which imo goes against it's basic ideas, and makes an easy target for government assassinations and executions of those intellectuals.

So, in this thread I would like to present my simplified explanation of what I think is wrong in the world, and why I believe an alternative is possible. I'll hit all the bullet points in the poster above, step-by-step, and will attempt to present a concluding statement.

What is wrong with the world?

The questions I had in a somewhat chronological order:

Why do I have to sit perfectly still and quiet in a class room all week? Why can the teacher force me what to do or punish me? He isn't my mom or dad? Why does my dad work so hard and yet he doesn't have the fancy car, house or pool as my friends' dad has? Why do most people in the village live in crappy apartment complexes and only a few live in the nice neighborhood full of trees and gardens? Why does the police arrest the homeless shoplifter and not my dad's boss who takes a huge cut from my dad's productive labor - without doing the work? How come the queen lives in a big empty palace while so many people are homeless? How come everyone loves the queen even though her selfishness is through the roof? How come the soldiers on the front lines get a meager paycheck while the warmongers in the safety of the bunkers back home are rich? How come there are continents with mass starvation and genocide while on our continent we throw away food? etc. etc. etc.

All this was then reduced to one simple question:

What is Property?

Merriam Webster:

prop·er·ty: ........something owned or possessed
pos·ses·sion: .....something owned, occupied, or controlled
oc·cu·py: ..........to take or hold possession or control of
own: ................to have or hold as property, possess

So... let me get this right... What it basically comes down to is that at one point people started claiming ownership of land, trees, animals, and even humans?

AND WE LET THEM?

This last question has baffled me ever since, and I can only come up with two answers:

Explanation #1: It's just Nature...

We see hierarchies exist in many species, and particularly among the species considered to be our closest relatives, the monkeys. Territorial fighting and even gang-beatings of individual monkeys is apparently part of their nature, and there is one monkey at the top of the hierarchy. Perhaps the massive wealth and power of the tiny elite on this planet is a mere reflection/outcome of our inherent nature?

Explanation #2: They were special...

Perhaps there's some truth to the idea that our planet has been visited by extraterrestrials, who then, with their superior knowledge and abilities became revered as Gods and exalted as Kings to rule the lands and be gifted the best fruits of our labors? The crown the Kings used to wear could be their 'Halo's' - a symbol of divinity - and their high priests invoked awe and fear amongst the mere humans who did not possess such divine knowledge and powers?

However, regardless of the cause of the disproportionate ownership and distribution of the earths resources, this is the Core Problem of most of our problems.

Why are there government budget cuts on education at the same time that bailed-out financial corporations report record profits? Why are there "Super Rich" who 'own' billions of dollars, and at the same time there are increased reports of families with children living in tent cities? The answer is simple, and should stay simple: because of the disproportionate ownership and distribution of the earth's resources.

Who in his right mind can say that a tree, a bird, a human being, or entire pieces of land are their property? Did Mother Nature sign a contract? Did God?

All these contracts and maps are, are pieces of paper that say to whom the property belongs, nothing else. Sure there may be artful golden seals on them and fancy signatures, but unless they have the permission of everyone on earth they are in my opinion invalid, null, void. As Proudhon answered the question What is Property? Property is Theft!

So, my personal "flavor" of anarchism mostly focuses on the concept of Property, and much less on Gods, Masters, Governments and their ilk, since I see these phenomena as being a result of private property of resources and means of production.

Now, just to be clear, I acknowledge and understand that there's a spectrum of property, of ownership. On the one extreme, a human being should be able to 'own' their underwear and socks. It makes no sense to share those collectively.

At the other side of the spectrum we see our world today, where trillions of dollars are held as private wealth in off-shore accounts while most of the denizens on the planet live in poor conditions, or downright horrific ones. It makes no sense to have most of the world owned by only a few people.

And again, there should be no blueprint as to who can own what, how much, which color etc.
...but at some point private ownership comes at the expense of others and should be corrected, in my opinion, just like we correct children when they fight and don't share.

If you have five peaches and five kids, you don't need to ask a council on how to proceed.
However, if a village has a huge harvest of tomatoes, it might be a good idea to discuss in some form or another whether to keep all the tomatoes or to trade some of them with a neighboring village's apricots. Now, doesn't this just make common sense? It doesn't really have to be complicated. And yet perhaps in some readers the "Red Commie"-alarm bells are going off... as if collective sharing of resources can only end in government enforced communist genocide.

Anyway, here's a good description of what I'm talking about:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96934267496a.jpg[/atsimg]
Source

In Short:

I guess what I'm trying to bring to the table here at ATS is a discussion on whether or not it is possible for us to live in a world where we all share the means of production and the earth's resources. All the other aspects of Anarchist theories and versions are moot at this point, for me. The main thing I think the masses need to be hearing, knowing and thinking about is the disproportionate private ownership of resources and means of production.

If someday a critical mass of people feel that we can, we could shift our world to a more pleasant one without even having to go to the elites to ask their permission, or violently demand their bank account info. The cyber money in their banks is utterly worthless without our consent, we just have to get a grip on our most valuable basic resources first, those being food, shelter, clothing and health care, and then over time we can change the face of humanity on this planet.

I know this is wishful thinking, but I don't see the point of screaming about the injustices online or in the streets if we are not clear on what it is we are screaming about.

You want Universal Health care? We need resources. You want to end hunger? We need resources. You want to end War? Stop private property of land and resources. You live in a tent city while your home is boarded up and left to rot away as the private property of a bank? Fight private property.

Perhaps we will never see the day, but imo this issue of property has to be discussed and should be in the limelight of every tv channel every night until it is resolved, so perhaps future generations will see the day.

Lastly, here are some of my (brief) thoughts on the bullet points in the poster in the OP:

Anarchy is Chaos

Have you checked the headlines lately? Last year? How about 30 years ago? And you think we live in an orderly world?
Why do poor people go looting in times of civil unrest? Perhaps they are poor and need resources? Would they act this way if all basic resources are communally provided and taken care of without worrying every month?
Is it the police force that prevents you from attacking and raping your neighbors wife? Is the police force actually a good deterrent from crime? Isn't most crime caused by poverty and thus a lack of resources anyway?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4686c6920a19.jpg[/atsimg]
Cartoon Source

Anarchy doesn't work

Hmmm, kinda along the lines of the above, have you read the news lately? Yesterday? Last year? How's this system working for ya? Or how well is it working for the general human being, the general animal, or the planet in general? The answer is that we are knee deep in excrement. This world perhaps only works well for a small fraction of human beings, but even that I doubt. The benefits of a society painted by anarchist ideas and theories are endless when it comes to the quality of life on this planet. Imagine how much crime would dissolve if poverty was eliminated? Imagine the flourishing of art, education, research, etc. if it wasn't profit driven? Perhaps in the tumultuous transition state there is a lot of chaos and violence, often enacted by elites conspiring and bringing down foreign troops to clamp down the flourishing of the alternative lifestyle. But even then, in those young stages of anarchism in action, the results are heartwarming. And ask yourself this: if it works in extreme situations of hardship with enemies all around, how would it do in times of peace and prosperity?

Anarchy has always failed...

This isn't even a fair statement. It's like saying a newborn baby is a failure for it can't even walk. Anarchism usually resurfaces in times of revolution, civil unrest, and the likes. Such situations usually come in times where the people just had enough, and it has to get pretty bad to get that to happen. So in most cases anarchism hasn't really gotten to spread it's wings.
On the other hand, I apply anarchist principles in my behavior every day, simply by applying the Golden Rule, and the effects are astounding. I also treat my wife as an equal, and our relationship is and has always been great. There are also anarchist communities all over the world where mutual solidarity and co-existence are daily life, and we never hear of bloody riots, genocides or terror attacks amongst the inhabitants.

"a "rebel restaurant" run by an anarchist collective that opened in a squatted building in Bristol last night [...] challenge the normal restaurant model of charging as much as possible for as little as you can get away with and paying staff next to nothing. [...] It's a not-for-profit venture – at the end of every meal guests pay what they think the meal was worth, no more, and profits are ploughed back into the project. And it is working..." 28 January 2010

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e15f38f7be3.jpg[/atsimg]
Link

Baghdad is in a state of Anarchy

Not much really I have to say about this one... as I'm pretty sure it's obvious to most readers that this is not what we're dealing with there. In fact, it seems to be a mayor land- and resource grab for the elites, and another instance of the Military Industrial Complex creating it's own market demand by blowing up it's products as fast as possible.

Human Nature is selfish or evil

It seems fairly obvious to me that any living creature is selfish, probably instinctively driven by the need to survive. It desires food, and it desires to reproduce; there's no way around that and I will not deny it.
But then, should we keep a system in place where selfishness gets awarded like it is today?
Or where people are born in poverty and become desperate when they can't feed their children no longer? What if all basics are taken care of, and we never have to fear whether we'll have a roof over our heads next month, or if our baby will have food next week? Wouldn't that make people less stressed out, feel like they belong and happier in general? How many happy people without stress & that feel that they belong in society have ever committed the atrocious massacres we've seen at high-schools these last couple of years?
So, the sharing of resources and well being would actually result in people not really needing to use their selfishness to survive... Of course, with the amounts of people living in urban areas without land to grow food there's indeed a high risk of utter selfish behavior and violence once the law is suspended. But now we're talking about a highly concentrated amount of people living in poor conditions, with this world's mind set they grew up with - hardly an objective observation of human nature. We'll have t think outside the box and envision how children would grow up in a world without poverty, ghetto's, police brutality, MSM disinfo, crap education and wars.

Anarchism = Marxism = Communism

BUT THAT'S COMMUNISM!!!!! ...a comment many proponents of anarchist theory are very familiar with. Oh, and of course Socialism is in that list as well.
There are massive differences between the approaches of these -isms, and at best it boils down to semantics, as we are trying to bring an entire history of social theory, and entire fantasies of Utopia under one header, a single word. Anarchism. Marxism. Communism. Socialism. How could we ever expect everyone to grasp the exact same massive meaning of each these definitions?

And even if attempts at anarchism ended in bloody communism, does that mean we should give up? Does it not occur to many a conspiracy theorist that attempts at anarchism create fearful elites from abroad and beyond determined to put an end at the situation?

The following is from the Communist Manifesto:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Sounds familiar?

And a famous quote from the anarchist Bakunin:

I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds.

These different social ideologies are not the same, some aren't even close. Just be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anarchism is Terrorism

And the government wars? Capitalist bio-industry? Privatized prisons? What are those, necessary evils? Over the last 30 years, how many people have been executed by governments? Bombed in wars? Sentenced to prisons? It's absolutely true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Also, in many cases I suspect anarchist bombings were false flag attacks along the lines of the Reichstag. How easy is it for the State to justify a clampdown on a revolt after a false flag attack?

An example (and important piece of US history):

In 1887 four Chicago anarchists were executed. A fifth cheated the hangman by killing himself in prison. Three more were to spend 6 years in prison until pardoned by Governor Altgeld who said the trial that convicted them was characterized by "hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge". The state had, in the words of the prosecution put "Anarchy .. on trial" and hoped their deaths would also be the death of the anarchist idea. [...]
It was close to ten in the evening when Fielden was closing the meeting. It was raining heavily and only about 200 people remained in the square. Suddenly a police column of 180 men, headed by Bonfield, moved in and ordered the people to disperse immediately. Fielden protested "we are peaceable".
At this moment a bomb was thrown into the ranks of the police. It killed one, fatally wounded six more and injured about seventy others. The police opened fire on the spectators. How many were wounded or killed by the police bullets was never exactly ascertained.
A reign of terror swept over Chicago. The press and the pulpit called for revenge, insisting the bomb was the work of socialists and anarchists. Meeting halls, union offices, printing works and private homes were raided. All known socialists and anarchists were rounded up. Even many individuals ignorant of the meaning of socialism and anarchism were arrested and tortured. "Make the raids first and look up the law afterwards" was the public statement of Julius Grinnell, the state's attorney.
Eventually eight men stood trial for being "accessories to murder". They were: Spies, Fielden, Parsons, and five other anarchists who were influential in the labour movement, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Michael Schwab, Louis Lingg and Oscar Neebe.

The trial opened on June 21st 1886 in the criminal court of Cooke County. The candidates for the jury were not chosen in the usual manner of drawing names from a box. In this case a special bailiff, nominated by state's attorney Grinnell, was appointed by the court to select the candidates. The defence was not allowed to present evidence that the special bailiff had publicly claimed "I am managing this case and I know what I am about. These fellows are going to be hanged as certain as death".
The eventual composition of the jury was farcical; being made up of businessmen, their clerks and a relative of one of the dead policemen. No proof was offered by the state that any of the eight men before the court had thrown the bomb, had been connected with its throwing, or had even approved of such acts. In fact, only three of the eight had been in Haymarket Square that evening.

No evidence was offered that any of the speakers had incited violence, indeed in his evidence at the trial Mayor Harrison described the speeches as "tame". No proof was offered that any violence had been contemplated. In fact, Parsons had brought his two small children to the meeting.

On August 19th seven of the defendants were sentenced to death, and Neebe to 15 years in prison. After a massive international campaign for their release, the state 'compromised' and commuted the sentences of Schwab and Fielden to life imprisonment. Lingg cheated the hangman by committing suicide in his cell the day before the executions. On November 11th 1887 Parsons, Engel, Spies and Fischer were hanged.

600,000 working people turned out for their funeral.

Source

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0be1c7faa03c.jpg[/atsimg]

Capitalism is the best we can do...

Again, I think the headlines paint a different picture. But this also goes into the idea of how private property was allocated... Is it in our inherent nature to be territorial and have hierarchies? I don't have the answer, but human beings have quite a track record of abandoning their nature so perhaps we can overcome any such territorial behavior?
If we can evolve to the point of space travel intellectually, perhaps we've also evolved socially?

I personally believe we have, but we aren't allowed to express it due to the greed of the Owners. The system they have in place is hardwired and almost seems to have become an entity of it's own, not willing to let go, and heading for self-destruction. The centralization of wealth and power isn't sustainable, as it has zero respect for the planet or it's inhabitants. A recent thread on psychopathology in high circles of power adds to the painted picture of a system gone haywire, absolutely out of control.

I believe the basic problem with Capitalism is the fact that natural resources, including animals, humans, and the entire planet, have to take the backseat in favor of profit. Nothing is sacred anymore, anything goes.
"Does it cut costs if we dump the toxic byproduct in the ocean? Yes? Well start dumping then!"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ca9bd901dd01.jpg[/atsimg]
Source + Thread on ATS

If we were in control of our own production as well as the quality of the air we breath, we would probably sacrifice the choice of 50 different toothbrushes in favor of clean air.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a3510ec13a7.jpg[/atsimg]

Which brings up another point of critique against Capitalism: coerced consumption. Every holiday, how much plastic and gift wrapping do we produce? How many pharmaceutical medicine battle the side effects of other pharmaceutical medicine? How many arms have been sold to two sides of the same battle?

Frankly, the effects of private property and Capitalism are so devastating I don't even know where to start, but since this thread is already a book, I'll end here.

Conclusion

When you want something, be it Change or a Revolution, think about what you really want. Do you want to fix what is not really broken? Because the system works just fine when you look at it from above, from the Owners' perspective. Or perhaps you want to go into a time machine back to the 80s and be in this same mess 30 years from now? Doesn't our history show nothing other than the centralization of wealth and power as an inevitable result of the system and property laws in place?
Or do we need something entirely different? Can we handle the responsibility of individual freedom - will we respect other people's exact same freedom?

Let's do us all a favor, and stop throwing Anarchism out with the bathwater of Rothschild sponsored other -isms. Let's make sure that we know what it is that we want to achieve, whether for ourselves in this time or for our children in the future.

Let's recognize the 'enemy' for what it truly is:

Our acceptance of the status quo, our focus on our differences and divisions, our lack of focus on one single yet important all-pervasive issue: property.

Time to stop beating around the bush and look the elephant in the room in the eyes and say:

"This planet belongs to All of us, or None of us."

get rid of capitalism for one... think of a whole new way of doing things. no socialism or communism. directly elected republic with the bill of rights as the cornerstone...

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
get rid of capitalism for one... think of a whole new way of doing things. no socialism or communism. directly elected republic with the bill of rights as the cornerstone...

Socialism works in heaven where its not needed, and hell where it wont be needed....dont remeber who said it but its a good quote to remeber.

great thread.
I always like to chime in on anarchy threads because I think it's one of the highest if not the highest form of society.

My question is this...
Usually when some type of business endeavor is embarked upon, someone is risking more than everyone else. Should that person receive more of a payout(whatever that may be) then everyone else. Aren't certain people with certain skills simply more valuable to society then other people?

also, examples of anarchy always involve "villages" and agricultural goods. I'm sure this works fine if you are talking a century or 2 ago, but what about today...we are becoming a technological, global society. Does anarchy still have it's place? Take the cell phone for instance, I find it hard to imagine that phones would be nearly as advanced as they are right now if it wasn't for capitalism. Slowly(even tho it really isn't that slow) releasing technology helps to pay for development of the technology itself. Does anarchy mean giving up speedy advancements in things like electronics?

any ways, great thread.

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
get rid of capitalism for one... think of a whole new way of doing things. no socialism or communism. directly elected republic with the bill of rights as the cornerstone...

I think the system of elected people going to organizational meetings to represent a fraction of the populace that trusts these representatives and have no desire/time to repesent themselves works fine, on a small scale. Those small groups of representatives could meet with similar outside groups to discuss trade or transportation of goods, but only:

a- If they're experienced or working in the respective field
b- as long as people have a direct say in the desicion making process relative to the extend the outcome affects them.
c- representatives can be ejected from a council by their represented at any given moment.

In other words, let's have the transportation people deal with the transportation, and the warehouse people deal with how to store the goods. Those driving the trucks should have a bigger say than the local lifeguards at the pool.

However, an elected government taking care of the national resources... is communism I'm afraid. On a small scale it can be controlled, but a couple hundred people representing a country of 300 million people is asking for trouble.




reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

Socialism works in heaven where its not needed, and hell where it wont be needed....

Whoa, that's it! And in just 1 sentence!

... though I'm afraid it's a little bit more complicated...

Good thread. Funny cause i just posted this,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good job

It's obvious that individual responsibility doesn't rank very highly in a society where people are used to complete, bureaucratic involvement. I quietly sat down and observed how students at my university program freaked out when they realized they had to contact employers and find a trainer spot at a work place. At this point three basic types of people emerge: people who immediately begin working, people who freak out and anxiously hope someone else will bail them out from the task, and people who simply can't be bothered and believe it'll be taken care of anyhow.

Good luck.

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist


It is all great and good in concept, just like Marxism, HOWEVER, unless all the people are collectively willing to make the change, there comes the predicament of choosing a leader in the mess. Systems such as Communism rely on the leader in charge, and it comes down to human nature and personality which determine if the system fails. However, more times than not, human nature becomes corrupt and thus the system becomes corrupt and escapes from its original creeds.

Anarchy, however, would suggest that their is no leading force. There are simply people with their beliefs, opinions, and differences, and the hope that they are all thinking for the better of humanity. BUT, just like with the problem of corrupt leaders of the Marxist system... you now set that decision not only on one man or group, but on the society as a whole.

It is because of this that anarchy WILL NOT work because there will be, as there always have been, people who feel that have not been given what they deserve. There will always be people who desire power above others be it based on their psyche or their need to be recognized like great figures of history. Thus it is these people that will send the anarchist society plunging down into violence and separation. There is no cure for human nature.





Anarchy is possible with the less people you have. The less people you have, the less the chance of corruption. However, it is unpredictable as the winds. Human nature is not something to base trust upon.

I feel the capitalist society IS indeed the best, but only with limitations. I believe the Founding Fathers saw that as well. Hence the reason why the Constitution was created and to be followed, in order to limit the government to the protecting role of the people. As long as a set of rights are established that are guaranteed to all people, and the government takes the steps to ensure that those rights are preserved, that is when we basically live in the anarchist system, albeit - with walls to keep the corruption away.

BUT, since the corrupted have overstepped their boundaries and destroyed the "wall" (our Constitution) we as the "anarchists" have nothing to protect us from the corruption. We need to reinstate the Constitution and enforce it to prevent the wall from being torn down once again.

It would take a lot of work, yes. The system would have to be restarted completely. The Republic system would have to be restored with the leaders DIRECTLY voted on as someone stated before. All of the laws that have been passed since the Constitution was made would have to be checked and ensured compliance with those credence. If not, they must be removed completely.

Revolution does not scare me; nor does whatever may come after it. in todays world you must realize that what we have for a government right now is nothing more than partly controlled chaos. if we have a Revolution tomorrow = does it really make any difference?

we go from chaos to chaos, doesn't seem to be a problem. people know right from wrong and unless you are attacking them then you have pretty much nothing to worry about just as people right now. remember people are this way around the world no matter what governments do.

oh no the PR word,, personal responsibility. thats the only LAW we follow anyway.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206

Usually when some type of business endeavor is embarked upon, someone is risking more than everyone else. Should that person receive more of a payout(whatever that may be) then everyone else.

>>> In short, I think so, yes. If we think outside the box, and go for a moment with the concept that everyone chips in to cover everyone's basics, and the required work doesn't take up an entire 40 hour work week to manage that, I think people in general will be less likely to feel entitled to something, and less likely to complain about how things are done. People will have more free time, less worries, and as a result I believe they can be reasoned with.
For example, if one guy is picking apples, and someone else has to go in the communal sewers to fix something, I honestly doubt the guy picking apples will mind if the sewer guy calls it a day at noon to go shower at home.

Also, unlike in our world today, people can move around and do different jobs throughout the year. It would suck to be condemned 'sewer guy' for the village for the rest of your life, why can't we rotate some of the work? In that case, the apple picker is even more likely to not get upset about the sewer guy's half day of work, considering it's a perk that comes with the crappyness of the job, pun intended.

Aren't certain people with certain skills simply more valuable to society then other people?

In some cases yes, but often they are not. Where would the car mechanic be without the production people in the car plant? Where would the Wall-Street hot shot be without his car mechanic, or the people in the car plant? (Where would the mechanic and the people in the car plant be without the Wall Street hot-shot?)

In our current society, millions of dollars go to the guys hitting a ball with a baseball bat, or to the gamblers on the stock market. Are these skills really worthy of that reward compared to what police officers and school teachers get?

On the other hand, in an anarchist society there may still be people who are just really bad-ass at something, like inventing, or doing medical research. It may be to the benefit of the collective that these people are exempt from sewage duty, so that they can continue being bad-ass and coming up with awesome inventions and medical breakthroughs. Other people are less inclined to get THAT educated, and prefer to get back to playing the guitar after a couple hours of communal service picking apples. At night, they can perform their music, and people can show their appreciation by bakeing the guitarist an apple pie, or join forces to make an epic music video.

As for risky jobs, I think the community can figure something out to compensate any risk takers accordingly. Remember that the daily struggle known in this world doesn't exist, and people have more free time and access to tools and resources to have hobbies and create things they may wish to gift or trade. After community service is done, you'd be free to do as you please, and so would I. I would build a bike.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206

I find it hard to imagine that phones would be nearly as advanced as they are right now if it wasn't for capitalism. Slowly(even tho it really isn't that slow) releasing technology helps to pay for development of the technology itself. Does anarchy mean giving up speedy advancements in things like electronics?

I'm not sure what to think about technology in an anarchist world. For example, there is a whole 'green anarchist' movement hell bent on going back to the stone age. I don't think that's the way forward, and I don't buy the idea of the "Noble Savage".

Perhaps in case of the cellphone it's development wouldn't be as fast, considering we never needed them before, and there would be more research into the negative effects of the signal towers and such. Also, a lot of technology comes from advancements in the military sector and I'm sure that sector would be way less evolved or non-existent.

However, I don't think everyone would just prefer to smoke weed and lay in a hammock, instead, people would be exploring and inventing as usual, and with increased cooperation. Many corporations do the same lab tests on animals as their competition does, but they don't share the results. This results in the same experiments being performed on animals many times over, just because of the secrecy element.

On a bigger scale, this includes government research that is kept secret to advance a certain nation. What if there were no Nations and scientists of a specific kind love to get together and share their findings to push their science even further?

And to add to that, I'd say in many cases an inventor or physicist would love to be able to provide the community with an invention that drastically reduces health risks, job risks, or community service time. Imagine being part of a team that developed a technology that will cut back community service hours with 5 hrs a week per person?

Thanks for your input guys!!

reply to post by gwydionblack

There will always be people who desire power above others be it based on their psyche or their need to be recognized like great figures of history. Thus it is these people that will send the anarchist society plunging down into violence and separation. There is no cure for human nature.

Have you ever seen human nature in a system where all the basics are taken care of collectively and the Fight-or-Flight mentality hardly ever kicks in?
I myself haven't, and even though we live in a world of cut throat competition the children I meet are always very interested in helping out, being part of the group.
I therefore find it hard to believe that someone whose basics have always been met by the community, and who grew up in a community based on mutual cooperation, freedom and solidarity could gather enough members of said community to launch a campaign to make him king and sole propietor of the communities resources and means of production...
...very hard to believe.

The less people you have, the less the chance of corruption.
[...]
I feel the capitalist society IS indeed the best, but only with limitations. I believe the Founding Fathers saw that as well.

Since you're ok with Capitalism, and Capitalism is fundamentally based on private property of resources and means of production, meaning that all excess produced becomes the 'property' of the 'owner' of the enterprise, I kinda wonder what your definition of corruption is?
How did the 'owner' ever get ownership of the resources and/or means of production, and let's say we do get to re-establish the Constitution, who will 'own' what?

reply to post by Conspiracy Pianist

Have you ever seen human nature in a system where all the basics are taken care of collectively and the Fight-or-Flight mentality hardly ever kicks in?

Yes, and while it is pretty for awhile, all it takes is one person who takes up the age old art of "philosophy" to bring the whole system crashing down. Philosophy is rooted in the want to ask questions and all it would take is one person to ask "Why is this considered 'enough'?" or a plethora of other questions. Even tribal systems of old would be based someone on the theory of anarchy. All of the members of the tribe were accounted for, however, even if foreign tribes were not a threat, the tribes would still have to deal with the assumption of a "chief" roll. After the "chief" roll was assumed, philosophy would kick and and people who think that they can do better than the said "chief" would overthrow the power system. Even though they lived with their needs accounted for, it was still the general idea that would result in violence and chaos, sometimes even the destruction of the said tribe.

I therefore find it hard to believe that someone whose basics have always been met by the community, and who grew up in a community based on mutual cooperation, freedom and solidarity could gather enough members of said community to launch a campaign to make him king and sole proprietor of the communities resources and means of production... ...very hard to believe.

You must understand that most times the "leader" figure is not chose by the people, it simply happens. Whether it is the person that is the figurehead of such a revolution or if the power is assumed subconsciously, there will always be a leader. Most kings of old grew up in no hardship, having been given everything they needed and more to survive. However, upbringings and lust for more lead to the result of great kings or evil, tyrannical kings.

Since you're ok with Capitalism, and Capitalism is fundamentally based on private property of resources and means of production, meaning that all excess produced becomes the 'property' of the 'owner' of the enterprise, I kinda wonder what your definition of corruption is? How did the 'owner' ever get ownership of the resources and/or means of production, and let's say we do get to re-establish the Constitution, who will 'own' what?

Things get a little bit sketchy here. Under Capitalism combined with the powers of the Constitution, I feel that property is merely a vessel reserved for one to carry out his rights. People don't HAVE to own property, people choose to own property. Though you make a great point that land and resources belong to EVERYBODY on earth, the system of property is a mutual agreement of sorts. All people need land in order to live and work upon. By understanding that YOU need land to live, you understand that others need land to live. While ownership is a strong word indeed, let us think of it as "reserving" your space to live, and with that we need to also acknowledge that the mass ownership of land and property for ones own selfish gain, is indeed corruption.

But you ask exactly how I define corruption. Well to me, corruption is veering from a defined standard, particularly one that has proven itself to work. Not saying that it is wrong to think outside the box, however, I do think it is wrong to change just for the sake of change. If a system is designed to benefit everybody in the equal amount of ways, and maintain that the mass is equal based upon their own will - it is a system that you have no one to blame but yourself for the failure in.

The original body of the United States was this way. To each his own as long as he is willing to work to attain it. To think about it, LAZINESS is the supreme cause of corruption. Certain people felt that they did not want to work as everybody else, and so they chose to stand in the background and benefit off of the labor of others. It is the taking advantage of fellow man that corrupts a system to its very core and it becomes a very difficult task to weed our that said corruption.



Which is why I deem it impossible. If you plant a tree and realize after 20 years that you didn't plant it where you wanted it. Would it be easier to move the tree, or would it be easier to cut down the tree and plant a new one? The current corruption has roots so deep that no single person or group would be aware of it all, and thus that is why I advocate the reinstatement of the old system.

As to who will 'own' the reinstated Constitution, you must understand, everybody will. The Constitution is merely a piece of paper, nothing more, nothing less. The contents of the Constitution are based upon the philosophies of freedom, liberty, protection, and the pursuit of happiness, given equal opportunity for all to attain. To my knowledge, this is the best philosophy achieved by man simply because it allows room for the individual to fail and learn from experience. It is through life's failures that life's successes our made and this is why America thrived as a nation. It allows for the onset of individualism, which I believe is the core reason why any of us are even talking about this today. If not for the rise of the individual over the group mindset, technology, culture, and modernization would never have happened thanks to suppression and group think.



Is my position the correct position? One can never be certain. Philosophically I believe that a Constitutional Capitalist society is the greatest thing ever achieved by mankind and is the end all of social structures. Should we fall back from individualism, then so too shall the world fall to stagnation, refusing to advance past the views of a single world view.

I believe the only hope for the world is to keep the system alive, else I believe that we shall enter an age of chaos that the opponents of anarchy see. Only time shall tell but in my eyes, time is of the essence. To me, the fight is on our doorsteps and it will come a time soon where we choose to embrace the individual or fall in line with everybody else.

Prepare yourself to answer that question.

To my knowledge, this is the best philosophy achieved by man simply because it allows room for the individual to fail and learn from experience. It is through life's failures that life's successes our made and this is why America thrived as a nation. It allows for the onset of individualism, which I believe is the core reason why any of us are even talking about this today. If not for the rise of the individual over the group mindset, technology, culture, and modernization would never have happened thanks to suppression and group think.



Is my position the correct position? One can never be certain. Philosophically I believe that a Constitutional Capitalist society is the greatest thing ever achieved by mankind and is the end all of social structures. Should we fall back from individualism, then so too shall the world fall to stagnation, refusing to advance past the views of a single world view.

I believe the only hope for the world is to keep the system alive, else I believe that we shall enter an age of chaos that the opponents of anarchy see. Only time shall tell but in my eyes, time is of the essence. To me, the fight is on our doorsteps and it will come a time soon where we choose to embrace the individual or fall in line with everybody else.

Prepare yourself to answer that question.

I beg to differ.

At no time in the course of our human history had there been ANY individual that created anything so revolutionary that can be considered ‘If not for the rise of the individual over the group mindset, technology, culture, and modernization would never have happened thanks to suppression and group think.’ without the help of members of his community or his community’s built upon knowledge.

Discoveries had been passed down from generations since the dawn of civilization from fire to nuclear physics. Without the community’s tireless efforts, there would be no modernization of today as you speak of.

Should you persist to believe that you are right, then I can only show you monsters who rose above the group mindset and gave culture, technology and regression throughout history. Stalin, Mao, Nero, the more famous ones.

No, it is NOT Constitutional Capitalism that gave mankind its greatest achievement. Today we realized it almost lead to our doom.

It was instead Constitutional Democracy, the freedom of speech, that constituted mankind’s greatest achievement. It was only through the freedom to speak out freely, from the President to the dishwasher, that concerns and ideas could be communicated within a community for actions to take place for its evolution and elevation.






[edit on 24-2-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]