Is Anarchy the Answer? With Davi Barker

reply to post by Kali74


No it is not, I think you are very confusing on the definitions you are using. Communism supports the existence of state, anarchism does not (even if some form of organized order can emerge it will not execute all state functions, especially since a state is a complex legal construct) other more complex forms of anarchism can support larger communal property concepts even the establishment of legal systems and support for the concept of state, but at that point they cease to be anarchism per se.

I feel that I'm running in circles with you, I can't even see to be able to put myself into your view point on these subjects on the other hand I think I was clear enough that you could understand what I have stated, clearly defined and exemplified. My view is that we aren't sharing the same definitions but I'm using the more consensual views (that could even encompass many others but seemingly not yours). So I'm exiting this discussion thinking that the issue is with your view point (or the way you are attempting to describe it), not mine.

reply to post by Panic2k11


You are using definitions that hijack the entire concept. Something more Rothbardian I'm guessing. Maybe you should read Bakunin, the 'father' of Anarchism.

reply to post by Panic2k11

No it is not, I think you are very confusing on the definitions you are using. Communism supports the existence of state, anarchism does not

Communism begins by the proletariat becoming the state, this is supposed to be a transitional period that graduates into Anarchy.

Panic2k11
reply to post by Xaphan

 

PS: Have you seen the game RUST, I like to see people play it as it clearly expresses the problems of anarchy, establishing mutual beneficial alliances and the impact of rulers, most notably the server admins. (You can see videos of it on youtube)

I don't think you can use RUST to explain anarchy in that way as RUST is a video game which serves as a proxy for our current society. The different social structures, I'd safely assume, manifest as a vent for real life frustrations based on their real life hegemony. Hence, the overused saying that games are a vent for expressing repressed wishes (anti-authoritarianism, swift justice, etc) is pretty valid.

This is an interesting political question which I might follow up on.

reply to post by InSolace


Agree, not to explain but to exemplify the type of society that can result from an anarchic system. There are more than superficial parallels in the default (since you are free to behave as you will) game structure to a basic anarchic society.

I get a kick out of observing the game play (not a player) more for the spontaneous (people that never meet in real life) and often constructive social interactions (a minority but a gold nugget to observe) especially when they form lasting alliances. But yes I get what you are saying about people bringing their own social cultural baggage into the game, but notice that it is quickly curbed by the initial stage of the game, where people often find themselves classing naked people to bash their head in with a rock.

More often than not they soon realize that collaboration or mutual respect serves them better in the long run (or the reverse, focusing into turning into the apex predator will probably get your game fix quicker, even if in not a rich way, in my opinion).

I don't know if we are mature enough for a functional Anarchy, but hey maybe we are. If villages in Africa can do it, why not us with our supposed superior education. It can't get much worse for the world than the government we have now. Even North Korea or Russia(or any other "Bad guy" nation) are not interfering in foreign affairs as negatively as this government is. Drone strikes, Political interference/manipulation , Revolutionary interference/manipulation, Corporate empowerment through corrupt law and corrupt banking systems which in turn harm animals and the Earth. Ironically, even Anarchy may be more of a Government of the People than our current system.

Do you think capitalism could exist in anarchy? If so, would it be capitalism function better and with better moral?

Kali74
reply to post by Panic2k11

 

You are using definitions that hijack the entire concept. Something more Rothbardian I'm guessing. Maybe you should read Bakunin, the 'father' of Anarchism.

That's the thing... when people aren't associating anarchy with communism, they'll try to market it as some capitalist consumer product that ends up supporting the State (the so called "libertarians"). But all of this is fluff. Rothbard was mostly a dork who never achieved much anarchy, even though he had some merits, like he did manage to oppose establishment authoritarians like Keynes.... But Bakunin, who the Libertarians will always be scared to talk about, was Europe's Crazy Horse back in the days. And he was all-out against Marx and his cronies.
Bakunin's "God and the State"

And again... Sean Swain is a real, living anarchist resister who's on a personal struggle against the US State, from some the toughest prison conditions you can imagine. Here's his podcast(s) You are the Resistance

Sean Swain for Ohio Governor 2014

reply to post by Notheycant


Hi Josh,

Good job with the Hot Topic clips in that video presentation there, that about sums it up, right?

What a desperately ignorant young man this Baker is...

Yeah, uhm, It seems to me like a lot of new technology that’s available now is kinda defeating the purpose of government. Government seems to be more obsolete by the day.

This is one of the most dangerous 'memes' that I have seen spreading across the internet: the idea that somehow these networked computer systems that we are all entangled with are going to 'free' us from 'tyranny'.

Do you know where that feeling is coming from? It's coming from people's abject ignorance of how the systems work and even what they are intended for.

What society is going to have to go through to come to terms with what these systems we have put in to place demand from us in order to work correctly is going to look like a cross between the East German Stasi and the Salem witch trials. It's not going to look anything like 'freedom' for a really, really long time.

Anarchy: that's cute.

reply to post by Echtelion


Breath of fresh air, thank-you. It's pretty simple isn't it, how can it possibly be mixed up and misconstrued to the point of near polar opposite?

I appreciate the humor and succinctness of posting that particular work. I'm seriously laughing out loud.

Tune into ATS LIve to hear discussion on this awesome thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers Zazz

reply to post by zazzafrazz


Zazz! what did you guys think / talk about with regards to this segment?

-

Josh

reply to post by Notheycant


I personally, think it was an excellent interview. Kind of like too "Cut Close " on comments, but cool none the less. I'm already a believer in the fight for our Democracy. However, there seemed to be some blank spots within the interview.


I enjoyed it over all 👍

reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1

reply to post by Foreshadow


A fight for our "Democracy"? What in the world have u been smoking? In a Democracy, 51% of the vote dictates the other 49%. You have "God Given Rights", and that means, I , nor anyone else can take that away from you. In a Democracy, I can take away your rights. Good luck with that Buddy

This has got to be the most repulsive view of anarchy I have ever seen.

I went to this guy's website. Total crap.

First of all, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are prime examples of my favorite oxymoron: anarcho-statism. Basically what is being said when you add adjectives such as these is, "I am in favor of anarchy, as long as it's done under the watchful eye of our beloved corporate/governmental gods and masters." When one sees the word "anarcho" followed by anything, it is nothing more than a neologism that statists use to attract naive freedom-seekers into their political religion.

Next, the word "libertarianism" used by anarchos and conservatives alike is also a neologism to promote a false hope of some sort of freedom. The purest definition of the word libertarianism is "the opposite of authoritarianism". However the conservatives define it as "smaller government" (meaning less government agencies, but more laws based on moral/religious standpoints) and the anarchos define it as "no government" (capitalism: corporate rule, socialism: transfer of rule from the bourgeoisie to the proletarians, who will eventually return to being the bourgeoisie).

There are only two ways to believe in anarchism: completely or not at all. I endorse an ideal known as "anarchism without adjectives". This means that if a group of people wanted to start a capitalist society ... or even any system of government for that matter, they are more than welcome to start their own community, as long as their beliefs don't infringe on the rights of those outside of their community.

Panic2k11
reply to post by Kali74

 

No it is not, I think you are very confusing on the definitions you are using. Communism supports the existence of state, anarchism does not (even if some form of organized order can emerge it will not execute all state functions, especially since a state is a complex legal construct) other more complex forms of anarchism can support larger communal property concepts even the establishment of legal systems and support for the concept of state, but at that point they cease to be anarchism per se.

as long as the state is not a rulership(monopoly of force/violence, monopoly on law making, monopoly on monetary policy) then its still anarchism.

I feel that I'm running in circles with you, I can't even see to be able to put myself into your view point on these subjects on the other hand I think I was clear enough that you could understand what I have stated, clearly defined and exemplified. My view is that we aren't sharing the same definitions but I'm using the more consensual views (that could even encompass many others but seemingly not yours). So I'm exiting this discussion thinking that the issue is with your view point (or the way you are attempting to describe it), not mine.

edit on 14-2-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Communism can exist without a state but its extremely dangerous to do so.

The power vacuum would cause the usual suspects to take power afterwards.

I see a lot of political concepts being thrown around on this topic. I think this debate should be a bit more fundamental to human nature. As has been already stated, Anarchy is lawlessness. It is essentially self-rule. When has any person in history ever conducted themselves entirely responsible and symbiotic to those around them?

Within circumstances of uncertainty or chaos (extreme Anarchy), people automatically fall into a mental state of desiring governance, looking for a leader, for hierarchy. Government is not some evil word that somehow negates all freedoms, it's a symbol of mans desire for peace and stability; we want to be ruled justly. The problem with governing bodies, is that we put our trust in a human. Any powers distributed from the collective into an organized few, become corrupted and perverted; temptation. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", that simple truth in all of its gradations, defines mankind's eternal ineptitude.

In short, there is no hope without Good people. There was, and never will be any such thing, as a right ruling Government, nor is there such a thing as a right-ruling of oneself. To further put the nail in the coffin, "right" and "wrong" are subjective concepts which only have a place in our minds, not reality. In fact I would go as far to say that unless we think with a singular mind and purpose, life is a futile struggle against all odds. All we can do is sit back and watch the inevitable events play out before us.

The only thing that keeps me warm at night, is my belief in His design; chaos included.

reply to post by Aedaeum


This desire for governance is not natural. It is learned. We are conditioned to believe that we are unable to govern ourselves without someone else determining our actions.

What is frequently misunderstood about anarchy is that government does happen. Laws are formed within tribes or communities to govern peoples interactions with others in said group, just like two people in a relationship must learn to adapt to each other's lifestyles. Anarchy is not the lack of government. Anarchy is the choice whether or not to participate in government. In the interests of survival and protection, people will band together and thus laws/codes of living must be formed.

Look globally. The earth is a great example of anarchy. There is not, contrary to popular belief, a central governing body for international affairs. North Korea could, at any time, launch a nuclear missile right into the middle of Times Square ... but they don't because they know that they will be attacked from all sides by allies and countries that simply don't approve of said action. And that's how anarchy works.

reply to post by Aedaeum


One of the best comments on this thread. Thank you.

-

Josh