|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2002 : 07:13:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Any group of people dominated by any other is hindered to a continuing limiting number of choices.
Anachists are against states, armies, slavery, wage systems, capitalism, any kind of goverment, or governing body.
I agree with what ljbrs was hinting at: government is a result of anarchy, not a suppression of it. We as individuals and as groups have decided (probably wisely) that giving up some choices is a small price to pay for a greatly increased probability of remaining alive. I think this is the anarchists' sticking point; no choice is more important than a tangible increase in life span.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 07:54:02 [Permalink]
|
There are all kinds of anarchists. The anarchists I know, such as Chomsky, are not against the state. They are against illegitimate authority. Legitimate authority would keep a child from crossing the steet in front of a car, for instance. Too deep a subject for me to get into now.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 02/25/2002 07:56:39 |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 09:19:38 [Permalink]
|
Snake, Gezzam and I have more flavours of fuckwits (boy I like that word!) to choose from than you in America. We get more of a weirdo parade. Imagine a debate with 5 party leaders (or kindergarten children) participating. Now THAT's good TV!
In my opinion, Anarchy is a nice idea, but relys on the innate goodness of man. So I don't see it as being possible at this time. Like LBJRS says about Russia, it won't work just yet.
I'm stumblin through the parking lot of an invisible 7-eleven. ZZ-Top |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 11:05:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There are all kinds of anarchists. The anarchists I know, such as Chomsky, are not against the state. They are against illegitimate authority. Legitimate authority would keep a child from crossing the steet in front of a car, for instance. Too deep a subject for me to get into now.
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
This seems like a silly use of the word "anarchy."
Anyway, Chomsky says this:
quote:
Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
which suggests that he is, in fact, what I would call a traditional anarchist. He naturally does not specifically advocate anti-state-ism but the implication is clear at least to me.
He also says this:
quote:
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
which suggests that the world has never seen a government-free civilization, which is patently false. There had to be no-government before there was government.
Am I supposed to get anything out of this article, other than Chomsky doesn't like the status quo anywhere but doesn't have a real solution other than something called anarchy, which is "formless and utopian" and would guarantee "[limitless] prospects for freedom and justice" and that the pro-government-istas should construct some sort of proof that government is necessary, otherwise we should fall back on whatever it is we think anarchy is?
You know, maybe Chomsky has his moments, but this pseudo-intellectual baseless opining just makes me shake my head that he expects anyone to take him seriously.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 11:23:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This seems like a silly use of the word "anarchy."
Not if you look at the history of anarchism (not anarchy).
quote:
Am I supposed to get anything out of this article....
No. You're not supposed to get anything out of this article.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 11:33:17 [Permalink]
|
Seriously, I think that may be why Chomsky doesn't write much about anarchy unless he's pressured, as he doesn't have that much to say about it.
Dunno. Not my day to watch him.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 11:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would like to point out that right now in the US, right wing equals fiscally irresponsible. From day one of the current admininistration to the present. No matter what's going on they want to cut taxes and spend more. If the economy is good, cut taxes, if it's bad cut some more. Makes no sense at all to me. Which is it???
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
It's the same supply-side economics that screwed us under Reagan. Cut taxes. Increase spending. Increased GNP will save us. The benevolent corporations will make more high paying jobs for the out of work. Yeah, worked real well in the 80's. So well that we ended up with a trillion dollar debt. Ya know, Dutch did a lot for this country in foreign policy. Too bad Bush the sequel doesn't get the foreign policy bit.
Ooooooooo. I hate supply-side economics.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 12:07:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's the same supply-side economics that screwed us under Reagan. Cut taxes. Increase spending. Increased GNP will save us. The benevolent corporations will make more high paying jobs for the out of work.
Is anyone besides me thinking of Enron? I guess we can look at it this way: they'll be providing work for lawyers for years to come.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 12:59:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He also says this:
quote:
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
which suggests that the world has never seen a government-free civilization, which is patently false. There had to be no-government before there was government.
I disagree completely. Can you name a government-free civilization? I can't.
The fallacy in your logical argument is that "government", in a broad sense, may very well predate civilization or even the human species. Consider the dominance heirarchies that define the social order of chimpanzees, gorillas, and other primates. Our pre-human ancestors would have had a parallel; so government evolved right along with us.
The problem with anarchy, as I understand the term, is that it's defined negatively. We know what it's against, but other than that, what is it? How would a true anarchic society provide what Gorgo refers to as "legitimate authority" without crossing the line into the "illegitimate" variety? Who embodies this legitimate authority, and who draws the line?
Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I can't see a workable answer to that problem. Without some authority structure, the very first school bully could grow up to shatter the whole social system. But once you have an authority structure, how is this different from a government?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:10:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, I think it's actually more complex than that, and some have worked out the details better than Chomsky. Chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist. This doesn't mean that there is to be no organization.
Chomsky is not a promoter of nonviolence particularly, so that presupposes some sort of armed defense and police. It's just a matter of defining what "legitimate" is, and I think in some cases that might be difficult, but in some cases it won't. I think what he and others like him would like to see would be a bottom-up agreement as to what that is rather than a top-down imposition, however. I wonder if that isn't a reaction against Lenin/Stalinism.
He is a socialist (anarcho-syndicalist - meaning the "people" own the means of production) so that also implies some degree of organization.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:12:27 [Permalink]
|
Ah, pardon, how can he be a socialist and and anarchist? Aren't the two mutually exclusive?
Thought constitutes the greatness of man -Pascal |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:15:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think what he and others like him would like to see would be a bottom-up agreement as to what that is rather than a top-down imposition, however.
But the practical problem as I see it is that it would only be bottom-up at the outset; it would become top-down as soon as the first agreement were reached.
Unless he's looking for some sort of perpetually undulating framework that morphs with every new addition to the society. Not to mention it still has to be partly top-down unless you have absolute unanimity for the first agreement.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:27:12 [Permalink]
|
I'm afraid I have to agree with Donnie on this. While the individual yearns for as much freedom as possible, if there is more than one person there needs to be some kind of structure.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:34:20 [Permalink]
|
Garrette, I can't argue with any of that. Not sure that it makes any of it wrong, either. Certainly, a benevolent dictator can be better than a "democratic" totalitarianism and could in a sense be more democratic. There has to be some sort of balance somehow. I'm sure not an expert on that.
Xev, socialism means the people own and benefit from the means of production. Anarchism mean shedding illegitimate authority. The two are not only compatible, but some think there can be no other kind of socialism or anarchism.
The problem is that most people think of Naziism or Stalinism as socialism, and it is only one kind of socialism. When the state runs things that is technically socialism, but far from the kind of socialism that "democratic socialists" are selling.
quote:
But the practical problem as I see it is that it would only be bottom-up at the outset;
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 13:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Structure doesn't have to mean spending trillions of dollars to make defense companies rich or to put 2 million people in prison, either. There can be some kind of balance.
quote:
I'm afraid I have to agree with Donnie on this. While the individual yearns for as much freedom as possible, if there is more than one person there needs to be some kind of structure.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
