Tuesday's Presidential Election

[~~Auriel~~]

Hmmm...
The only problem I have with anarchy is people like Ionic. The attributes that you mentioned, in fact are human nature...but there's FAR more to human nature than that.
When push comes to shove and it's kill or be killed, I would definitely kill. But it doesn't have to go that way from the beginning.
I'm not suggesting that there wouldn't be any violence whatsoever, I'm simply saying that some people can choose a better road to walk down with or without the government telling them what to do and some can't.

I don't agree that anarchy is the solution. Unity is the solution.

Obama is not the person that can "deliver us into the promised land," like so many hope for. But I support him because I believe he can make some changes to better America, regardless of what constraints he may have.

I don't know if any of you have noted the difference between "old school" politicians and the ones from recent years; but think JFK and Cuba- he used the power of words and the attitude of "You will disarm. This is how it is going to be. Period." Eleanor Roosevelt is another good example. They were far more firm in their statements and I believe they accomplished more because of this. Obama has a mild quality to his speeches that are very similar. Politicians today seem to be like, "Oh, ok well...could you do it...please?" Pussies.

If we could return to that type of "No Bullshit" attitude from politicians (or should I say less bullshit, lol) I think that would be another progressive move for America. Someone needs to set a standard in the Oval Office. That standard needs to be upheld, regardless of person, race, religion, or party.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Really? Is Marxism what I'm talking about?
Here's what JCC said, in defense of one of your posts: (paraphrased, "the anarchist community is determined and decentralized")

Here's my response to JCC. [i](paraphrased, "those acts are insignificant and your change will be violent"

I don't get it. You quoted things in which JCC didn't even remotely imply a violent revolution. You were the one that keeps saying that the change will be violent.
You quoted yourself as to the one who spoke about violence.
So then why did you say that we are advocating a violent revolution?
That's what I quoted, and that's what you have to defend: defend your claim that we advocate a violent revolution; not that you think our revolution will be violent, especially without evidence of it.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Doesn't Anarchy inherently advocate violent revolution?

I know Marxism does, and Anarchy draws a lot from Marxism.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Postmodern anarchism keeps advocating a "Revolution on the Fringes"
All the 'free territories' that have been created have increased anarchist space exponentially, yet there have been no deaths to any state (though some anarchist deaths by the police) for their occupation.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I don't get it. You quoted things in which JCC didn't even remotely imply a violent revolution. You were the one that keeps saying that the change will be violent.
You quoted yourself as to the one who spoke about violence.
So then why did you say that we are advocating a violent revolution?
That's what I quoted, and that's what you have to defend: defend your claim that we advocate a violent revolution; not that you think our revolution will be violent, especially without evidence of it.

Are you some sort of moron? I made a logical leap from the one to the other, an "if/then" sort of equation. IF you tear down the social structure that we've got in place, THEN deaths will result: rioting will occur, failure of the transportation system, starvation, and mob rule. IF you destroy all centralized authority, THEN the intricate web of long distance infrastructure is also destroyed; IF there is no centralized government with the power to enforce law and order, THEN
tribal hierarchies based on raiding, fear and violence will arise.

PEOPLE.

WILL.

DIE.


Whether you intend it or not, people will die. Lots and lots of people.


Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to map it out with a fucking crayon?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

My point is that I was not talking about Marxism, but rather the form of anarchy that you and JCC seem to advocate. You don't take into account the consequences of upending all authority in such a massive, heavily integrated system of government as ours. You may not intend it, but it will kill a lot of people. Probably even you.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Well that's the age-old "power void" argument against Anarchy. You're really not treading new ground here bucko.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Well that's the age-old "power void" argument against Anarchy. You're really not treading new ground here bucko.

I never said I was, bucko. Just because something has been pointed out before doesn't mean it's not valid. Don't confuse novelty with worth.

Here the argument is entirely relevant.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

My point is that I was not talking about Marxism, but rather the form of anarchy that you and JCC seem to advocate. You don't take into account the consequences of upending all authority in such a massive, heavily integrated system of government as ours. You may not intend it, but it will kill a lot of people. Probably even you.

Oh, it's most definitely a possibility.
That's what violent revolution is. Essentially, change will come when people fight for it. We would be astoundingly lucky to have minimal physical fighting for this to happen.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Oh, it's most definitely a possibility.
That's what violent revolution is. Essentially, change will come when people fight for it. We would be astoundingly lucky to have minimal physical fighting for this to happen.

Actually, for once JCC and I are in agreement.

[KontanKarite]

Well yeah. I mean, obviously, there would be no need for a revolution if there were no tyrants to dismantle.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Honestly, so much loud talk about deaths and chaos and destruction is idiotic. I'm not the moron.
There wasn't even that much violence you're so afraid of with Marxist revolutions. The Russian revolution was bloody. The Cuban revolution was bloody. The Chinese revolution was bloody. The Spanish Revolution was bloody.
But none of them resemble the amount of suffering and infrastructure damage than the most standard wars by capitalist countries.
Mass starvation in Russia and China didn't come because of the revolution. The central states were already well in place and steady much before the government decided to abandon its people. The fall of Cuba's economy, which began booming after the coup, only came after America's trade embargo.
The purges in these three were not for equality or for justice, but for stability - a statist value.
The collectivization of Spain was virtually bloodless. It was fascists who escalated violence, not anarchists.

So, if you want to keep saying that "our empirical examples have no value because they're insignificant" then you yourself cannot say that anarchism is inherently violent, because there is not one single case of considerable violence and starvation caused by revolt, only by regression to statism for the sake of stability.
If violence were to come, it would be because of your precious state trying to wipe off dissenters; not the other way around.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Honestly, so much loud talk about deaths and chaos and destruction is idiotic. I'm not the moron.
There wasn't even that much violence you're so afraid of with Marxist revolutions. The Russian revolution was bloody. The Cuban revolution was bloody. The Chinese revolution was bloody. The Spanish Revolution was bloody.
But none of them resemble the amount of suffering and infrastructure damage than the most standard wars by capitalist countries.

Are you fucking serious? You don't think several years of Red vs. White warfare in post-1917 Russia was catastrophic? You don't the conflict between Chinese nationalists and Chinese Communists as anything more than "bloody"?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Mass starvation in Russia and China didn't come because of the revolution.

I beg to differ. Speaking about Russia, mass starvation and liquidation of the peasant and kulak classes was both an unintentional side effect of collectivization of farms and the botched five year plans, and a deliberate policy of the Stalinist government in its (the government of the revolution, one might say) attempt to perpetuate class warfare.

You don't see the destruction of entire classes of people and the deaths of millions as anything other than "bloody"? What the fuck is wrong with you? What would it take to register as something more than "bloody"? Streetfights can be bloody; the extermination of entire classes of people that number in the millions is a bit more than that.

As far as China goes, I don't know much. I do, however, know that the Communist vs. Nationalist conflict was extraordinarily violent.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The purges in these three were not for equality or for justice, but for stability - a statist value.

First off, people living in an unstable society will sell their eye teeth for a bit of stability, regardless of who gives it to them. That's part of how dictators arise.

Second, stability, at least in Russia, was seconded to ideological purity. Things were stable under NEP, but Stalin knocked all that into a cocked hat, making Russia unstable, all in the name of his personal vision of ideology.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So, if you want to keep saying that "our empirical examples have no value because they're insignificant" then you yourself cannot say that anarchism is inherently violent, because there is not one single case of considerable violence and starvation caused by revolt, only by regression to statism for the sake of stability.

Not one example of violence caused by revolt? So you're drawing a line separating the ideal of anarchism and the result of violence? That's preposterous. The one invariably leads to the other, intentional or not.

Trickle-down economics is supposed to work in theory, but in reality it's a cluster-fuck, much like the Russian revolution.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

If violence were to come, it would be because of your precious state trying to wipe off dissenters; not the other way around.

What's your point? You're saying that violence will happen because people don't like to give up their power. No shit.

So you're advocating that the people in power immediately give up their power, no questions asked, and violence can be avoided? Do you see the problem there?

What the fuck does it matter if you want people to die or not? If you make idiotic and unrealistic revolutionary demands on a government, and then act surprised when it retaliates with force, that doesn't make you right. It makes you stupid, naive, or both. People are going to be killed, regardless of your impotent intentions.

You don't have a working understanding of humanity, I think. You seem to think that if everyone follows your lead things will be better. You put on blinders and ignore the things you don't like to hear, and shift blame away from anything that you consider to be helpful to your cause, regardless of actual circumstance. You're no better than the neo-conservatives ideologues that are ****** the freedoms of the United States. You certainly seem to use the same tactics.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Dude, you obviously didn't understand anything I just said.
All of those violent effects you have listed came because of the systematic attempts of destruction by two opposing systems, but systems nonetheless.
Did you read my post about "revolution on the fringes"?
I assumed you had for the context of my above post. There's no violence in anarchism because collectivization happens democratically, not coercively, which is what the Bolsheviks did.
The Soviets declaring their autonomy was virtually peaceful. The Bolshevik ascension to power was bloody.
The Spaniard collectivization was peaceful; the fascist counterrevolution was bloody.
And there is nothing bloody of anarchism in itself by a revolution on the fringes to gradually and collectively separate ourselves from the state, except if the state decides to directly intervene with military force.

[JCC]

Jillian's effectively saying:

"We're all for peaceful revolution, but when they start punching, we punch back. FREEDOM!"

Seems reasonable to me, I guess.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Dude, you obviously didn't understand anything I just said.
All of those violent effects you have listed came because of the systematic attempts of destruction by two opposing systems, but systems nonetheless.

Oh, I understand what you said. It's just intensely unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Dodslayer Jillian

There's no violence in anarchism because collectivzation happens democratically, not coercively, which is what the Bolsheviks did.

Really? And where has collectivization on any meaningful scale ever happened peacefully and by choice? What makes you think that your anarchist sentiment is going to be universally acceptable? What do you do if people don't willingly agree with you?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

The Soviets declaring their autonomy was virtually peaceful. The Bolshevik ascension to power was bloody.
The Spaniard collectivization was peaceful; the fascist counterrevolution was bloody.

And how do you separate the declaration of autonomy, and the subsequent use of force to back it up? You can declare yourself autonomous all fucking day, but you won't be unless you back it up with force.

All I can see here is you saying is that if people just let you do whatever the hell you want, there wouldn't be violence, because if you get your way you won't start any. That's the sentiment of an ignorant, petulant child.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And there is nothing bloody of anarchism in itself by a revolution on the fringes to gradually and collectively separate ourselves from the state, except if the state decides to directly intervene with military force.

And why would you be surprised when the state intervenes? You would be, after all, threatening its power. Again, all I can see you doing is saying "if you let me have my way I won't start a fight." Why don't you just threaten to hold your breath until your face turns blue? What you're talking about is the political equivalent of a two year old throwing a tantrum and screaming "let me have what I want, when I want it, or I'll raise hell!"

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

Jillian's effectively saying:

"We're all for peaceful revolution, but when they start punching, we punch back. FREEDOM!"

Seems reasonable to me, I guess.

Again, I'm astonished. We agree on what Jillian is trying to say. I just happen to think that it's absolutely absurd to claim anarchism is "nonviolent" when this sort of sentiment can result only in violence.

[JCC]

You're confusing Anarchism with Anarchist revolution.

The revolution will almost undoubtedly be violent.
However, once Anarchism has begun, there's no need for violence.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

You're confusing Anarchism with Anarchist revolution.

The revolution will almost undoubtedly be violent.
However, once Anarchism has begun, there's no need for violence.

Anarchy is entirely dependent on a revolution, so separating the two is impossible.

Again, your statement is premised on the assumption that all people will be accepting of your ideology. Or, alternatively, should people prove resistant, you'll kill anyone that opposes, sparing only those that are accepting of your ideology.

The former is impossible, and the latter is deplorable.

[JCC]

The latter is the basis of every war from the beginnings of humanity to now. Unpleasant, certainly, but how else do you propose change comes about? We're people that believe very strongly that government is an affliction and we feel compelled to act about that in the same way that you would probably feel compelled to act against fascist dictatorship in your country.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by JCC

The latter is the basis of every war from the beginnings of humanity to now. Unpleasant, certainly, but how else do you propose change comes about? We're people that believe very strongly that government is an affliction and we feel compelled to act about that in the same way that you would probably feel compelled to act against fascist dictatorship in your country.

People that act without sufficient forethought can, and usually are, just as bad as people that act with ill-intent. I understand that you're ideological; I understand that you're passionate. I just think that, were you to actually put any of your rhetoric into action, you'd be going off half-cocked, fuck things up, kill a lot of people that don't need to be killed, and end up in a quagmire of shit having accomplished nothing tangible.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

What makes you think that your anarchist sentiment is going to be universally acceptable?

As often as it happens, it will always surprise me that middle class people can't understand why most of the world would like to have the fair share of their work.
Generally, but obviously, it's those who are well off who keep thinking anarchy is violent/chaos/impossible/undesirable...
When I tell those in the service industry, community activists, homeless, college students that consciously live ascetically, illegal immigrants, and those living in Segundo Barrio, the only argument they raise is that the government will try to jail me. Only once has any of them ever told me that it's not something desirable.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by JCC

The latter is the basis of every war from the beginnings of humanity to now. Unpleasant, certainly, but how else do you propose change comes about? We're people that believe very strongly that government is an affliction and we feel compelled to act about that in the same way that you would probably feel compelled to act against fascist dictatorship in your country.

And I think that I ought to be king. So what?

The problem pith has with your little plans is that they invariably, inevitably, lead to violence of some sort or another.

Your argument is basically that you feel that anarchy is so important that violence is acceptable. Leaving aside the fact that anarchy is an inherently unstable political situation which has never been tested in a macro-sense, one must question why your reasoning should not apply to everyone else, as well.

If Christian fundamentalists feel that they should be allowed to secede from the country and form the Perfect Christian States, and black supremacists decide to create New Africa, and I decide to create AynRanditia, why shouldn't we, according to your argument?

Maybe you think they should. Fine. But, in that case, your Anarchic state isn't going to last long, because either the PCS or AynRanditia is going to steam-roll you as soon as they realize that you aren't exactly a sovereign nation with a centralized leadership and military. Or perhaps you are hoping that the entire world will go anarchic. In which case, people who aren't ethical but who are smart and capable of violence - like me - will promptly proceed to begin forming fife-doms. Speaking of which, I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your system of ethics, either. Who are you to tell me what I cannot or should not do?

Your blithe acceptance of "people will die" is the flag that reveals you as a potential tyrant to the rest of humanity. Breaking eggs to make an omelet is good in theory, but your omelet will never be complete and you will never run out of eggs that you need to break. There will always be another person who has to be killed before there will be a truly anarchic society.

The funny thing is, for all your and Jillian's professed hatred of religion, you cling to Anarchic theory with the desperation of a fundamentalist. You cannot accept all the evidence to the contrary of what you believe, so you argue against it with smokescreens, straw-men, and invalid comparisons. Anarchy isn't just your cause, it's your God.

It's hilarious. Please keep it up. :-P

[Godslayer Jillian]

Oh no! We're worshiping our right to be free social beings!!
Saying that doesn't change anything. I'm ok with your semantics.

[ionic_angel]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Oh no! We're worshiping our right to be free social beings!!
Saying that doesn't change anything. I'm ok with your semantics.

To be honest, I was more attacking JCC there. But frankly, you're just as naive in your worship of your "special principle".

People are social creatures with an inherent desire for a pecking order. You can see it any time you put a group together, whether of complete strangers or familiar friends. And in any situation where you have social creatures, you are going to have disagreements.

Now, in small communities where everyone has chosen to live, people will usually choose to stay, and overlook disagreements. Perhaps they may leave. In an anarchic world, there will be no option to leave, and until you get 100% of the earth's people to desire anarchy, and all of their children to desire it as well, you are going to end up with people deciding that their own good is more important than the good of your societal model.

If Jane, the town's only doctor, decides that she wants more than everyone else in return for her services, are you going to force her to treat patients? If you do, that's not anarchy - the community has decided that their wishes are more important than the individual. It might be communism, but anarchy by definition cannot, in its end state, rely on force.

And, of course, there is the problem of me, the would-be ruler of everything I survey. What's there to stop me from abducting another human and making him serve me? The rest of you? Then you are impinging on my freedom to do as I wish.

Well, yes, I am impinging on someone else's freedoms, but so what? Who are you to judge what I do? You have no authority over me, right? Neither does the Sta-I mean, community. After all, this is supposed to be anarchy.

And after I get my slave, and show everyone in my community how nice it is to have someone else work the garden, why shouldn't the rest of us come enslave you? Do you intend to cultivate some religion that says we shouldn't? Oh, wait - must preserve anarchy.

Until we kill you all and take your stuff. Humans are predators, killers, etc. The true face of humanity isn't a commune - it's Auschwitz.

I'm not saying we shouldn't fight that, but that's what we are, and some will always be that way. Anarchy only works in a world that's already perfect.