Anarchists?
- Thread starter magicSpoons
- Start date
Thundercat
Well-Known Member
So I'm not a political person, is vountaryist an actual belief, or group. Cus thats about how I feel about shit. I'd really like to know how anybody feels that they deserve the right to control others, or decide whats good bad, right wrong, and such. People need to MIND there own business.
magicSpoons
Member
Probably quite a lot.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Now your ignoring humanity, of course as Communism is an ideology built around ignoring humanity then it can be no surprise that you are ignoring it. What are you going to do with all the Alpha Males, the natural leaders, kill them, lest people decide to follow them, because they are capable of organizing, leading, thinking and planning?
What about those that achieve education? Are you going to kill them off so they can't use their education to lead, and plan?
Your "perfect" society is a society of retards, lazy and incompetents, not of free men. Your "perfect" society can be held as nothing more than a society full of slaves that have been deprived by 2/5ths of their humantiy, and you will either have a government, or you will have to allow the natural leaders do what they do naturally, which is organize people and lead, which means that there will be corporations, and private enterprise, or you will end up with a stone-age hunter gatherer society after billions die off as a result of inane policies that punish farmers for farming, merchants for bringing goods to market, and smiths, leathermakers, ropemakers, and entrepreneurs for providing the goods and services society needs. The end result of the vain pursuit of your "perfect" society is either a tyranny or the collapse of society all together, because it is incompatible with human nature.
magicSpoons
Member
I don't know what people find so unappealing about a society where people are free to do as they like as long as they don't incur on the freedom of others, where we have maximum liberty to choose our own pursuits and lead our own lives as we please. Where there are no governemnts, no taxes and no borders. Where there is no racism or sexism because we know it benfits no-one including ourselves. Because that's what I advocate, nothing else.
I don't know where you get "perfect" from, as nothing is ever perfect and we anarchos are not kidding ourselves or anyone else because we know life and society is never perfect. All we know is what we advocate will be the best society humans can live in because we will be exploring new avenues of life in freedom and creativity. Two things which the society you advocate, where one man dominates others, is not possible.
And there won't be any policies, nobody will have to follow policies or rules, because they only exist in this society to protect the rich and the powerful.
There is no such thing as human "nature". There is not one ounce of matter in our brains/psyche that predetermines our nature, our behaviour is nothing more than the result of socialisation.
magicSpoons
Member
I'd disagree, but if you could explain yourself further.
ViRedd
New Member
Sure ...
In your system of no government and unfettered cooperation, you are not allowing for human nature and ego.
Humans naturally seek success and the comfort it brings. Humans are naturally competitive and have a survival instinct.
What you espouse would necessitate the death of ego. This would be possible in a strict spiritual sense where everyone is in The State of Grace, but for normal "in the world" humans, we need government to protect the rights of the citizens from those who would violate those rights.
Vi
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
It's funny how you continue to side step the charges I bring against your ideology, and claim that there is no such thing as Alpha Males. To argue that there are no such thing as natural leaders to ignores the fact that society from its earliest inception relied upon the existence of natural leaders.
Some traits that are taught either through familial bonds are often enforced over the eons. You're ignoring the fact that even in the primitive hunter-gatherer tribes there were Chieftains. In Wolf and Dog Packs there are Pack Leaders, in the Troops of Gorillas and Monkeys there are leaders, in Schools of Whales there are leaders. Humanity has not changed in the tens of thousands of years that we have been on this planet.
There are even genetic explanations for some of the traits that the military recognizes as being traits of leaders (14 Traits of Leadership)
Bearing - ability to know where one is, and what one is or should be doing, especially under pressure.
Courage -ability to confront one's fears and no cave into them.
Decisiveness - ability to make decisions quickly when pressed with out worrying about potential side effects.
Dependability - living up to one's word.
Endurance - ability to keep going despite wishing to stop
Enthusiasm - natural tendency to bring great energy to bear on any goal one is pursuing, whether it be as mundane as mowing a lawn, or as critical as supervising the launch of a satellite.
Initiative - ability to take command of one's self when there is a lack of orders from above.
Integrity, Judgment, Justice, Knowledge, Loyalty, Tact
All traits that define leaders. Of course they are not all evenly distributed, and some times external factors influence their usage. Like during a battle with a fog of war a commander may have to act decisively, but may not have the knowledge ot exercise the level of judgment they normally exercise.
But these traits are also naturally inherent in some people, either genetically (the ability to remain calm under pressure is effected by endorphines) or through upbringing.
Your argument that survival of the fittest doesn't exist fails against that.
It also fails against the fact that there are naturally intelligent people and then there are people that are mentally retarded or physically disabled. Clearly, through natural forces and sociological forces those traits that society found attractive were reinforced (for the most part) while other traits were eventually genetically dead-ended.
The change in skin pigments is another trait that lends credence to the fact that humans change to suit their environments, arguing once again for survival of the fittest in humanity.
Airwave
Well-Known Member
And that is the bottom line.
magicSpoons
Member
As I've said before, what we today call human nature, the idea that people have inbuilt tendencies to assume hierarchical systems and be competitive, is a lie propagated by capitalists to justify their system. People are competitve and selfish now because they have been brought up in a world where only competiton and selfishness will earn them a decent life. That's capitalism.
As for rights, most rights nowadays are to protect the interests of the rich and keep them rich and to keep the poor poor. The idea of "rights" is another pathetic fallacy propagated by capitalists merely to serve themselves, in the words of Jeremy Bentham, "Rights are nonsense upon stilts." In the free society people will realise that humanity benefits when the freedom of every individual is preserved so there will be no need for rights or their enforcers.
magicSpoons
Member
I'm not side-stepping anything, it's just truth. Even if 'natural instinct' really did predetermine so much of our behaviour as you claim, we have the ability to think rationally and unlike animals we are not slaves to our genetics and nature. This happens everytime you use a condom.
And people never relied on leaders, the leaders have always either forced or tricked people into thinking they need leaders, but really the leaders were relying on them, be it for labour, economic gain, vanity. The 'leaders' did this not because they were predisposed by their genetics to dominate, they did it because they thought. And they thought, "Hey, if uses some lies and cunning to trick these people into thinking they need me as a leader, I'm set." Leadership and hierarchy are not 'natural' constructs, they are products of rational thought, products that still exist today at the expense of liberty and equality.
And you give several historical examples of leadership, but that proves nothing, just because it happened in societies past does not make it true, slavery was taken for granted in a large chunk of human history as normal, should we continue that?. And there is always time for change.
Genes may have affects on personality but not in the way you are thinking. You claim these genes for 14 traits of leadership, as though there is single gene for each, like there is a single gene that codes for a leg or an arm, an eye, which is nonsense. And just because somebody has a larger proportion of these traits, does that mean we should hold our wrists in the air and tell them to do with us as they see fit? I see no reason why we should, we are thinking creatures capable of independent thought, why should we be told what to do. Maybe you would prefer to have a hook through your nose and be pulled on a rope, but I know I wouldn't, and I'm sure most of the world's population having been presented with the facts wouldn't either.
And when did I say survival of the fittest doesn't exist? I said that social Darwinists had only taken the concept and narrowed it down to some ridiculous notion of man being pitched against man as the natural order of things. In actual fact one human is more likely to preserve him/herself in nature if s/he unites with other humans. This is the concept of solidarity - that we all share the same problems and together we can struggle against them as one. Capitalism refuses this concept because it is revolutionary and would bring on its demise, so it pumps out whatever propaganda it can to preserve itself - hierarchy, man against man, 'natural instincts', social Darwinism. And it can do this through science, religion, media, the government, because it owns them all.
magicSpoons
Member
Try searching 'anarchist catalonia' in google. You'll see.Well MS, there are only two places where your system has been successful.
1. Heaven.
2. Galt's Gulch.
Vi
Oh, and heaven is another false construct to stop the working classes from revolting. Sorry.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I can't help wondering where our RIU Progressives have run off to now that a true Communist Anarchist is among us. All too often we Classical Liberals get labeled as Anarchists by the more ignorant Modern Liberals, or Progressives, if you will.
Hey magicSpoons. Welcome BTW.
Alternative viewpoints add spice to the sauce.
Question: How do you stand on the theory that anarchy is in reality a temporary state? A means to an end as it were.
Hey magicSpoons. Welcome BTW.
Alternative viewpoints add spice to the sauce.
Question: How do you stand on the theory that anarchy is in reality a temporary state? A means to an end as it were.
Airwave
Well-Known Member
I'm so sick of you commies using the working-classes as an excuse for your fairytale beliefs!
I'm working-class. You do not represent or speak for me, or anyone else I know!
Most commies are not even working-class, they're middle-class, brainwashed hippies, living in a bubble of safety and security.
The working classes don't support communism, because we see it for what it is (a ridiculous, cultish, unrealistic fairytale).
Go and jump off a bridge.
magicSpoons
Member
It's not a fairytale, it's real-life. It's resisting against the terrible conditions imposed on us by bosses and the government. It's about working in the community to preserve the small pieces of freedom that we do have in this world and expand them. It's about being pro-working class in order to remove class from society forever. If you can't relate to that, then you can't be working class, that and you are afraid to resist and would rather submit to the powers that be than to challenge them. Or you just don't understand what I'm saying.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you want to be a Voluntaryist you have my permission.
Umm wait a minute, there's no permission required. Just click your heels together 3 times and say there's no place like home and bingo you're a Voluntaryist!