Australian Politics Forum

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #15 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,

An army with no leaders eh? Doesn't sound very effective...Which is why armies have leaders. You can wish it weren't so, but groups are more effective when organised by a leader, so they will always dominate a leaderless group, otherwise known as a 'rabble'. So we're back to the fatal flaw - no way to defend itself.

No RULERS would be putting the situation better. Nobody HAS to follow, especially without question. But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. It's just that an usurped authority demanding they do something completely stupid would be laughed at. If you think that an Anarchist military is a rabble, you've got some reading to do.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #16 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 9:57pm

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 1:21am:

On the contrary Soren, failure is a benefit, but not an experiment that needs repeating. Modern Anarchists are forward looking people. We are after all, simply following the evolutionary path; leading away from the divine right of kings towards ever greater democracy.

If this makes sense to you as an anarchists then the disconnect is explained - it makes no sense to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Anarchism Reply #17 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:00pm Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm: But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. Bollocks. Anarchism is about not accepting authority of any kind. Anarchism means headlessness - no authority.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:09pm by Soren » IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22605
A cat with a view

Re: Anarchism
Reply #18 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:25pm

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 1:21am:

.....Modern Anarchists are forward looking people. We are after all, simply following the evolutionary path; leading away from the divine right of kings towards ever greater democracy.

The 'democracy' that is a product of universal suffrage [google it] is greatly overrated, imo.

It often seems to 'disarrange' into violent mob rule ?

Quote:

A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
      Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990. [9]

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.
      Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights", Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992:[10]

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
      James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), ISBN 0312123337, p. 333
      Also cited as by Bovard in the Sacramento Bee (1994)

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #19 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43am

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,

An army with no leaders eh? Doesn't sound very effective...Which is why armies have leaders. You can wish it weren't so, but groups are more effective when organised by a leader, so they will always dominate a leaderless group, otherwise known as a 'rabble'. So we're back to the fatal flaw - no way to defend itself.

No RULERS would be putting the situation better. Nobody HAS to follow, especially without question. But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. It's just that an usurped authority demanding they do something completely stupid would be laughed at. If you think that an Anarchist military is a rabble, you've got some reading to do.

How is this authority asserted?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #20 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:22am

Soren wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:00pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority.

Bollocks.

Anarchism is about not accepting authority of any kind. Anarchism means headlessness - no authority.

If Anarchists relied on you to define themselves they'd be up shyte creek and no mistake Grin

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #21 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:43am

Yadda wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

[quote author=retrac link=1364174580/11#11 date=1364484093]

.....Modern Anarchists are forward looking people. We are after all, simply following the evolutionary path; leading away from the divine right of kings towards ever greater democracy.

The 'democracy' that is a product of universal suffrage [google it] is greatly overrated, imo.

It often seems to 'disarrange' into violent mob rule ?

Quote:

A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
      Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990. [9]

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.
      Marvin Simkin, "Individual Rights", Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992:[10]

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
      James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994), ISBN 0312123337, p. 333
      Also cited as by Bovard in the Sacramento Bee (1994)

I'm with James Bovard Yadda, and Democritus, (who was named for, but did not invent) for that matter. Democracy is government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'. It's not government, 'by a group of gangsters on behalf of the people'.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #22 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:49am

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,

An army with no leaders eh? Doesn't sound very effective...Which is why armies have leaders. You can wish it weren't so, but groups are more effective when organised by a leader, so they will always dominate a leaderless group, otherwise known as a 'rabble'. So we're back to the fatal flaw - no way to defend itself.

No RULERS would be putting the situation better. Nobody HAS to follow, especially without question. But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. It's just that an usurped authority demanding they do something completely stupid would be laughed at. If you think that an Anarchist military is a rabble, you've got some reading to do.

How is this authority asserted?

If Mr Baker makes the best bread, respect him for that and let him get on with it. Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any. If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:59am by Grey »

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10300
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #23 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:07pm

Grey wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

When you look at the troubled regions of the world, like Israel/Palestine. What you are presented with is two peoples that hate each other. But it's a lie. The vast majority of people anywhere don't want much except to get along with their neighbours and live in peace and security to raise families. All the trouble is stemming from the top. People fermenting hatred to further their own ambitions. No Rulers.

Consensus decision making and win win situations are not hard to arrive at. And if the decision is a wrong one then it's not hard for a collective to change it's mind.

Conflict may stem from the top (sometimes it may stem from below), but whatever the case, many people have always been willing to obey their leaders and do their bidding. In fact, some people are only ever good for that. To be a leader you have to be able to direct yourself, discipline yourself - only then can you direct others. I would surmise that those who can direct themselves are in the minority, whereas the followers make up the majority. And it will be so for eternity.

This doesn't even have to be a bad thing. It's only conceived as bad because of libertarian arguments that have make their way into modern discourse. In antiquity, honour, courage, and valour were deemed as good and just. Anarchists don't have any special claim to justice or the good. Therefore, I highly dispute that, as you claimed, anarchists are on an evolutionary path from the divine right of kings to democracy. Evolution doesn't have a teleology beyond the passing on of our seed. Democracy as the good is a prejudice.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #24 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:10pm

Grey wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,

An army with no leaders eh? Doesn't sound very effective...Which is why armies have leaders. You can wish it weren't so, but groups are more effective when organised by a leader, so they will always dominate a leaderless group, otherwise known as a 'rabble'. So we're back to the fatal flaw - no way to defend itself.

No RULERS would be putting the situation better. Nobody HAS to follow, especially without question. But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. It's just that an usurped authority demanding they do something completely stupid would be laughed at. If you think that an Anarchist military is a rabble, you've got some reading to do.

How is this authority asserted?

If Mr Baker makes the best bread, respect him for that and let him get on with it. Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any. If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

But who decides whether Mr Bakers bread is the best? What happens when consensus cannot be reached? What happens if there is not the time to sit around trying to find consensus?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22605
A cat with a view

Re: Anarchism
Reply #25 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:03pm

Grey wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

... wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

Morale is strong in Anarchist armies, counter intuitively discipline is not a problem,

An army with no leaders eh? Doesn't sound very effective...Which is why armies have leaders. You can wish it weren't so, but groups are more effective when organised by a leader, so they will always dominate a leaderless group, otherwise known as a 'rabble'. So we're back to the fatal flaw - no way to defend itself.

No RULERS would be putting the situation better. Nobody HAS to follow, especially without question. But Anarchists are always willing to respect, to acknowledge an authority. It's just that an usurped authority demanding they do something completely stupid would be laughed at. If you think that an Anarchist military is a rabble, you've got some reading to do.

How is this authority asserted?

If Mr Baker makes the best bread, respect him for that and let him get on with it.

So the consumers of bread, can decide.

If Mr Baker (#1) makes good/affordable bread, he will prosper in his business.

If Mr Baker (#2) makes poor/expensive bread, he will go out of business.

Quote:

Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any.

If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

That ain't necessarily so.

Self interest tends to always trump altruism, in humans [and in the societies that they 'construct'/fabricate].

No ?

Q.
Who is going to stand against those [individuals or organisations] who [for the sake of their own self interest] 'assert' their own authority?
i.e.
"You cannot by bread from Mr Baker.
You must buy the bread which we make."

Government authorised agencies can do this today, in Australia, through industry 'marketing boards'.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22605
A cat with a view

Re: Anarchism
Reply #26 - Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:43pm

Yadda wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:03pm:

Quote:

Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any.

If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

That ain't necessarily so.

Self interest tends to always trump altruism, in humans [and in the societies that they 'construct'/fabricate].

No ?

Q.
Who is going to stand against those [individuals or organisations] who [for the sake of their own self interest] 'assert' their own authority?
i.e.
"You cannot by bread from Mr Baker.
You must buy the bread which we make."

Government authorised agencies can do this today, in Australia, through industry 'marketing boards'.

grey,

The point that i was trying to labour, was that;
Even in a nominally 'anarchist' society/political system, human nature would tend to assert itself [over the interests of the larger group].

i.e.
If individuals or groups could see a way to 'exert' their own self interest, over all others, then they would try to do so.

Altruism would [still] lose.

And [within the 'anarchist' society/political system] a 'political' conflict would emerge, between at least two groups.

No ?

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #27 - Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:37am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 7:55pm:

When you look at the troubled regions of the world, like Israel/Palestine. What you are presented with is two peoples that hate each other. But it's a lie. The vast majority of people anywhere don't want much except to get along with their neighbours and live in peace and security to raise families. All the trouble is stemming from the top. People fermenting hatred to further their own ambitions. No Rulers.

Consensus decision making and win win situations are not hard to arrive at. And if the decision is a wrong one then it's not hard for a collective to change it's mind.

Conflict may stem from the top (sometimes it may stem from below), but whatever the case, many people have always been willing to obey their leaders and do their bidding. In fact, some people are only ever good for that. To be a leader you have to be able to direct yourself, discipline yourself - only then can you direct others. I would surmise that those who can direct themselves are in the minority, whereas the followers make up the majority. And it will be so for eternity.

This doesn't even have to be a bad thing. It's only conceived as bad because of libertarian arguments that have make their way into modern discourse. In antiquity, honour, courage, and valour were deemed as good and just. Anarchists don't have any special claim to justice or the good. Therefore, I highly dispute that, as you claimed, anarchists are on an evolutionary path from the divine right of kings to democracy. Evolution doesn't have a teleology beyond the passing on of our seed. Democracy as the good is a prejudice.

It used to be said that, 'nobody ever ruled England without the consent of the London mob.' That was pretty well true up until Blair went to war in Iraq - anyway. The mob failed; sometimes civilised doesn't work. If conflict stems from the bottom it's a safe bet that justice is on its side. Things have to be extreme before 'the people' get off their arses.

First you had absolute rule by the biggest and most vicious. Then you had rule by the 'Royal line', (not a lot different). Then power got some spread through the barons, then all the rich, then all the men, then all men and women. But it was always an unwilling letting go from the top. Always found to be ultimately unsatisfactory. Anarchism is just the last step, a reversal of the flow.

In an Anarchic world there never would've been an Iraq war. Arthurian legends are just that. A wish for what could be, a wish list that included a round table.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #28 - Mar 31^st, 2013 at 12:00pm

... wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

But who decides whether Mr Bakers bread is the best?

Some things can be decided by the wallet vote.

Quote:

What happens when consensus cannot be reached?

First you have to decide what a consensus is. Clearly 100% agreement is inpractical. My personal opinion is that something like 80% agreement would be good enough. I feel that if you fail to reach agreement the matter is not urgent or the right decision has not been found yet.

Quote:

What happens if there is not the time to sit around trying to find consensus?

It's a very unlikely situation, but in emergencies people act. Those immediatly involved will make a decision and that can be looked at and learnt from in hindsight.

There's no such thing as a perfect system. But a consensus decision is better than 51% being in favour of banning icecream, therefore the notion is carried.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Anarchism
Reply #29 - Mar 31^st, 2013 at 12:04pm

Yadda wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:03pm:

So the consumers of bread, can decide.

If Mr Baker (#1) makes good/affordable bread, he will prosper in his business.

If Mr Baker (#2) makes poor/expensive bread, he will go out of business.

Quote:

Which is to say that if you need to 'assert' your authority, you don't deserve any.

If you deserve authority and it's questioned others will assert it for you.

That ain't necessarily so.

Self interest tends to always trump altruism, in humans [and in the societies that they 'construct'/fabricate].

No ?

Q.
Who is going to stand against those [individuals or organisations] who [for the sake of their own self interest] 'assert' their own authority?
i.e.
"You cannot by bread from Mr Baker.
You must buy the bread which we make."

Government authorised agencies can do this today, in Australia, through industry 'marketing boards'.

That's precisely the kind of thinking that Anarchism rejects Yadda. Anarchism is utterly and completely opposed to any form of totalitarianism.

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged