What am i, the only anarchist on hipforums?

Actually, capitalism is a survival of the fittest philosophy.

It is only different to anarchism in that it allows men to obtain power and abuse it. Anarchism might not "prohibit" such a thing, but it doesn't facilitate it like capitalism does.

Your philosophy is full of gigantic holes. Who's to stop those who enforce order from abusing it? Under capitalism we can only hope for the best, fight for survival or practice civil disobedience which is essentially an anarchist principle.......under anarchism the entire community can and is responsible for the maintenence of law and order.

 

Again there are gigantic holes in the above and i can see the problem is not your knowledge but how you think, so is there any point?

 

Insane

“Rape would be rampant, theft would be a requirement for life...etc etc...”

So are you saying that you would commit rape if there were no laws forbidding it?

That you really want to commit rape, force a woman, man, maybe even a child to have sex with you against their will, and that the only thing that stops you from doing this are laws?

 

Everyone for anarchy uses this same argument. It's not that he would do it. But the people who do do it would have nothing to stop them. Right now we arrest and imprison rapists, they register as sex offenders. But, if there is no gov't there will be no regulation.

 

I think you need to look at the issue more closely. Why does rape exist?
Are some people simply born as future rapists, or is it their upbringing and environment that turns them into sex offenders?I can't say since I havn't done any research on the subject (yet).
I do think it's wrong however to think that government can prevent rape. You can put a rapist on the sex offender list, but only after he has commited the crime. You may be averting future crimes by placing the person's name on the list, but a lot of the times rapists will commit their crimes again if given the chance, that's why it's such a big issue in America.
The aim of Anarchism though is to establish a system that prevents this sort of thing, not just a "cure".

 

Streamlight

"Everyone for anarchy uses this same argument."

The same arguments are used because they are the pertinent arguments.

"I hate anarchists. There views are so idealistic, but in real life, that shit wouldn't work"

Hate is such a strong term I mean what is it you hate about them, that they are idealistic and want a better world?

Is that a reasonable or rational basis for hate?

As to Anarchy not working in the real world, it all depends on your definition of a system working

Because every political system ever thought up has not worked perfectly ‘in the real world’.

But if you asked me if Anarchy could work, I’d have to say I don’t think it will until human being grow in maturity.

I hope that one-day people might get to the point where they could choose Anarchy and know it could work, so the best thing is to try and work toward that.

What would you work toward?

 

Insane


"Those things are naturally inharent in the human animal"

But humans are different than other animals because of the thing that has evolved in our heads. No other animal writes books, sculpts or paints, they do not think up political systems and they don’t discuss them on political forums. None of these things are naturally inherent in other animals because they are not natural.

Some people might think they are natural but they are actually taught. The fact is that humans are just a mish mash of learnt behaviour.

Oh yes if you give someone the right upbringing and the right environment a human being can learn to act like an animal, but that is the point, Anarchists do not advocate a society that teaches people to act like animals but the very opposite. They want a society that teaches people to be caring, helpful and considerate to each other, a society in which people don’t need rules and regulations to tell them how to behave but do it because they wish to.

Now is that possible?

Well I’m not sure, but it sure seems like something worth working for and that is why I don’t just dismiss Anarchist philosophy.

**

"if somone knows they can do something that will bring them pleasure without any negative concequences, they will most often do it... it's as simple as that..."

But more often as not, rape isn’t about gaining sexual pleasure but about power, that is why sexual humiliation is used a means of torture.

For example those that ordered and committed the sexual humiliation of the prisoners at Abu Ghrab did it not to gain sexual pleasure but to try and ‘break’ the people being humiliated.

I mean are you saying that you would derive sexual pleasure from forcing someone to have sex with you against their will? I’m sure you wouldn’t, I wouldn’t and I think most right thinking people wouldn’t, which is the point, human being can think and reason, and inflicting pain and suffering on others because you get pleasure from it is usually the mark that someone’s reason and ability to think straight is damaged.

In any society such damaged individuals should be cared for and even possibly cured, Anarchists wish to create a society where fewer people are damaged and therefore fewer end up hurting others.

**

"theft would be a requirement for life..."

Now on the matter of theft in an Anarchist society.

I have some friends that car share, they have one car between two households. They decide between them when each requires the car and with a little give and take they have the car around those times.

In an Anarchist society it would be like that but with all cars being shared with everyone.

People would use the car that they needed, for the time they needed it, and no more.

Now expand that to include just about everything.

This concept of communal ownership can be hard to grasp for people that have been brought up with the idea of personal ownership being the basis of societal status.

To such people the idea is alien and unworkable.

But think about it, in my nursery ‘private’ toys from home are not allowed and all the nursery toys are communal. When two children want the same toy they are taught to share it.

Now if that were the basis of a society then people would grow up thinking the concept of personal ownership as weird as some find the idea of everything being communally owned.

And theft would be unknown and unknowable since if you owned everything what is there to steal?

 

So, you're really not interested in any kind of debate based on reason. You believe what you believe and that's that.

Fantastic, and to think that i thought we were running low on you guys ....

 

On the contrary! If Anarchy is proven to work in a developed nation, it would serve as an example for other nations to follow.

 

it doesnt work, it merely become survival of the strongest with a lot of boot lickers bowing..........much like democracy. anarchy is a fantasy like penis enlargement pills, but the pills are are way more likely to produce positive results.

 

As I’ve said the idea of Anarchy can be hard for some people to grasp, they cannot see beyond the world they live in to what could be done to improve it. To me it seems that it is a lack of imagination and an apathetic acceptance of the ills of this world that is the only thing that convinces them that the Anarchist philosophy is worthless.

I’ll try and present it in terms they might understand.

Imagine two boys born into poor families in a very poor area. Boy A and boy B, one day A says that he would like to grow up to be a doctor, boy B tells him to stop dreaming, that “in the real world” people like them do not become doctors.
Well B turns out to be right, but with a lot of effort and work A get’s himself an education and in time becomes an ambulance paramedic. He is happy, he has improved his life and is helping others and he lives to see his daughter become a doctor.

Boy B ‘the realist’ remains in the poor neighbourhood doesn’t try to change anything.

To me people like Insane seem like boy B, they seem to be using the badge of ‘realist’ with it’s certain predictions of what is and isn’t possible to do ‘in the real world’ to hide what is basically apathy toward trying to make things better, for themselves and others.

For example Steamlight who hates those that dare to be idealistic and dream of a better existence or crummyrummy’s weak jokes at the expense of those seeking such a better life, they, like Insane, don’t seem to have any positive arguments just negative nay saying.

So on one side we have passionate, idealistic people that are working toward what they see as a better future, people that are willing to put in the effort to become educated on the subject and willing to give their time discussing these views and who are happy to defend their opinions.
And on the other we have people that seem to be apathetic or negative about the possibility of change for the better. Who don’t seem to care about learning about other possibilities and unwilling to make an effort to think about it or discuss it beyond the simplistic “it wouldn’t work”.

I’m not an Anarchist but between these two groups I know the ones I most admire.

 

Actually to me the penis enlargement pills describe our current society far better. Currently, we are taught that if you go to school 20 years, get a degree, obey the law and do as your told, you'll eventually get have a happy life with a great job and tons of cash. What we're not told is that if you're not a straight rich white male, you're going to have to deal with a lot of other issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, ect... If that's not survival of the strongest, then I really don't know what the hell you're talking about when you associate it with Anarchy.

 

Actually, the way a person thinks is largely determined by whats been drilled into them their whole life and what they have and haven't failed to see past for themselves and understanding a concept as foreign as anarchism in such a rigidly controlled and heirarchichal world (which doesn't encourage thinking nor personal responsibility) usually takes a tremendous amount of personal introspection.

It might make me look stupid, but the reality is i'm thrifty with time, and I don't want to spend it trying to to change something that is deep rooted inside someone.

Anyway, this is something that other's have probably outlined already, but the simple idea you need to realise about anarchism or any alternative form of living is that the system of government carries a huge amount of weight on the determination of human nature, so in order to understand why anarchism MIGHT be a good idea you need to lose to assumption that people's behaviour under capitalism is "natural" or "fixed".

 

Another gigantic logical flaw.

One argues that anarchism wouldn't work because its free for all and would not succeed in preventing the uglier aspects of human nature.

Yet capitalism is based on a free market (yet the workers that drive the market are captive) and ultimately assumes that the super-wealthy are somehow exempt for the human nature argument and won't abuse their positions of comparative freedom and power. Utopian? Very much so....

I suggest you a) Watch " "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"
and b) Read up on Globalisation, "Free trade" and the WTO and how its not working because its not actually free and because free traders in wealthy countries are abusing their competitive advantages, naturally, because they're human beings.
c) look at whats happening in the United States today

By the way, i'm only spending time here, because I think your ideas are at least well thought out, which is a lot more than I can say for others.

 

I have never been captive to a company. Which company are you captive to?

Not really, capitalism never claimed any such thing, and Adam Smith talked about the danger of monopolies centuries ago. You are mixing up and economic and a political system. Capitalism is not a political system. Democracy protects against a plutocracy.

The smartest guys in cell block 3-C. How much did their wealth help them? Not much.

Is this the globalisation that has raised hundreds of millions out of povery in China, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, India, Hong Kong, and Eastern Europe? Or is this the globalisation that only exists in the minds of the left?

 

Insane

Again you don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of Anarchy.

Anarchy is a societal system not a “type of government” you can vote in and out.

Again I will try and explain it in terms you might recognise.

Think of the USA today, to one degree or another its economics, politics and society is based on some form of capitalism. The entrenched political system that is pro-capitalist, might ‘manage’ the system differently but the government is not the system.
In this system the interests of those that gain advantage from it in some way have to be balanced, and since giving to one means taking from another, some form of mediation is needed, e.g. the government.

Now think of Anarchy as the underlying princalbe of a system. It by its nature needs no government to manage it, since the people as a whole don’t need to be managed. People wouldn’t think in terms of their personal standard of living but of everyone’s quality of life. There would be no taking from one to give to another since everything would be communally held and everyone would have an equal share. I persons wellbeing would not be based on material status but on communal achievement.

That is the theory

Would it work? I’m not sure, but maybe we should try and get people to the point where they could choose Anarchy and know they could get it to work.

**

You say that people can help others if they want to by doing charitable work in their own time. But think about that ‘own time’. Isn’t all our time our own, well for many people no, there is work time and free time. Some have to just work to survive with next to no free time, their time is not there own. Others have other means of survival and have a lot of free time. For many it is some place in-between. It is true that some see little between free time and work time since their work is enjoyable to them but for others that isn’t true and they hate the time they have to spend away form their children, partners, etc.

In such a system people often resent any incursion into their ‘free’ time to do others a favour.

People can choose to work less but that often means a lowering in their personal standard of living and societal status and remember that for those who are just surviving that is not a possibility.

But what if more time was your own time without a drop in your quality of life?

Is that possible? I’m not sure but maybe we should get people to the point where they could choose that path.

I mean what do we work for?

**

Education as you rightly point out is the key.

Just as you say people can be taught to think of rape as abhorrent so we could learn that a society in which people helped each other rather than competed with each other was a better way of life.

**

 

Point old mate

So that’s good to know that in those democratic countries of China (oh and is Hong Kong not part of China?) Singapore, Malaysia, and not forgetting Vietnam are all protected from the negative effects of capitalism because of the strong representative element within their governments.

HOLD ON A MINUTE

China a democracy?
Vietnam a democracy?

Singapore is technically a democracy I suppose but most analysts think it is more like an authoritarian one party state and Malaysia is very similar.

As to India it has gained from globalisation, but on it’s own terms due to it’s historical wariness of foreign corporations since the Bhopal incident where thousands died and hundreds of thousands were effected. And it’s aftermath when the company Union Carbide tried to get out of its responsibility (I believe some onetime Union Carbide leaders would still be imprisoned if they set foot in India).

But of course places in Eastern Europe have also gained from the introduction of capitalism, like Russia where a recent More4 report showed what happened after the fall of communism, now Russia can boast that -

The life expectancy for men is down to 56, the number of abortions outnumber live births, that every second a newborn baby is diagnosed with a disease, that ten million people are infertile due to ill health and that by 2050 it is possible that Russia's population could have halved.

But of course all those oligarchs made billions, so that is ok I suppose?

**

But seriously I’m not anti-capitalist I just believe that capitalism needs to be properly managed and directed. It needs to work toward helping everyone not just a few, and Point I’m sure you agree.

But to bring global capitalism under the kind of democratic control you talk about means democratising global governance. So just as companies and corporations have become international so certain labour laws should also be applied internationally, working hours, vacation entitlement, overtime pay, health and safety regulations, union rights and the right to strike. Then there is health, welfare, unemployment benefit, pension rights, and so on and so on.

Tax havens should be closed and off shore banks regulated. The World Bank and WTO should be democratised. The bancor should be phased in as the international currency and the Tobin Tax brought in on international currency markets.

And those are just a few things off the top of my head.

But the point is that Point is right the only problem with globalisation is that it has been more about economics than about politics. It has so far been pushed by and manipulated by those wishing to gain profit for themselves, just as some English imperialists pushed for and manipulated ‘free trade’ and US Robber Barons manipulated early American capitalism.

What people have to realise is that only through global political regulation will such action be curtailed and ended.

**

“Adam Smith talked about the danger of monopolies centuries ago”

Yes he did (as did Marx and others) but if I remember my reading (it has been a few years) he also believed that sympathy for others should be equal to a individuals self interest and that they were not incompatible. That the urge to make a profit would be tempered by the desire not to hurt others in its gaining.

So my take would say that even to Adam Smith as soon as profit is gained by exploitation then it become illegitimate.

**

 

i dont know whether this is off topic(my opinion):

in the global capitalism, anarchists and communists just cant survive. first we should not discuss their faults. the globalization is making more and more impact on every country. no one can prosperous in isolation. just go and see north korea, most countries dont trade with them(partly nk's fault, but not all).

 

this is an age of inventing and reinventing. those old theories (anarchism, communism, also capitalism) also need reinventing. actually we're doing it, but many people just dont accept it. why "communism" wont work as sb asked before? because they're talking about a theory that was 200 years old. the same applies to anarchism.

i think no society can be strictly classified as one -ism. people do whatever fittest, whatever can solve the problem. we need to move on, or we'll end up in another form of fundamentalism.

 

Capitalism was already reinvented a one time. It used to be called mercantilism