|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 6:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:26 pm
|
|
|
|
greywillow 'Tis too true. In fact, I've written speeches on the matter of anarchy as a governmental (or non-governmental) form and how it will probably never work because of the lack of moral responsibility of humans. I don't believe in "heaven," but in heaven, anarcy would probably be its form of government/non-government because everyone would be morally responsible enough to take charge of their own actions.
The most egalitarian societies that existed (yes, there were anarchist societies, but agricultural societies have pretty much wiped them out in the last few years) stayed egalitarian by always being able to reject what they disagreed with.
We tend to think that peace can only exist if people cooperate because in our society, we don't have the option of leaving. No matter what country you're in, you're part of the same society, thanks to the universalizating tendencies of western society. It's hard to think of societies where if you disagreed with anything about it, you had the means and power to leave, and the society you disagreed with had no power to (not to mention any inclination toward) making you stay a member of their society. They didn't depend on the unity of the members. Our society DOES depend on the unity of its members.
Anarchist societies were just that fundamentally different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:46 pm
|
|
|
|
ObscureEnigma True. The best example of anarchy is people constantly being rebellious, and that is not even a good example.
I forget the author's name, but the book is called "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology," and in it he deals with the western concept of "revolution." He says that fundamentally changing society doesn't necessarily have to happen in one pinnacle moment, but our culture mystifies the idea of social change and "revolution" so much so that we can't accept anything that isn't a dramatic rupture. He also discusses how global knowledge of a "revolutionary" event also reinforces our cultural values, and may not be necessary for real social change to occur.
This other guy, I can't remember his name right now but he's a French philosopher, talks about the "fugitive interior" and how it's necessary for subversive practices to exist. The fugitivie interior is basically the space between subject and object where the object and how the subject interacts with it can be appropriated, done incorrectly, etc. The author basically says that subversive practices necessarily exist in this space, and cannot be shared or exploited because the interaction is unique to its space which is unique to the subject and object. Oh yeah, I remember the name of the article is "Reading as Poaching." And it's by Michel De Certeau. But basically, what this has to do with what I was saying before, is that anarchism, according to De Certeau, necessarily takes place in spaces where no one can identify it occuring, because if it could be identified, the subversive practices cease to be subversive (because they're unmediated experiences).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios The Vilcacambans used to have an anarchistic community. Until some asshat built a road to Vilcacamba cry Now they have crime and sickness...Things they never really had before. Anyway, they had no government, no police force. They all just lived together in harmony, children were never disciplined, the worst thing that happened was to withold praise. as a result everyone grew up trusting their community, there were no locks, no trappings of society whatsoever. They ate food from their own gardens, respected and revered their elders. This continued until very recently when a road made their land accessible, now their "ideal" lifestyle has been destroyed. If people were raised correctly - with some sense of accountability - Anarchy would not only be possible, but the only logical government. (government in the way that 'atheism' is referred to as religion) Government is a construct of greed and sloth. Heck, throw in the other 5 sins and you've got modern society.
lol, agree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:28 pm
|
|
|
|
Efstathios Dinotopia was an imaginary world where there was plenty of everything for everyone, so there was no need for greed, people grew food for the community, made jewelry and clothing. They all lived and worked together, there was no stealing, no murder, because there wasn't a few people hoarding everything and leaving everyone else wanting. It was sort of a combination of real communism (f***marxism) and anarchy. There wasn't a government that controlled everybody, people just did what they were good at, like an orchestra things worked out, mostly violins because most people prefer the smaller more convenient intruments, a few oddballs going for the Viola even though it is the only instrument to use the alto clef, then you have the Bassists and Cellists, who have to do a lot more work, but they love it, do it willingly, even though they could play violin if they wanted. Just another daydream.
there were people that actually lived like that though, minus the growing their own food thing. They just hunted and gathered what they needed. But everything else is the same. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 12:23 pm
|
|
|
|
ObscureEnigma Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling. actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control.
the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe.
the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:56 pm
|
|
|
|
The-Vampire-Mikhail ObscureEnigma Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling. actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control. the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe. the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot.
There are two definitions of anarchy as social order. The one you're referring to isn't the one that political anarchists refer to. They refer to the definition that means "lack of domination/coercive power" not "chaos."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 1:07 am
|
|
|
|
darcyshirley33 The-Vampire-Mikhail ObscureEnigma Heh. There... is that point of view. I meant that anarchy could not exist with humans, darling. actually, if you really look at how nature works, there is no anarchy among animals either, there are still controls, darwinism, the food chain, social structures and mating rituals of all animals are all without a doubt forms of control. the entire nature of the universe is not chaos, the concept of physics, chemistry, and, dare i say, theology are all evidential controls on all forms of nature in the universe. the only form of true anarchy in terms of a human experience, is only evident in a Riot. There are two definitions of anarchy as social order. The one you're referring to isn't the one that political anarchists refer to. They refer to the definition that means "lack of domination/coercive power" not "chaos." i would say pretty easily that democracy is anarchy then, the government is ultimately at its peoples control, there is no domination held by a higher power unless that position of presidency or organization. in terms of coercive power... the people tell the politicians what their policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|