Anarchists...

[Goingonit]

double post

[Goingonit]

I went to RaiseTheFist, saw the word "anarchosyndicalist" and all I could think of from then on was Monty Python.

ARTHUR
Well ... I AM king.

DENNIS
Oh, very nice. King, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine
clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that?
By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our
society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ...

An OLD WOMAN appears.

OLD WOMAN
Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh!
how d'you do?

ARTHUR
How d'you do, good lady ... I am Arthur, King of the Britons ...
can you tell me who lives in that castle?

OLD WOMAN
King of the WHO?

ARTHUR
The Britons.

OLD WOMAN
Who are the Britons?

ARTHUR
All of us are ... we are all Britons.

DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN.

... and I am your king ....

OLD WOMAN
Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were
an autonomous collective ...

DENNIS
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship,
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...

OLD WOMAN
There you are, bringing class into it again ...

DENNIS
That's what it's all about ... If only -

ARTHUR
Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in
that castle?

OLD WOMAN
No one live there.

ARTHUR
Well, who is your lord?

OLD WOMAN
We don't have a lord.

ARTHUR
What?

DENNIS
I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

ARTHUR
Yes.

DENNIS
... But all the decision of that officer ...

ARTHUR
Yes, I see.

DENNIS
... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority
in the case of purely internal affairs.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
... but a two-thirds majority ...

ARTHUR
Be quiet! I order you to shut up.

OLD WOMAN
Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR
I am your king!

OLD WOMAN
Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR
You don't vote for kings.

OLD WOMAN
Well, how did you become king, then?

ARTHUR
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by
Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ...
That is why I am your king!
|
| OLD WOMAN
| Is Frank in? He'd be able to deal with this one.
|
DENNIS
Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out
swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme
executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from
some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR
Shut up!

DENNIS
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would
put me away!

ARTHUR
(Grabbing him by the collar)
Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS
Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR
Shut up!

PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.

DENNIS
(calling)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR
(aware that people are now coming out and watching)
Bloody peasant!
(pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off)

DENNIS
Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.

ARTHUR
Come on, patsy.

DENNIS
did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've
been on about ...

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Velociryx
People organize.

We are tribal in our essential nature.

So anarchists attempt (completely unsuccessfuly) to deny their own inherent natures.

-=Vel=-

I suppose if you believe in God then you can believe that God conceived of Man and then created Man with an essential nature. However, if you don't believe in God then you might be willing to consider that Man has no essential nature since there was nothing to conceive of it. We define our essence every moment with the choices we make. We are free to do what ever we choose to do, form a tribe, become an "anarchist". So long as you are true to yourself, that's all that matters.

[faded glory]

damn Fee..

As a religous man, what you said made me stop and think about it for a second

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Timex, interesting post!

And correct me if I'm wrong here but:

One of the key differences between us and the other monkeys is the fact that we can use *language* to communicate ideas.

In order that we can communicate effectively, is it not a pre-requisite that we have standardized meanings to words? Otherwise, how can ideas be communicated at all?

No. The thing that seperates us, is that our language is fluent and adaptive - we can describe abstract ideas and objects and subscribe words to them. Other animals can communicate but are limited to a selection of different 'words' to use, and are unable to use them in anything but the litteral context, so to speak.


But if your argument against anarchism is based soley on the deffinition of the word, well... it's not really an argument at all, it's just some lame word game.

[Velociryx]

Genetic memory.

The world (despite what you see on TV documentaries these days) is a whole lot safer place than it once was.

Being true to yourself twenty thousand years ago and striking off on your own generally led to such unpleasantness as being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger.

Strike out on your own in ancient times, and you were a goner. Simple as that.

Thus, sticking together (there's the group thing again) was a Darwinian survival trait--Darwin, good person to quote, esp. for folks that don't believe in God, as you mentioned!

And it's stuck with us.

Can't easily undo thousands of years of ingrained history.

Or...maybe YOU can...and if so, that's great! Just know that it's not the norm.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Osweld...you're certainly entitled to your opinons bro....not gonna deny that for a moment! (Just as I am entitled to mine)

The essential nature of the word, "anarchy" (in fact, the very definition of the word) is a lack of order and implied violent protest. Someone calling themselves an "anarchist" is either: a) violently against order, or b) using the wrong word for their movement. Simple as that.

To paraphrase Ben Frankiln: Feel free to flail your arms about all you like...but remember that your freedom to do so stops at the tip of my nose."

That phrase....makes a lot of sense....especially in this thread.

I've done the reading, and what I found was....a lot of noise and not a lot of substance.

-=Vel=-

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Being true to yourself twenty thousand years ago and striking off on your own generally led to such unpleasantness as being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger.

Strike out on your own in ancient times, and you were a goner. Simple as that.

Thus, sticking together (there's the group thing again) was a Darwinian survival trait--Darwin, good person to quote, esp. for folks that don't believe in God, as you mentioned!

-=Vel=-

True, there are certain facts in the past that one cannot change. However, nothing in the past can CAUSE me to do anything now. There is nothing that can be considered a human action (apart from reflexes or bodily functions) that follows necessarily from the past.
Using your example, as a member of a tribe I may have seen the remains of tiger-mauled people who had struck off on their own away from the group. If I choose to stay with the tribe instead of striking out on my own because I feel fear about being eaten by a tiger, I choose (remember, we create our essence every moment through our choices) the tiger as an insurmountable obstacle and choose myself as defeated. The fear of tigers is based on facts from my past. The choice to stay or not stay with the group based on past facts is mine and I am responsible for it. This proves the point in my original post that there is no inherent or essential nature for human beings to stick together -- it is an individual choice.

[Velociryx]

Another good point.

I would say to that though, that had humanity no "essential nature" tending toward groups then, that we would be asexual creatures who did not need a mate in order to further our kind.

As this is not the case, clearly, there is a "built in," inherent NEED for a group, even if that group only consists of two.

Else, the individual who chooses to go off on his own is assured that his "kind" will last exactly one generation, and then be no more.

-=Vel=-

[DarkCloud]

osweld- it is only a "one sided argument" because you havent' backed up why anarchy is correct?

Individualism can only be accomplished in reality through regulation.
It amy sound like a paradox, but realize this, if the govenrment does not protect your rights and you are a disabled person, who will protect you at all in an anarchist govenrment?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
osweld- it is only a "one sided argument" because you havent' backed up why anarchy is correct?

I'm not an anarchist.

And you guys have yet to say why it's incorrect, you are just babbling on about nothings and irrelevancies.

[Velociryx]

"nothings and irrelevancies."

That would be an *outstanding* description of the stuff I've read today on the "ideology" of these so-called anarchists....

-=Vel=-

[DarkCloud]

I frankly don't think you can read.
We have cited our reasons.
It won't work because people will be killed- even the strong will be since we now have weapons of mass destruction.

There would be no civlization with anarchy.

I think we proved more than you did.

Goodbye Troll. (At least if you cannot admit that those are real points, even if you disagree)

[Ramo]

The essential nature of the word, "anarchy" (in fact, the very definition of the word) is a lack of order and implied violent protest. Someone calling themselves an "anarchist" is either: a) violently against order, or b) using the wrong word for their movement. Simple as that.

It strikes me as absurd how people can criticize a two century old political ideology (and even claim to be authoritative on it) while looking no further into the matter than a dictionary (and apparantly a fairly bad one at that).

First of all, the word "anarchy," from its Greek roots, literally means "without a ruler," not "no order." The context of "ruler" is not simply limited to the state, but to the market as well. In other words, workers should own and control the means of production, often through syndicates.

For this reason, among others, the assertion that anarchists reject groups and organizations is patently absurd. What we have problems with are coercive organizations.

Of course, like many words, its literal translation is not a comprehensive definition. As Timex pointed out, the word may cover a vast range of beliefs. Some anarchists, I'd wager, would not consider myself among them, and the converse is also true.

Famous anarchist philosophers include Mikhail Bakunin, Petr Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman.

In a nutshell, what I believe in American is libertarian socialism. Please attack that belief (hopefully after reading up on it), or that of other anarchists, rather than vague rejections of "order."

What I find odd is that they would choose as thier "utopia," so to speak, a state that lasted barely two years and who was completely and uterly crushed due to its ineffective leadership.

*Gives Stefu the que for the 'Troll Song'*

Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I frankly don't think you can read.
We have cited our reasons.

You have yet to show you understand what anarchism is - and now that someone from "the other side" has come and explained what anarchism is, he has not recieved a real response - just some garbage about semantics.

Previous to that, your "debate" consisted a bunch of people who don't really know what anarchism is, thinking up reasons why it's wrong based on dictionary deffintions and general ignorance.

I think we proved more than you did.

Indeed, you have proven my point quite nicely.