Freethought & Rationalism Archive

August Spies · 06-01-2002, 12:02 PM

LP:

For the sake of argument, let us say you are correct (I dont' think actual anarchist practice supports your claim... but anyway)

warlords govern things because people can't agree... okay so this does not meant Anarchism is warloads, or might makes right... It means anarchism can't last long... or it doesn't work.

If democracy decends into fascism this does not mean democracy is fascism.

Loren Pechtel · 06-01-2002, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by August Spies:
For the sake of argument, let us say you are correct (I dont' think actual anarchist practice supports your claim... but anyway)

warlords govern things because people can't agree... okay so this does not meant Anarchism is warloads, or might makes right... It means anarchism can't last long... or it doesn't work.

If democracy decends into fascism this does not mean democracy is fascism.

Some democracies descend into facism. Ours hasn't for more than 200 years, though, so you can't consider it inevitable.

I'm saying all anarchies rather quickly change into something else. Either a government is organized or else it descends into rival warlords (Somalia, Afghanistan before the Taliban).

August Spies · 06-01-2002, 05:10 PM

haha, come on you don't seriously think Afganistan or somalia were libertarian socialist societies in practice do you?

as noted above there is more to anarchism than lack of an officially declared goverment.

Dylan · 06-01-2002, 05:31 PM

I'm an anarchist. I would model anarchist societies after the tribal lifestyle that many Native Americans lead, as documented in the FAQ, many were fairly anarchistic.

And even if anarhcy cannot be achieved fully, some aspects of anarchist thought should be integrated into society.

Check out a good anarchist page at <a href="http://www.infoshop.org" target="_blank">http://www.infoshop.org</a>

Answerer · 06-01-2002, 10:35 PM

Anarchism would not work until all the fundamentalists and religions are removed first and that humans could learn how to care for one another. Then again, this seem to be more of a fictional story than real-life issue.

moon · 06-01-2002, 10:51 PM

It would be nice one time to have a serious debate about anarchy.

Dylan · 06-02-2002, 04:38 AM

Yes, it would. We could have one in that specially constructed debate forum thingy....

Loren Pechtel · 06-02-2002, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by August Spies:
haha, come on you don't seriously think Afganistan or somalia were libertarian socialist societies in practice do you?

as noted above there is more to anarchism than lack of an officially declared goverment.

I think they are much more realistic examples of what happens with anarchism than the idyllic picture people like you try to paint.

August Spies · 06-02-2002, 08:51 AM

You think that Afrganistan, which shows no signs of libertarian socialist thought, is a better example of Anarchism than Spain 36? Where anarchists went about making the type of society they wanted?

LP you are just being silly or dishonest or both.

Skeptictank · 06-02-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies:
<strong>

elwoodblues

I would argue that scarcity on any PRACTICAL level was solved years ago. At least as far as techology is concerned. Clearly capitalism has been able to distort things so such that it is not used for solving scarcity (but rather for planned obscelence of products, or used for war matericals that self-destruct)
</strong>

Well, A.S., you could argue that, but you would be wrong though. I think the problem comes in with your definition of what scarcity is. Just because there might be enough grain to feed the people does not, in any way, shape, or form mean that scarcity has been "solved". Human needs and desires extend far beyond a bowl of food and a single pair of pants.
Clearly anarchism/utopianism has distorted the image of the human value system and led certain anarchists and other idealists to believe that everybody really, really deep down wants to share their toys and play nice with the other primates.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2002, 12:02 PM	#11
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	LP: For the sake of argument, let us say you are correct (I dont' think actual anarchist practice supports your claim... but anyway) warlords govern things because people can't agree... okay so this does not meant Anarchism is warloads, or might makes right... It means anarchism can't last long... or it doesn't work. If democracy decends into fascism this does not mean democracy is fascism.

06-01-2002, 05:08 PM	#12
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by August Spies: For the sake of argument, let us say you are correct (I dont' think actual anarchist practice supports your claim... but anyway) warlords govern things because people can't agree... okay so this does not meant Anarchism is warloads, or might makes right... It means anarchism can't last long... or it doesn't work. If democracy decends into fascism this does not mean democracy is fascism. Some democracies descend into facism. Ours hasn't for more than 200 years, though, so you can't consider it inevitable. I'm saying all anarchies rather quickly change into something else. Either a government is organized or else it descends into rival warlords (Somalia, Afghanistan before the Taliban).

06-01-2002, 05:10 PM	#13
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	haha, come on you don't seriously think Afganistan or somalia were libertarian socialist societies in practice do you? as noted above there is more to anarchism than lack of an officially declared goverment.

06-01-2002, 05:31 PM	#14
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	I'm an anarchist. I would model anarchist societies after the tribal lifestyle that many Native Americans lead, as documented in the FAQ, many were fairly anarchistic. And even if anarhcy cannot be achieved fully, some aspects of anarchist thought should be integrated into society. Check out a good anarchist page at <a href="http://www.infoshop.org" target="_blank">http://www.infoshop.org</a>

06-01-2002, 10:35 PM	#15
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Anarchism would not work until all the fundamentalists and religions are removed first and that humans could learn how to care for one another. Then again, this seem to be more of a fictional story than real-life issue.

06-01-2002, 10:51 PM	#16
moon Banned Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: former British colony Posts: 2,013	It would be nice one time to have a serious debate about anarchy.

06-02-2002, 04:38 AM	#17
Dylan Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 100	Yes, it would. We could have one in that specially constructed debate forum thingy....

06-02-2002, 08:27 AM	#18
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by August Spies: haha, come on you don't seriously think Afganistan or somalia were libertarian socialist societies in practice do you? as noted above there is more to anarchism than lack of an officially declared goverment. I think they are much more realistic examples of what happens with anarchism than the idyllic picture people like you try to paint.

06-02-2002, 08:51 AM	#19
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	You think that Afrganistan, which shows no signs of libertarian socialist thought, is a better example of Anarchism than Spain 36? Where anarchists went about making the type of society they wanted? LP you are just being silly or dishonest or both.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.