Anarchy

[Rainman]

What a beautiful, yet currently impossible concept. I hate the way the world works. I hate western society. I hate the concept of monetary systems. It's all fucked up, pointless, and stupid. Most people at some point will have to exchange huge, non-refundable chunks of their life for meaningless slips of paper that enable them with the means to survive. If you do not have those silly digital numbers on a screen, or pieces of paper with scribbles on it that don't even represent what they were originally created for anyway, you're FUCKED. You will have a terrible life. We're controlled by whatever the people with the most money want. The media? The news? People are lead to believe, and then begin to believe everything they are told. Like a bunch of sheep, they follow the leaders, and the masses. Then they can be scared into doing whatever the fuck the REAL people in charge want, while they pull the puppet strings of all the fucked up corrupt politicians that can now officially be LEGALLY bought off, with no cap amount. Who the FUCK thought of all of this? We're slaves. It's not something you can run from, really, unless you want to be a hermit and live in some uninhabited place in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, we're so deep into this system now, that there's really no way out of it. It would take some huge catastrophic event, or mass technological failure, or mastermind persuader like Hitler (For the idiots on this forum, I am not a Hitler enthusiast, I'm stating the fact that he was a brilliant minded persuasion and control artist) to snap us out of our routine. Everything is so unfortunately, and perfectly circular. You have to pay for things in order to live. You have to waste your life away to pay for things. What's the point of life? We're not LIVING LIFE, god damnit. We are wasting away in our own filth and taking the rest of the world down with us. Everything would have been better if anarchy had remained. Granted, if it were to break out now, it would be madness, I think. Absolute madness. Panic, chaos. But in time, people would evolve. You see, there would be no need for lies, and deception, and no opportunities for corruption. People would be free to expand their minds, free to live life how they see fit, without having to be bound to the chains of this fucked up society. Every fucked up society. I don't know what I"m getting at, I guess i'm just irate thinking about it. I just read another thread about the legalization of corporations to donate to campaigns without a cap. That just set me off. It's hard to stay positive in the midst of such complete stupidity.

[Invader]

Everything would have been better if anarchy had remained. Can you give me an example of a society, however small, that existed without any means of governing themselves? What do you consider, "living life?" And, if you wish, you are always free to live the way people did before the rise of modern currency. Away from the city in a more, shall we say, natural environment. If you don't want to be a hermit, bring others with a similar mindset with you. Instead of wasting our time hunting, or making baskets or houses, we can now waste our time doing other jobs demanded of us by the society, however insignificant or otherwise they may seem. Nothing ever really changed, we just came up with a standardized way of measuring our work, even though it isn't perfect and it certainly is not proportional.

[Rainman]

Can you give me an example of a society, however small, that existed without any means of governing themselves? I suppose I wouldn't know, as I don't know much about history, but one must assume that humans slowly evolved into societies. And, if you wish, you are always free to live the way people did before the rise of modern currency. Away from the city in a more, shall we say, natural environment. If you don't want to be a hermit, bring others with a similar mindset with you. Yeah, that's realistic, and for the most part, that's still being a hermit. It's like being a hermit around other hermits. Instead of wasting our time hunting, or making baskets or houses, we can now waste our time doing other jobs demanded of us by the society, however insignificant or otherwise they may seem. Nothing ever really changed, we just came up with a standardized way of measuring our work, even though it isn't perfect and it certainly is not proportional. That is an interesting way of looking at it, but as you pointed out, that depends on how you measure your time. I'd rather spend life, doing something I enjoy, and learning about my mind gaining insight and perspective, and furthering my knowledge. It's ridiculous that for me to say such a thing is now considered something unrealistic. Some people love to work. My point is that we should be able to have the choice without having to sacrifice physiological needs, and risk our health, and lives to do so. But instead we are born into this system. Forced into it, where we are then surrounded by dumbed-down sheep who follow the word of the fearless leaders, who just want control. I'm not okay with that. It's ridiculous that for me to say such a thing is now considered something unrealistic, or impossible.

[Speesh]

Anarchy is an interesting concept. It doesn't have to be a complete lack of federal power, as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush. I don't know much about the subject myself, but ideas presented in these videos intrigue me. As for the state of the world, I tend to agree with you. Our commercial culture in general is really starting to make me sick and the fact that I'm a 100% manufactured product of it doesn't help at all. I often question why we need all this. I guess on one hand its just a natural evolution of our human tendency to overpopulate. I've heard that without all this federal/commercial culture we can't sustain nearly this many people on Earth. And what are we even moving towards? The only difference I see between us and cavemen is the fact that we live longer, get less exercise, and have inhibitions. And that we want to try to 'figure out' the universe (as though there's some magic linguistic dogma out there that can explain every intricacy of it). I'd rather just live half a life without the inhibitions. Fearing death is just absurd. Still, I'm optimistic though. My friends and I often joke about starting an anarchist commune here in Vermont somewhere, maybe if we're lucky one day it'll actually happen . Try not to let the negativity get to you. Ever since the human ego came into its own things have been like this to some degree. Part of overcoming it is learning to accept the good and the bad for the facts they are, Taoist style. Any negative reactions is just that cultured ego talking .

[Descensus]

Anarchy is an interesting concept. It doesn't have to be a complete lack of federal power, as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush. I don't know much about the subject myself, but ideas presented in these videos intrigue me. UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy.

[SkA_DaRk_Che]

What a beautiful, yet currently impossible concept. I hate the way the world works. I hate western society. I hate the concept of monetary systems. It's all fucked up, pointless, and stupid. Most people at some point will have to exchange huge, non-refundable chunks of their life for meaningless slips of paper that enable them with the means to survive. If you do not have those silly digital numbers on a screen, or pieces of paper with scribbles on it that don't even represent what they were originally created for anyway, you're FUCKED. You will have a terrible life. As fucked up as western society is, i would still prefer to live in a western society over just about any other there is.

[cygnus]

rainman, in some respects i feel the same way as you do. recently i've been thinking about the contribution of specialization to the current economics-driven, technocratic world. though specialization in a society makes it easier for technological development (which in my opinion is seen as way way too fucking important in our culture), it forces us to pay to live, as you said. when the division of labor into relatively isolated job skills is extended to the degree it is at now, each individual is forced into a situation where they depend almost entirely on others for survival. most people lack the skills needed to live (aside from working for money of course); we can't build a house, grow food or dig a well for water because we aren't taught how to do these things or given any real option to do so. this kind of independence would maybe limit the control imposed on us externally better than anarchy would... just an idea.

[Universal Mind]

UM has a very twisted understanding of anarchy. Yeah, so does the dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy an⋅ar⋅chy  /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kee] Show IPA –noun 1.a state of society without government or law.2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.4.confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

[cygnus]

edit, nevermind.

[Descensus]

–noun 1.a state of society without government or law.2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.4.confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

[Universal Mind]

Then WTF? We agree on the definition.

[StonedApe]

3.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. Actually this is a good definition. This is what most people are advocating when they talk about anarchy in a political debate.

[Descensus]

Then WTF? We agree on the definition. Not exactly: as Universal Mind said in another thread if federal powers just disappeared every gang out there would grab their guns and go on a power rush. That is the opposite of the definition.

[Universal Mind]

Not exactly: That is the opposite of the definition. I think the theory is wrong, but we agree on what the theory is.

[SpecialInterests]

I like this post, it's very interesting. I'm not sure if anarchy remained it would be better. The organization of certain governmental bodies have allowed for humanity to come together and create complex societies and technologies. However, when the merchants and priests took over society began it's downhill decline. There certainly is some amazing things about our society, and also some horribly disgusting things. I think some people make the mistake of thinking that since we have a somewhat functioning society with automobiles, planes, art, culture, technologies then this must be the only way of doing things. The idea that businesses and corporations are the only reason we can live like this is pretty removed from the truth I'd say. Especially when they are responsible for the most heinous crimes committed against humanity.

[Descensus]

The idea that businesses and corporations are the only reason we can live like this is pretty removed from the truth I'd say. Especially when they are responsible for the most heinous crimes committed against humanity. Would you care to elaborate?

[SpecialInterests]

Would you care to elaborate? Surely. I'm not sure which part you'd like me to elaborate on so I'll just say a little about both statements. I guess saying that we can't live like "this" without businesses and corporations is removed from the truth too. Society obviously would be vastly different without business interest, but what I should have said is the standard of living could be equal or even greater. All we would need to do is put the people in power of the means of production. Not wealthy CEO's part of a BIG CLUB out to make windfall profits at the expense of other humans and the earth's resources. It should strike most people as odd when they see third world countries with massive amounts of natural resources but somehow they are billions and billions of dollars and debt and not showing any sign of rising out of poverty. It's pretty clear that this is the work of multinational corporations and banking cartel. Corrupting government officials and their leaders, corporate sponsored assassinations, and overthrowing democratically elected leaders are common things in third world countries even to this day. You won't hear it on the news, but the information is out there. Look at Latin America. They're in the midst of all sorts of protests, revolutions, and riots. They've been in the crosshairs of multinationals for decades and they're fucking sick of it. For years and years these people have been raped for their land and resources for corporations like Shell, Bechtel, etc. They're purposely kept poor and defenseless so they can continue to suck their lands dry and rob them for everything they have.

[Invader]

That is an interesting way of looking at it, but as you pointed out, that depends on how you measure your time. I'd rather spend life, doing something I enjoy, and learning about my mind gaining insight and perspective, and furthering my knowledge. It's ridiculous that for me to say such a thing is now considered something unrealistic. What you need to consider is how our access to information has changed, and how many outlets are now available for pursuing that which we like. One may have found limited ways of going after a life of music, or mathematics, or psychology 1,000 years ago. There were no snowboards or life support systems or telescopes, and so on. So when you say, "furthering knowledge," what do you mean exactly? Although I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do have to admit that being in this system is what allowed me to go to such a place as a university in the first place, even though I'm going to be screwed financially once I get out. Some people love to work. My point is that we should be able to have the choice without having to sacrifice physiological needs, and risk our health, and lives to do so. But instead we are born into this system. Forced into it, where we are then surrounded by dumbed-down sheep who follow the word of the fearless leaders, who just want control. I'm not okay with that. It's ridiculous that for me to say such a thing is now considered something unrealistic, or impossible. I'm not okay with it either, but I think humanity has behaved that way from day one. Everyone has been born into whatever society with whatever rules in which they would have to sacrifice their own desires in order to live at all. The general masses aren't exactly motivated to change or take initiative, which is one of the reasons we require leaders in the first place. An anarchistic society would be possible in a world where no human had the capacity for greed or power-hunger, or where all desired peace above all else. That's a serious mentality change that most, unfortunately, are not willing to change.

[Descensus]

Surely. I'm not sure which part you'd like me to elaborate on so I'll just say a little about both statements. I guess saying that we can't live like "this" without businesses and corporations is removed from the truth too. Society obviously would be vastly different without business interest, but what I should have said is the standard of living could be equal or even greater. All we would need to do is put the people in power of the means of production. Not wealthy CEO's part of a BIG CLUB out to make windfall profits at the expense of other humans and the earth's resources. Could you elaborate on putting people in power of the means of production? I don't want to make you write an essay, I'd just like to see where you're coming from. It should strike most people as odd when they see third world countries with massive amounts of natural resources but somehow they are billions and billions of dollars and debt and not showing any sign of rising out of poverty. It's pretty clear that this is the work of multinational corporations and banking cartel. Corrupting government officials and their leaders, corporate sponsored assassinations, and overthrowing democratically elected leaders are common things in third world countries even to this day. You won't hear it on the news, but the information is out there. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that the current governments of said countries are operating under economic policies that stifle prosperity, improvement, and the standard of living? I don't doubt that there are government-corporation relationships (there are in the U.S., which currently runs under a neo-mercantilist/corporatist/facist-ish economic system - which might be a case against government itself), btw. Look at Latin America. They're in the midst of all sorts of protests, revolutions, and riots. They've been in the crosshairs of multinationals for decades and they're fucking sick of it. For years and years these people have been raped for their land and resources for corporations like Shell, Bechtel, etc. They're purposely kept poor and defenseless so they can continue to suck their lands dry and rob them for everything they have. Again, I ask what I said above. I think it would be fairer to say that government policies (inflation, massive spending, etc) have caused the standard of living to plummet. And yet again, as I said, I don't doubt that there are corporatist tendencies, but wouldn't it make sense to say that the government is raking in the profits of selling the resources of its land, with no regards to its citizens?

[tkdyo]

OP I have to say, I believe you are a little over the top on this. The very reason why we have societies was because of the safety in numbers mentality. Then the problem became other groups who were competing for resources...after a while, the figured out they could get more done if they worked together for resources and cities started form, this kept going until we had countries...The very reason why we have society is because there is always someone grabbing for power, control, whatever...In the end we need a system in place that can prevent that. Im not sure why you said you hate western society explicitly when eastern society progressed in the same way...

[Rainman]

Well, I don't believe I'm over the top at all, and I believe you have backwards logic. Societies weren't created to prevent someone grabbing for control, society, the way it is now, is SURRENDERING common power and giving it to an entity. A government. And what gives them the right to decide what the fuck I do? Granted, I agree with certain basic laws. A lot of shit is ridiculous. I'm sick of being a slave to the goddamn system. Back when we were neanderthols, and probably weren't self-aware, and probably didn't know a lot about anything beyond natural instinct, the "safety in numbers" bit was valid, and made sense. Now, safety in numbers.. from WHAT? Ourselves. And if we weren't so goddamn simple minded and ego-gripped beings, we wouldn't be threats to ourselves. I agree that technology probably wouldn't as far along as it were today, that's true. Technology which allows us to have convenient things that pollute the earth tremendously, create medical technology which helps us live longer and continue to feed our disgustingly over-populated species. Granted, I'm not saying all technology is bad. I'm saying a lot of it isn't necessary. What this all comes down to is money. Money is the root of all evil. The most despicable thing imaginable. Almost all crime could be traced back to something to do with money. We're slaves to it, and it's not even fucking valuable. It's paper. It's digits on a screen. The only reason it's worth anything is because people think it is. Speesh, I agree with you that ironically, this ranting about wishing humans would just evolve to a better state of mind, comes from an egocentric state of mind. Ironic. SpecialInterests, you're right. There are a lot of great things about societies. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot more bad things than good. Like the fact that old ass farts who have obsolete, old-fashioned ideas for this country are the ones running the show, because the people who are actually mentally apt enough to do the jobs, are too smart to get involved in politics. We have a corrupt fucking government. Everything revolves around money, and therein lies the biggest factor. tkdyo, I should rephrase. I don't hate the CONCEPT of society. I just hate what it is. It doesn't have to be centralized around money, which inspires people to do enourmously terribly things, and means horrible struggle for people who were born into unfortunate SOCIAL situations. Classist situations. It would take a semi-apolcalyptic event to change things now, we're so deep in it. Societies can function without all of this bullshit. When people stop trying to control one another, everything gets balanced. Pssh. I'd really like to believe that's ever going to happen.

[dajo]

Maybe you'll like this? http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/

[StonedApe]

Maybe you'll like this? http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/ I was expecting this when I saw the word flag and anarchism in the same link.

[dajo]

Well, and what did you discover?

[StonedApe]

A decent collection of articles. Reading some Chomsky right now. Good site, but needs some Lysander Spooner.