Question about Anarchy

I have similar views to Peace phoenix on this, only when human kind grow up will they be mentally mature enough to make an Anarchist society work. But it can be used as an aspiration.

I mean, let us look at this from another angle. Are you happy with the way your society is now?

Take the US

High gun crime and deaths from shooting

Largest prison population of any western country

Half the population can’t be bother to be part of the political process and the other half seem deeply divided between two right wing political parties. In other words the political system is not working.

A person’s worth is gauged more by wealth and material possession than by their contribution to the community.

I could go on.

**

It might be utopian to think of a world without crime, money, or even the need for politics and that is fine with me as long as those people are thinking of some practical ways in which they could nudge their present society toward that dream of a better world for everyone.

**

Think about your questions –

You want to know how to keep paedophiles away from children? Why not ask why there are paedophiles and how they can be treated.

Stopping a billionaire from selling faulty merchandise? Why have these people accumulated so much power that they think that they can get away with it? Then ask yourself why they would want to sell faulty merchandise?

Solving a murder? Why has the murder taken place? Then ask yourself why some types of society have less crime than others?

**

Anarchy is about bringing about a different type of society where people don’t need to be controlled. The alternative is about not changing society but trying to force it to work even if it is obviously dysfunctional.

 

Don't you think it's possible to better yourself without having a reason for it, other that simply WANTING to be a better person? And besides, 90% of the earths population never gets any "better" as far as wealth is concerned, but yet they continue to go on. Your incentive is life itself, but in this country some people begin to think life isn't worth living without a boat, a summer home, an SUV......

Capitalism and our corrupt system is the cause for most major crime anyway, people on the bottom resort to theft and murder to try to stay in the game. Even rich motherfucker's resort to murder, if someone's life insurance policy has enough zeros in it.

 

Well why should i try harder and work my ass off doing something when i'm not gonna get anymore out of it? Explain why i shouldn't work 40 hours a week and always be on time and strive for a promotion?

 

If a promotion is all you want out of your life, and all you feel that you are good for, then absolutely nothing I say about it will make any difference. Some of us have higher goals and standards, though.

 

God, I have about a million things to say on this topic, and no idea where to start...


Let's see. Well, first of all, humans have a VARIETY of motivations for their actions. Love for others, desire for knowledge/curiosity, desire to improve a situation, simple enjoyment, desire for community prestige not related to money or power, etc - these are ALL motivations. When someone says "Why would anyone work if they couldn't be rich/powerful/whatever, I have to wonder if they have any depth or any knowledge of anthropology.

Speaking of which, people also need to understand what they're talking about when they say "anarchy." Now, are people talking about chaos - a life with no rules, no social control, no norms, no culture? Because that is certainly NOT ever going to work to produce anything positive - not for the human animal. But if you are talking about communal anarchy - which includes the concepts of egalitarianism, deep democracy, and self-sustainability - it is THAT social system that existed for the vast majority (over 98%) of human existence on this planet, it is THAT system which proves to be most successful in producing happy, well-balanced humans and workable human society, and it is only THAT system that can "save" us from the misery of the state society.

The majority of egalitarian/communal anarchistic societies that have existed have been hunter-gatherer societies. And this is the problem. State societies have made it their prime directive to annihilate these cultures - and with good reason. Egalitarian societies do not recognize property rights. They do not recognize social stratification. They do not acknowledge man's "right" to destroy nature or to destroy other human life in a quest for property.

In studying egalitarian societies, anthropologists have marvelled for nearly 2 centuries at the deep sense of joy and contentment the individuals living in these societies exhibit. Violence is almost non-existent - including violence against women and children. Marjorie Shostak - the author of Nisa - Biography of a !Kung Woman reflected that !Kung women were the most liberated, self-assured, happy women she had ever come into contact with. They were not forced to engage in any type of sexual behavior, even within marriage. They were completely able to provide for their and their children's needs when a male provider was absent. Male !Kung enjoyed deep, affectionate relationships with their children, loving relationships with women, and were not forced into societal "norms" expecting male aggression or violence, but were expected to be gentle, generous, friendly, and courteous - just as the women were.

We find this same story when we look at hunter-gatherers worldwide. In study after study, researchers have found that the egalitarian structure results in the happiest, most nonviolent, well-balanced humans on the planet. Further, egalitarian gatherers work an average of 3 hours a day to provide for their needs. The bulk of their time is spent socializing, napping, singing, storytelling, playing musical instruments, making love, playing games, or otherwise enjoying life.

The trade-off? Certainly the egalitarian structure has proven that it cannot compete with the overwhelming violence of the state. Egalitarian humans have no nuclear weapons, no "smart bombs," no machine guns - they often do not even have metal weapons as simple as machetes. While they WILL defend their territory if necessary, they are not accustomed to state notions of genocidal warfare. These cultures, then, have been quite easily destroyed when they come into contact with state societies.

This was basically an attempt to provide some historical/anthropological basis for this discussion and to generally describe human societies for most of the existence of mankind on earth. I'll continue with a broader discussion in another post.

 

RECOMMENDED READING
Future Primitive, Against Civilization, Running on Emptiness by John Zerzan

Ishmael, My Ishmael, The Story of B by Daniel Quinn

My Name is Chellis, and I'm in Recovery From Western Civilization by Chellis Glenndinning

Nisa, Diary of a !Kung Woman, by Marjorie Shostak

Mbuti Pygmies, Change and Adaptation, by Colin Turnbull

Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment by John Gowdy

 

Ok, so humans lived in egalitarian structures for the majority of human existence on earth. How can we apply this now, since these structures are threatened now with non-existence? How can we move toward egalitarian structures, knowing that the state does exist and will NOT disappear tomorrow (barring nuclear or biological catastrophe, of course)?

We must NOT, first of all, have as our goal the conversion of the state to anarchy. It's NEVER going to happen. Ever. Moving toward actual democracy and egalitarian theory would be devastating to those whom the state serves - the ruling elite. We can NOT count on them to suddenly become humanitarians who care about the state of humans as a whole or the ecosystems of the planet. This has been our problem for nearly 100 years in this country, in particular - expecting the ruling elite to act in ways that would be detrimental to their wealth and power - it's not going to happen.

SO - we have to do it ourselves. Because of the massive population growth caused by sedentary living, we clearly cannot become hunter-gatherers. But we need to liberate ourselves as much as possible from the state and from reliance on the state. We need to MIMICK hunter-gathering, egalitarian society as much as we are ABLE in this current social structure - understanding that it will only be an imitation. The best way I have found to do this is through intentional communities and cooperatives. We absolutely must move toward communal living. We need to create and/or join communities that maintain an egalitarian structure. This means creating communities that are run through deep democracy (preferably through pure consensus), where work is shared, where food is shared, and importantly - where conflicts are settled through communal norms, rather than involving authorities whenever possible. Children should be schooled within the community. Food should be produced by the community. No money should ever be exchanged for anything, ever (though trade of work and/or resources is ok). Communities should focus on becoming self-sustaining in terms of food, water, and power. Contact with the state and reliance on the state must be eliminated as much as possible.

What do we say to folks like the original poster or others here who worry that anarchy would First of all, we have to understand that the problems that the state claims to be "solving" are manifestations of the state itself!! Communities that stress equality of all individuals, equal access to resources like food, water, clothing, land, and shelter, equality in work requirements, respect for traditional "women's work,", etc. tend to have lower incidents of violence, child abuse, addictions, mental illness, etc etc etc. When incidents occur, they should be dealt with by the group - as a group - with consequences decided by the group. This is obviously more difficult in communities full of members coming out of the dominant state society and who will need to "unlearn" the very sick psychological states they acquired as victims of the state.

I don't mean to imply that this is easy. I personally just had to leave a community that would not deal with the violence of several men because of simple fear of the men and fear of looking racist (because the men all happened to be black). But I am now involved with a group of families attempting to start a family-centered egalitarian community. Communities HAVE CONFLICT - this is a given, and should be expected. But we gain far more as human beings when we deal with these conflicts ourselves, when we confront life ourselves, when we don't expect the state to come "save us" from our human conflicts.

This type of life requires courage, patience, an ability to relinquish our state-taught desires for power over others and for special social standing, and an ability to sacrifice some of our "wants" for the community's "needs." It is only through serious commitment and desire that we can make this work in the modern world. The hope is that eventually more and more people worldwide will be drawn away from the state, resulting in the weakening of its power and influence.

I could go on, but have rambled through 3 posts, and maybe someone else here has comments...

 

How is anarchy a higher goal moonshyne? Please me what is the least bit humanitarian about anarchy?

 

laughinwillow just made 3 posts regarding most of that, and I'd only be repeating MOST of what she said. Try reading some, sweetie. You might be surprised at what you can learn from it. but here, I'll help you out a bit...

from willow's post..."Let's see. Well, first of all, humans have a VARIETY of motivations for their actions. Love for others, desire for knowledge/curiosity, desire to improve a situation, simple enjoyment, desire for community prestige not related to money or power, etc - these are ALL motivations. When someone says "Why would anyone work if they couldn't be rich/powerful/whatever, I have to wonder if they have any depth or any knowledge of anthropology."

Besides, I never actually said anarchy was the higher goal, i said some folks have other goals besides a promotion, things that can't be achieved or bought with money.

You shouldn't twist other people's words, because the only person you're fooling with it is yourself.

 

But still there is not incentive to work or try if you can never see fruits from it.

 

The fruits, as you say, have already been made evident. If a global anarchy, based around communities such as those mentioned earlier, was the norm, then your promotion would be built by YOU, and not awarded by someone else with a completely different agenda for you than you have for you.

You would be free to build your own house on your own land, or trade skills or resources with someone that can build you a house. You can do the same with food, health, clothes, drugs (from tea to crack, if it's still made in Utopia ) and all the rest.

But people want their TV Internet Home Stereo System and their piped central heating. People want security, and they have been hoodwinked to think that we are secure in our societies. I think a certain reawakening of mankind's mindset is possible, and absolutely essential to saving our skins.

I'm not up for bandying round insults, but if Honkytonk thinks that the liberation of themselves, let alone everyone else, is a waste of time and not worth giving up your own enslavement* then you are narrow-minded. I say enslavement because it is, but it is dressed up and wrapped up with a bow on, pushed through every avenue. And if you don't like the gift, then you're a rebel, a crusty, an air-head hippy who's full of good intentions and wonderful ideals, but sadly mate, this world ain't like that, and you gotta grow up and fit into the scheme of things laddy, 'cause you ain't never gonna get anywhere in life with your head in the clouds"

Did i mention anything about electronic equipment giving off frequencies which cut us off from nature and her own bunch of frequencies and waves? And that's passive fucking with our heads. They're doing it actively now. Its to stop the mental and spiritual renaissance that is building towards 2012. I only mention this because it is one of the most damaging ways the powers that be are fucking with us RIGHT NOW! AS YOU READ THIS...your PC? Your TV? Your mobile phone (which can transmit your voice to the secret services without even being turned on, a handy way to bug the population). I always speak with an alternative agenda mainly because I see the inter-relativity between these things, before someone accuses me of hijacking the thread or spreading my message of hate and violence

 

There is no growing tide of enlightnment friend, nor will there ever be. The only way we'll see mankind go back to anarchy is if 90% of the popualtion dies out.

 

Don't worry, it will. And I'm not talking about anything biblical. If we don't manage to blow each other up (which is also likely), and if we continue to increase in population without finding new ways of sustaining ourselves, we're gonna end up in deep shit.

 

FreeWillLove, I was with you until I read this:

The frequencies given off by PC's, stereos, DVD players, etc. are not harmful to human in any way, because their radioactive wavelengths are way too long to be damaging. The only kind that are dangerous to living things (X-rays, microwaves, UV rays etc.) are the very tiny ones. And 2012? Come on man. Don't go David Icke on us.

As far as the secret service bugging our phones, I'm not going to try and change the mind of a paranoid.

IRT LaughinWillow:

Great posts. I don't even want to know how long it took you to think of that, but props. Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to disagree for a few reasons. The first being that the human population of Earth has become way too large for us to be able to just "break off" into communities. Not all of them would be able to produce their own food because not all land is arable or suited for raising animals, so we'd have groups fighting over the land that is arable. If we just scraped the food harvesting/distrobution system we have now that is run by corporations, millions if not billions would starve to death.

Also, where would the technology go, and what would happen to science, research and progress? If everyone in a community is working on surviving from day to day inside an isolated community that has to produce everything for it's people, I can't see there being much time for scientific research or technological advancement. Maybe I'm just a computer geek who can't fathom the idea of losing his precious gadgets, but it seems like in order to live in your ideal world the human race would have to regress a few hundred years technology-wise, where life is centered around day-to-day survival. How would commuities interact with one another?
The Internet, telephones, etc. would have to be maintained and kept running by somebody, and that somebody would have to be a corporation (or something similar), and that corporation would have a lot of power.

 

Millions are already starving to death because of capitalism and big industies hording/controlling land and food supply. Just because you don't have to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

You know, when you live in a community, and I mean a REAL community, not a subdivision or apartment complex, that would not be a problem. People chip in, and when EVERYBODY helps out there's alot less work for and single person to do. Who says there wouldn't be any time for reseaech or advancement?

Who runs those corporations? People. Individuals. You don't need a CEO making corporate decisions and making a ton of money for basically nothing. If stuff like internet and telephones were run as a way of communication rather than for profit, then we wouldn't NEED a powerful corporation to control it. Not everything in our modern times is as complicated as it seems.

 

So what you're saying is "Since millions of people are already starving, what's the big deal if a few million or billion more starve in addition"? Good idea.

Scientists devote their entire lives, day and night, to solving problems, and often their work is not completed in their lifetime. If everybody in a community had to chip in doing everything, that scientist's true skills in the field of science would be wasted doing things necessary for the survival of a community all day. The same goes for every other profession. If everybody has to do everything, there's no time for anything but basic necessities.

You can't run a company based on concensus, someone in power needs to make the decisions. If you did it that way then phone lines and Internet would be down for months at a time while everybody argues over what programming language the new software should run on, which type of insulation to use on the new wires, and other administrative decisions.

 

An armed citizenry?



That's how I'd protect my interests.

 

okay, lets say that everybody has at least one gun.

whats to keep a group from playing the numbers game and overwhelming you in order to rape your wife and daughter?

 

Well, first off, I wouldn't live alone with my hypothetical family, I always gather around me a large group of like minded people. I call them friends. If this imaginary band of roving rapers were to somehow penetrate my fortress, disperse of my friends and myself, my hypothetical wife would have to defend herself. Oh, and I'm fixed, I won't have children.


BTW, what's to stop someone from breaking into your fortess and raping your wife and daughter right now? Some laws written on official state documents? Functionally, laws only punish and deter, not prevent.

 

Admit it though, a police force and an army are a better deterent to crime than a family w/pistols.