Forum Post: Democracy ( true Democracy ) is a well ordered Anarchy. Look to the facts not emotions.
Posted 12 years ago on May 22, 2012, 1:47 p.m. EST by DKAtoday
(33802)
from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What I am saying is there is no conflict of interest in Democracy. Republic. Union, Anarchy. If you "look" at them side by side and consider what each is saying about the will of The People.
The Constitution:
Government of The People By The People For The People.
Then " I " ask where is the conflict?
Looking at definitions - I do not see a conflict.
Looking at peoples knowledge I see plenty of needless conflict.
de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/ Noun:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed in such a way.
re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun:
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
un·ion/ˈyo͞onyən/ Noun:
The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".
Anarchy: A Definition
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
Wherein lies the conflict?
Education or lack thereof.
Show me the conflict of ideals.
The conflict lies in the UN-educated. The stiff and closed minded. The conservative. The conflict is in not weighing all of these descriptions with an open mind and noting the similarities. The conflict is not looking at The Constitution and seeing the same qualities of purpose outlined.
The conflict is prejudice.
Take a real look compare values and purpose.
Your paradigm is incomplete.
The conflict is pushing party politics.
The issue should be pushing issue's.
If you really look at it and see the full contents of belief - then you see that a true Democracy is a well ordered anarchy.
Where is the statement "Government of The People By The People For The People." in the Constitution?
Why do democracy, republic, and union, get dictionary definitions but anarchy gets an essay explanation? That gives the impression of an ideological agenda being put forth which dissuades one from taking the subject seriously.
In what way does the term 'union' apply to the US if it must be in harmonious agreement? The war to preserve the Union was not a situation of harmonious agreement and it's doubtful that anything less than the threat of the force of arms is maintaining that union for most southern states.
The threat made by George Washington to annex Rhode Island if it didn't ratify the Constitution was not a situation of harmonious agreement. Mind you, this is the same egalitarian recipient of human traffiking who said "Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power."
Democracy 'People Rule' and Republic 'Matter (of the) Public' are merely the Greek and Latin expressions of the same idea originating around 509 BCE in Athens and Rome but they are very different when examined further in that the democracy of Athens was more of a direct democracy whereas the republic of Rome with its senate had replaced a tradition of life term elected kings of absolute power with two annually elected consuls with the same power.
I use anarchist to mean antiauthoritarian, which means opposing abuse of power. But it's pointless to refer to oneself as an anarchist, because people misunderstand it and the media likes to call authoritarians anarchists and then blame them for violence etc. It's self-defeating to use such labels.
You see?
This is the power of misinformation.
Often times when you see a journalist on a war torn street and they say it is absolute anarchy out here. It is an outright lie.
They should be saying it is pure chaos out here.
Misunderstanding does not go away by distancing one self from the lie - but by educating others on the truth.
The Constitution of the United States of America is an anarchist document the founding fathers of the United States of America were Anarchists.
Anarchy has been given a bad name.
Who would do such a thing?
Perhaps those who would like to have an authoritarian rule?
Perhaps those who would like to manipulate government by removing the people from the process?
Who taught you that garbage about the constitution and the founding fathers?
1st let me ask you a question.
Who are you ?
OK more than 1 question.
What is your allegiance to?
Did you not know that the Founding fathers were revolutionaries?
Did you not realize/know that they turned on their government and formed their own government?
What do you know on the definition of anarchy?
I think perhaps your education is lacking or your comprehension of history is lacking.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Well an in-depth reply that reveals so much of your understanding of history. They knew what they were doing.
Hhmmmm...nope can't refute that. Do not want to.
Do want to open your eyes to the truth of history though.
Those awesome documents - and what they are. What is their origin - how did they come about - who were they written for?
Take an honest look at these definitions. Is there a commonality?
Is there a universal principal?
A constant?
Consistency?
What have you been taught?
What has been left out of your education?
de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/ Noun:
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed in such a way.
re·pub·lic/riˈpəblik/ Noun:
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president...
un·ion/ˈyo͞onyən/ Noun:
The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context. A state of harmony or agreement: "they live in perfect union".
Anarchy: A Definition
What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
the revolution was an act of wealth redistribution
[Removed]
the King OWNED American, don't you know anything?
[Removed]
OK shithead he owned the land
[Removed]
Why?
Do you have a problem with truth?
Or do you have a problem with people who are fighting corruption greed and crime.
Are you a supporter of Corporations? And corporate manipulation of our government?
[Removed]
That is helpful advice - how come you are then advertizing for me?
Seems a funny way to go about ignoring someone.
Hey?
surpized he hasn't been banned already, had me one, but he got away
It is funny how the attackers of the movements against greed corruption crime and usurpation of our government - will attack comments and posts by trying to belittle the content or the contributors/supporters of a post.
They say non-sense and garbage and oh ignore this person - and yet they feel the need to gang up on that post or that individual.
Somehow - I don't think they believe their own propaganda or they wouldn't bother to attack.
Me thinkest that they doth protesteth too much.
I could see your point. I'm willing to accept this logic if it means anarchists could begin discussing specific issues, and stake out a position.
Anarchists do discuss specific issues and stake out positions, but as in any broad ideological base there are many different "flavors" of anarchism.
Maybe the best general definition of anarchism was made by Piotr Kropotkin for the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is far too long for posting. The definition is very broad and can fit a wide range of people that believe in horizontal, rather than vertical government.
A discussion of the definition of anarchy dies not interest me! Sorry. I;ve watched forums degrade into ...... anarchy ;) over the definition. A discussion of the issues that affect the 99%, and how best to resolve them is more productive and so a better a use of time and effort.
DKAtoday is mentally ill. Just ignore him. DKAtoday = DNAwaste.
Look through this forum you see all kinds of issues being brought forth and plans to resolve them forwarded.
Then you see also the attacks by the supporters of the corporate status-quo. Those who have currently subverted our ( The Peoples ) Government.
This is why I stay away from party politics.
This is why I push issues.
Big, big, enormously big conflict.
The word democracy gets tossed around loosely. As if we have a democracy. We don't. We use the democratic principle of voting. For our Representatives.
Our government was formed as a Represenative Republic using democratic principles. We vote/elect Representatives to do the work of governing and legislating on our behalf. Our Founders specifically set up a Representative form of government because they believed democracy was dangerous. They specifically did not want a democracy. But they believed in the democratic principle of government by the people. That's why we vote for our Representatives. We don't vote on legislation directly. We allow our Representatives to do that for us, in our interests. And we hold them accountable by voting them back in or out.
Anarchism would toss away elected Representatives, and instead use democracy. Direct Democracy. This means ending our form of government. Ending our Representative Republic and developing a form of government in which people would vote directly on policy, legislation, and decision making. Kind of like OWS General Assemblies. No leaders, no representatives. Everyone that chooses to vote, votes on every decision, in the attempt to reach some level of consensus, by some majority.
The conflict is a Representative form of government v. an anarchistic democracy. Anarchism, in it's true democracy form, is absolutely not compatible with a Representative Republic. So if you are advocating for true democracy, then you believe in ending our form of government.
Nope sorry disagree with that assessment.
Read the constitution. Government Of By FOR The People.
Our elected representatives are supposed to be working " At The Will Of The People" not at their own will.
Because The People have never fully understood the Principals of our Government. Government has become other that what is laid out by the Constitution. So in that regard your assertion is correct - "that we would see a different form of government " - Thing Is It Would Be The Government Intended By The Founding Fathers.
Government Intended By The Founding Fathers. No Hierarchy. Horizontal representation. Elected officials are representatives of the people not the leaders of the people. They represent the will of the people they do not tell the people what their will is.
TJ ( Thomas Jefferson ) was a recognized anarchist and the one the founding fathers chose to write our documents of governance.
True Democracy true representation of the People would be the true representation of our government as it was 1st and always intended.
Our Form of Government would not end - per say - it would exist in it's true intended form.
The Constitution originated as a document of federation or the federal authority of a centralized government headed by a president elected by an electorial college who can veto measures passed by the Senate and the House and a senate of unelected men who could override measures passed by the elected members of the House.
Initiative, Referendum, and specifically Recall were denied to the voters at the federal level as they still are today just as the Founders had intended.
The tradition of lobbying was a direct inheritance from the English Parliment in which interest groups such as the monied aristocracy could freely bribe elected representatives to support their interests to the neglect of the voting masses and continues to this day just as the Founders had intended despite Thomas Jefferson's criticism of it.
So, how was this not an intention for hierarchy?
You seem to be trying to say that democracy is the solution and was the original intent of the Constitution. It's not.
Yes, the intent is government by and for the people. As opposed to a monarchy. That's why we vote for and elect our Representatives and President.
To the degee that our Representatives are not doing a very good job of representing us, is the result of money influencing elections and legislation. Which was certainly never the intent. It's just too bad that our Founders didn't foresee how money might be able to dominate the political and legislative processes. If they had, perhaps they might have provided us an 11th Amendment that would have banned campaign contributions and provided public funding of elections.
'The People have never fully understood the Principals (edit - Principles) of our Government' - that is truly ridiculous. Most people know full well what our government is, is not, and what was intended. It's a Representative Republic based on democratic principles. Not a democracy. This is a big difference that you don't seem to understand.
Thomas Jefferson an anarchist - I think thats debatable. But it doesn't really matter. The Constitution clearly gives legislative powers to Congress. Through our elected Representatives. This is far far different from a democracy form of government and anarchist principles of pure/direct democracy.
A democracy was never ever intended. Our Constitution provides elected Representatives and gives legislative powers to Congress. In a democracy, we would be voting on legislation directly. This was never ever intended. If it were, Congress would not have legislative authority and we would not elect Represenatives with the power to legislate on our behalf.
You cannot have pure true direct democracy without changing our form of government. At a minimum, you would take away the legislative authorities given to Congress.
You might very well believe that a Democracy form of government would be better than a Representative form of government. I don't know. I can't really tell by what you're saying. But you can't have a Democracy form of government without changing our Constituion and taking legislative power away from Congress.
What a crock of BS. A democratic republic like the current government of US is not a system that resembles anarchy in any way shape or form. A democratic republic is a hierarchy (vertical), while anarchy is an horizontal form or organization.
Why do you think there's a whole tradition of thinkers that discussed anarchy over the years. They wouldn't have called it anarchy if it was the same thing as a republic democratic.
You're scratching the surface of both anarchy and a democratic republic and pointing to the similarities thinking this means they are the same. That's entirely wrong. If you dig a little deeper, you'll understand they are very different forms of societal organization.
Now, please, do us a favor. Take a week off this forum and read some books. Next time you post, try to learn a bit about what you are posting first. You look like a high school student who just discovered a new topic and has a big uncontrolled boner. Relax man. We know you just started reading about anarchy. Take a few more weeks to digest. When you start understanding, then post.
a little chaos is always good if not violent. and it fits into the free market nature of our great country. 'Let Chaos Reign, then Rein in Chaos'
"anarchy" is a "short bristled swine without pants". "capitalism" is a "short bristled swine in a suit" "communsim" is a "short bristled swine in a undershirt"
the problem of democracy is that they all made in mockery. democrats are "made direct" rebulicans are also with influence mostly from "god" which is a gipsy or romanian this comes over a signification out of "black sabbath" a "square bid" to a "straight bird" or something like this. collects poor drinker or something like this. "comes always expensive" means they just pay gipsys for this. or this "gott". the demokrat they "ask them always afterwards something" and tell him "who he is". in case of Barack you even have the signification that the three neonazism apes lost but three neonazism apes would never loss because they explain or "explain" called "tennesee" or something like this. if everything is made over mockery, you never have a person which have something less for the land, the person who controll this best is the person who have nothing less for the country. all the money leaves the country. you have to have someone which don't go on to talk with person which just want to fool him to control him.
Whoa. Where did you get the last definition?
How about a dictionary?
Or are they an evil tool for the 1% to control us?
Anyway, here is an actual, genuine, dictionary definition for the word "anarchism":
"Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion"
So, in other words, no food stamps, medicare, or forced income redistribution, gun control, or military spending.
I guess I am an anarchist also. Glad to join you. I don't think you and I are going to be very popular on this board, most of the people here are in favor of some government. I am too, but anarchy is preferable to the amount we have now.
Welcome to the anarchist circle.To now further your education on the principles and the different branches of anarchism, I recommend you visit this site: http://libcom.org/
You will quickly find that you are correct: no food stamps, medicare, or forced income redistribution. That is because most anarchist thinkers envision a horizontal, communal type society without the necessity for safety-net programs or income redistribution. That's because the majority of anarchists pretty much believe in Marx's adage: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."
I don't know about gun control or military spending; that would depend on what the anarchist unit(s) would decide.
For a really incisive definition of anarchism, which briefly explains the simplistic sentence you quoted, I recommend Piotr Kropotkin's. You can read the entire piece, much too long to post, at: http://anarchism.net/definitions_kropotkin.htm
If then you believe you are an anarchist, I recommend you align yourself with others, who share your particular beliefs, which might be anarcho-capitalists.
Incidentally, dictionaries are not very good at explaining complex philosophies; they are designed to define particular words in a kindergarten-type way, without delving into the complexities and ambiguities inherent in human communication and thought.
Why did you use dictionary definitions for the first examples?
Are dictionaries suitable only when you want them to be?
Dictionary definitions for which examples?
You may want to reread the last paragraph, so that you fully understand the meaning of my words, which proves my point about the complexities and ambiguities of human communication.
Sorry, thought you were the OP.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Vote issues. Fuck party politics.
Support individuals that support the Constitution.
Americans are anarchists - they have just never been told. The Constitution is an anarchist document.
Whoa. Where did you get the last definition?
How about a dictionary?
OR
This is why I stay away from party politics.
This is why I push issues.
"well ordered anarchy" is an oxymoron.
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French ordre, from Latin ordo, ordin- ‘row, series, rank.’
Order refers to numbers, which are designed by rank, which in turn refers to hierarchy. Disorder is also hierarchic. aorder or lack of order would be anarchic.
What he probably means is well organized anarchy. Organized means arranged in a systematic way, which does not refer to order or rank. The arrangement can be anarchic with each element having the same worth, or being on the same plane of importance.
Don't listen to his post, it's pure nonsense.
Your argument does not dissuade me from listening. .
That's OK. Hopefully, it can dissuade you from reading his nonsense. Better yet, perhaps you'll get interested in the subject and decide to read up on anarchy and democratic republics. If you are smart enough to find some good books, you'll see fast enough that anarchy is not the same thing as a democratic republic. You'll see that they are in fact very different and realize that DKAtoday is totally wrong.
I've been reading up on anarchy for quite a while and I agree; it is very different from what we have. However, I do agree with the idea that anarchy (in its organized form) is the system that is in line with most of our culturally professed ideals: equality (in distribution of resources and systemically), transparency, autonomy, freedom, and responsibility.
I think it's more accurate to say repesentative republic or representative democracy, rather than democratic republic.
[Removed]
It seems our friend DKAtoday started reading about anarchy last week, is all excited about it, but fails to understand any of it.
Pretty much everything is wrong in his post and it reads like a propaganda piece designed to make us believe that the current republic functions in the same way as anarchy.
His post is pure nonsense designed to make us believe that Obama and the current governmental system in US already espouses the anarchic principles of OWS. It doesn't. There's a huge difference between anarchy, and a democratic republic.
[Removed]
Lotsa nice bumper stickers there. Much negativity. Nothing positive!. When I hear something positive from you that resembles a workable plan I will be with you! Until then, there IS an election in 5 mos!! There is work to do! my Occupy has released a statement against citizens united/corp personhood. I stand with them! And the 99% You are only interested in labeling, excluding, negative slogans! Support OWS. Vote out pro citizens united pols