Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: what does anarchism imply

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 10:42 a.m. EST by ronimacarroni (1089)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

No government, no politicians, no CEO's,no managers, no generals, no greed, no unemployment, no economic cycle, no foreclosure, no taxes, no special interest, no balance of power, no incentive for criminal activity, no war profiteering, doing what you what you're good at instead of what's profitable... but most important of all, no bullshit.

65 Comments

65 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

I really don't know much about that anarchy stuff. And I really don't think its necessary. What we have here is an issue between collectivism and capitalism. Neither of these things can be successful soley on their own. Collectivism fails to take into account the individual pursuit of prosperity. And unrestrained capitalism encourages greed (and other not so nice stuff, like selfishness, lack of empathy, things like that).

I believe what we need to do is to find the proper balance between the two. That is to say, encourage the individual pursuit of prosperity, while at the same time restrain acts of greed which is harmful to society. I think a healthy capitalism, is a properly restrained capitalism. And this will always be a constant struggle - to achieve that proper balance. Because the pendulum does not remain still. It is in a constant state of motion, however small. Currently it is swung too far towards unrestrained capitalism. It is the job of government to help maintain the proper balance with policies and regulation. And it is up to the people to see that the government does so.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

I agree with this position. I makes a lot of sense.

[-] 3 points by MBJ (96) 8 years ago

"no greed"

LOL. You're going to reinvent the nature of man? What happens if someone gets greedy? A trial...oops, no courts.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Let me rephrase that.

Greed will not be rewarded and encouraged.

[-] 2 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

This statement makes me realize even more that this "movement" as no purpose and you are truly going to indirectly run this country into the ground much faster than our corrupt government ever would

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

how?

[-] 1 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

Because have you ever heard the saying "shit runs down hill" if you cut the money from the 1% and you shut down our government then its like cutting the water off at the top of the hill... it will never make it to the bottom. Also as I mentioned in another statement the government helps support things that you my friend take advantage of on a daily basis... such as FARMING... can you grow your own food? do you have the space to raise cattle? can you support farms with increasing land prices due to exponential population growth? My guess is no so then who will? How will the people living in the cities be provided food?

[-] 2 points by JonoLith (467) 8 years ago

Historically, All Anarchist Movements end up dissolving into an Oligarchy, or a Republic. This will be no different.

[-] 2 points by ForestLensman (20) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Who builds roads, infrastructure, firetrucks?

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

They asked the same question about phone service and electricity in the 1900's

[-] 2 points by ForestLensman (20) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

"same question about phone service and electricity in the 1900's"

Private capital if I am right. Which is scary, but we are seeing with more roads being sold to foreign capital, along with the parking meters and so I guess we have all our infrastructure owned by foreign investors? We should be scared.

[-] -1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

workers, duh

[-] 2 points by ForestLensman (20) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

"Thomas Carlyle, Scottish essayist of the Victorian era known foremost for his widely influential work of history, The French Revolution, wrote that the French Revolution was a war against both aristocracy and anarchy: Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? "

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Here's another fun fact.

Ron Lawl's libertarian ideals resemble that of anarcho-capitalists.

[-] 1 points by wcedward (58) 8 years ago

*has

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Here's a good short read on the subject.

http://www.fondation-besnard.org/article.php3?id_article=33

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

Anarchy is the absence of hierarchy. It does not mean the absence of rules common sense or civil behavior toward one another. The structure of the hacktivist group anonymous is an example.

[-] 2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

In practice, a true absence of hierarchy is impossible. There will always be reasons why some might want to take advantage of others. When that happens, the strength of individuals will determine hierarchies. A world where everyone is perfectly equal and everyone wishes to remain so is only possible if the brains of humans are partly lobotomized to render them vegetable like.

[-] 0 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

I don't think even with the absence of hierarchy that people would stop being punished for crimes like theft, rape, and murder. If anything the absence of a governing body would speed up justice. When caught taking advantage of others the others form a mob and hang you from a tree.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

They had that in Texas once. I'll pass. "Chuck, where's my government! I want it back! Damn anarchists are hanging people again without giving them fair trials. They say they want to speed up justice. Where the hell are the breaks on this thing. Chuck! Chuck! Damnit! Chuck, is that you hanging from that tree?"

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

I am not an Anarchist but I do agree with some of their ideas. I also agree in part with the Socialists, the Libertarians, and of course with the free exchange of ideas and people forming their own opinions by listening to other opinions one can gain knowledge that was intentionally withheld in school.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Of course, who said nobody was listening? Why this assumption dropped from nowhere? I read the books of prominent anarchists. I know their theories. A lot of concepts are really interesting, but I don't think they work in practice. It's important to read the critics also.

Anyhow, I'm worried about Chuck. He got an expedient trial, and now we have to take him down from the tree in your front lawn. Do you want to help me undress him and prepare his body for burial? Here, please anoint his naked corpse with this oil. It will make him smell better. Do you still have room in your common grave? I know many were lynched last week, but perhaps we can still find room to dig a hole. We really should be thinking of using another method next time. Burning perhaps? Do you believe we can reach a consensus? Of course, we won't invite the Smiths to the general assembly because they would vote against us. Of course, I agree. Enough chit chat, let's dig Chuck's grave already. A fine chap he was, wasn't he. Fine chap.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Why do you imply that a hierarchy is inherently evil?

[-] 2 points by ForestLensman (20) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Read the post I put up from the French Revolution, where they really tried anarchy. The big problem is that once anarchism destroys government and all those things, there is a huge empty place which the anarchists walk away from. So, it is a philosophy of destruction without rebuilding.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Thing is, the anarchists are brought together by their fight against the enemy, in this case the government. That enemy is the glue that keeps them together. When the enemy is defeated, they just look at each other and start wondering "what next?". That's when Biff pounds the head of McFly, just because he can.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

It implies that one person or group has the right to impose their will on others. The people being told what to do are too stupid to make their own decisions. The worst part is that the people at the top deserve extra compensation for their leadership and they will take it at the tip of a sword.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

So, there shall be no rules or laws?

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

No, there are always rules. If you kick a strange dog he will bite you. If you rape a woman her family will hunt and kill you. If you steal from others they will also come looking for you.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

And you want to live in a society with no laws or rules?

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

No, but one where they apply equally to all would be nice.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Nirvana does not exist.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

Nor do love or justice, except that we believe in them.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Because more often than not it is.

You have to trust that the person above you will not try to screw you and by trust

I mean pretend he's not screwing you already.

[-] 1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

So there should be no parental rights? A family unit is a hierarchy.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

At least you can see him coming. In an anarchy, some will eventually take the power and surprise attack you. That's why I wanted to make a duo with KnowledgeableFellow.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Of course there is a problem with anarchy.....it's because it is the absence of all laws and rules.

[-] 1 points by stevo (314) 8 years ago

Anarchism.."Just say No"....."beyond that...we don't have a fucking clue"

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Voluntary association

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Implied in theory, not in practice. And only in the theoretical works of anarchists, not in the theoretical works of their critics.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 8 years ago

"no incentive for criminal activity"

Sure there will be incentive. If you get the girl I want, I will shoot you. And there will be no law to stop me. Actually, we will never have fewer than one law: the law of the jungle.

[-] -1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

So get a gun to protect your wife or something. Problem solved.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 8 years ago

Well, exactly. Anarchy is the law of the jungle, every man for himself. Those who know how to fight and shoot will dominate those who don't. If that is how you want to roll, fine, I just don't think it is a big improvement.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Well crime is generally a symptom of those who want to make huge profits or those who struggle to make ends meet.

If you get rid of those two factors then I guess that leaves women. But even women can protect themselves really.

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 8 years ago

A lot of crime, particularly violent crime, consists of "crimes of passion." Add alcohol, mental illness, and some drugs to the mix, and you have quite a bubbling brew. If you are suggesting that people arm and defend themselves (social darwinism, I guess), that is fine (the NRA will support you, anyway).

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Crimes of passion will happen regardless of what the sentences are

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 8 years ago

Sure. So should there be no punishment (other than vigilante justice that you seem to advocate)?

[-] 1 points by Gileos (309) 8 years ago

Do whatever you want just stay out of my way you damn kids.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 8 years ago

It also implies zero protection and complete chaos. Like the entire population and other countries wouldn't kill and murder. If we suddenly had anarchy tomorrow, the OWS members would find new reasons to become violent and steal from fellow citizens. They would justify it with another vague unseen enemy.

No one is buying it. The American public has turned against you.

[-] 0 points by letsallspeaktruth (24) 8 years ago

you must be like 15 years old to believe this...grow up just a little will ya

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

That's probably what the British said about the Americans when they proposed democracy.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with democracy.

I'm just saying its the gray area between anarchism and dictatorships.

Wasn't this country founded by militias anyways?

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

So, if you take all the rules and laws away, then we have nirvana? Wow, I think what you are smoking is illegal. And what does not having any laws have to do with greed? That makes absolutely no sense at all. If there are no laws, and you have something that i want, then i can just take it, if I can do that physically. So the big tough guys will have all the toys.

What you said is true lunacy

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Are you a girl?

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Doesn't matter

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

It does, and I see that you are. I wanted to offer my protection in the case that anarchy becomes widespread in US. You'll be glad to know I have muscles slightly bigger than the average man. I can't protect against all, but together we could vanquish most foes. A powerful duo indeed. Make no mistake about it, duos will be all the rage in an anarchy.

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 8 years ago

And then she gives you head?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Only if we are properly hidden from the mobs. Most of the time we'll have to be on our guards, each facing the opposite direction. Facing the opposite direction... hmm...

[-] -1 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

Why would you assume I'm a girl? And besides, you offer is rejected, because I wouldn't want to be around an idiot

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

I just have a feeling you are a girl from the way you write. It's not an assumption, I know.

Suit yourself, I'll have to find another partner for my dynamic duo. It's sad, but I accept your refusal.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

I'm a girl! But sadly, I'm not available. Otherwise, who knows?? Another time, another place.... so long as it doesn't interrupt my hockey schedule. : )

I posted above. Either I'll be completely ignored, or I'll be in over my head with the anarchy theories!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

lol! I'll read your post.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 8 years ago

All right wingers write like disapproving old ladies, even the males. They are not girls per se, but they do sound female. They all sound pretty female even when they wax poetic about their guns.

[-] 0 points by KnowledgeableFellow (471) 8 years ago

weird

[-] -1 points by mynameismoe (153) 8 years ago

Anarchism is kind of like an orgasim but you THINK you feel better after crapping on a fire hydrant.