• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Anarchy

If heirarchy is the problem, and anarchy is the best form of social norms, then where is it? If hierarchy came after anarchy, then is it not true that hierarchy sprang forth from anarchy, and was the next evolutionary step for the human species?

It seems nature has a tendency to organize matter into more and more complex patterns. From my perspective we seem to be part of that pattern.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
I don't think idealism is futile at all. The world is driven by people who dare to dream big and have hope for no reason at all. However, I think what IS futile is winning a game when you refuse to even play it. Change for the better is an achievable goal. But you have to work with what you've been given, not throw the whole thing away. The typical anarchist reminds me of a little kid who, frustrated that he can't get a school art project perfect, wads the whole thing up, flings it aside, and sulks. What's been accomplished? The project still isn't done. I think anarchy is a copout.

I read an old magazine today at work about George Clooney pushing the UN and donating money toward peacemaking in Darfur. Good for him! He's working through the available channels to see his compassion turned into action. You may say he's just one person and nothing's been done yet, but after reading about him, I was inspired to donate some money to this cause. Who knows how many other readers were?

You really want to fight injustice? Money talks. Action talks. And, believe it or not, even talking talks :) . Vote not only with your ballot, but with your wallet too. Find out which companies and vendors have good human rights records and support social justice and the environment, and patronize them, rather than their more bloodthirsty competitors. When your friends and coworkers asked you why you didn't shop at MegaloMart instead, tell them (politely!) why they shouldn't either.

Hierarchies, including governmnet, are something you, or anyone, can use to their advantage. It's amazing how much difference you can make by befriending and influencing people at the right junctures of the hierarchy. With the right savoir-faire, you yourself can even MOVE UP a hierarchy and affect the changes you want.

Don't forget, the society and world you're part of, with all of its hierarchies, is what gave you everything you have, including your ideas about rebellion.


Well said , you articulated in detail similar thoughts I had on the subject.
 
TacticalBongRip said:
If heirarchy is the problem, and anarchy is the best form of social norms, then where is it? If hierarchy came after anarchy, then is it not true that hierarchy sprang forth from anarchy, and was the next evolutionary step for the human species?

It seems nature has a tendency to organize matter into more and more complex patterns. From my perspective we seem to be part of that pattern.

heres a quote from i dont know who:

Any species survives by virtue of its niche, the opportunity afforded to it by its environment. But in occupying that niche, it also assumes a role in relation to its surroundings. For further survival it is neccessary that its role at least not be a disruptive one. Thus one generally finds in nature that each component of a highly organized community serves a constructive, or, at the very least, stabalizing role. The habitat furnishes the nich, and if any species breaks up the habitat, the niche goes with it
 
jam uh weezy said:
Then you have a LOT of work to do. And you're going to piss off a lot of people.

Doing so will not put an end to capitalism either.

yes we have alot of work to do. And those people im gonna piss off are scum anyway, so im not gonna lose any sleep over it.

And i think dismantling capitalism will put an end to capitalism. Thats what im trying to say we need to do. Take it down, ourselves. Not try and go through the correct government sanctioned channels which dont get you anywhere.
 
TacticalBongRip said:
If heirarchy is the problem, and anarchy is the best form of social norms, then where is it? If hierarchy came after anarchy, then is it not true that hierarchy sprang forth from anarchy, and was the next evolutionary step for the human species?

It seems nature has a tendency to organize matter into more and more complex patterns. From my perspective we seem to be part of that pattern.

I think you're confusing no organization with anarchy.

Devil's advocate: Humans started without organization, then built social communities, then spread hierarchy, so who's to say anarchy isn't the next "evolutionary step"?
 
Amebix, our species could fit into its ecological niche just fine, with all its social structures and infrastructures intact and minimal damage to other species. The key is not fewer infrastructures, but FEWER PEOPLE.

This is why one of the causes I most support is literacy and education for females, the only indicator that correlates strongly with lower birthrates.

I admire your compassion for the state of the world, and your desire to do something about it. But you have to get at the root of the problem.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
Amebix, our species could fit into its ecological niche just fine, with all its social structures and infrastructures intact and minimal damage to other species. The key is not fewer infrastructures, but FEWER PEOPLE.

This is why one of the causes I most support is literacy and education for females, the only indicator that correlates strongly with lower birthrates.

I admire your compassion for the state of the world, and your desire to do something about it. But you have to get at the root of the problem.

Yes, our culture COULD fit into its niche just fine, but its not. Over-population is a by product of our infrastructures (mass production-capitalism). The system is the root of the problem, its been demonstrated countless time. We need a better way.
 
Last edited:
>>If hierarchy came after anarchy, then is it not true that hierarchy sprang forth from anarchy, and was the next evolutionary step for the human species?>>

Only if you take some sort of teleological view of history.

>>It seems nature has a tendency to organize matter into more and more complex patterns. From my perspective we seem to be part of that pattern.>>

Do not confound social complexity with hierarchical command.

>>Amebix, our species could fit into its ecological niche just fine, with all its social structures and infrastructures intact and minimal damage to other species. The key is not fewer infrastructures, but FEWER PEOPLE.>>

Actually, the Earth could bear, sustainably, a population of humans at its current size living between the wasteful opulence of the global north and the abject poverty of sub-Saharan Africa. This would, however, mean the demise of the personal car and disposable packaging. Current famines and the like are not due to overpopulation in a strict sense, but rather the current misdeployment of resources.

>>This is why one of the causes I most support is literacy and education for females, the only indicator that correlates strongly with lower birthrates.>>

What about GDP?

ebola
 
After reading up more on that anarchy FAQ that was linked on the first page I have more to comment.

First, I like the sound of no government, which is what anarchy is, and not lack of organization as I fallaciously thought. I'm not a big fan of being controlled by institutions or governments myself. However at the same time, I just can't see anarchy as a social norm happening, at least not for long, and I'll tell you why.

If amebix got together a bunch of his super anarchists and went around bombing factories in the name of anarchy and lets just say that by some miracle that downed all of capitalism ( lol ) and there was no government, it would only be a matter of time before someone else rose to power through the use of force, as seems to happen everywhere in the world and shown by history. People need to evolve their minds to bring about a better world, just shoving a different social structure into place alone will not be enough to create some sort of a utopia. That being said show me the blueprints of a society not run by capitalism and find a way to implement it and I'll be all for it. Otherwise, its just a pipe dream, man.
 
>>If amebix got together a bunch of his super anarchists and went around bombing factories in the name of anarchy and lets just say that by some miracle that downed all of capitalism ( lol ) and there was no government, it would only be a matter of time before someone else rose to power through the use of force, as seems to happen everywhere in the world and shown by history.>>

That's the thing. Anarchism cannot win via force for these two reasons:
1. You can hardly consistently place someone under coercion to, well, resist all coercion. :)
2. On the terrain of violence, the state and capital clearly has the upper hand, to the tune of roughly $400 billion annually.

This point in time is a war of ideas. An anarchist society will be built ONLY by anarchists. With more widespread appeal, factory OCCUPATIONS will become more worthwhile.

ebola
 
ebola? said:
This point in time is a war of ideas. An anarchist society will be built ONLY by anarchists. With more widespread appeal, factory OCCUPATIONS will become more worthwhile.

ebola

It is in my oppinion that industrialized society is the problem, not the way its run or who runs it. And i think public appeal could best be described as "a long wait for a train dont come".
 
ebola? said:
>>If amebix got together a bunch of his super anarchists and went around bombing factories in the name of anarchy and lets just say that by some miracle that downed all of capitalism ( lol ) and there was no government, it would only be a matter of time before someone else rose to power through the use of force, as seems to happen everywhere in the world and shown by history.>>

That's the thing. Anarchism cannot win via force for these two reasons:
1. You can hardly consistently place someone under coercion to, well, resist all coercion. :)
2. On the terrain of violence, the state and capital clearly has the upper hand, to the tune of roughly $400 billion annually.

This point in time is a war of ideas. An anarchist society will be built ONLY by anarchists. With more widespread appeal, factory OCCUPATIONS will become more worthwhile.

ebola


I realize something like the scenario I explained was unplausible I merely suggested it jokingly so we could arrive at the point where capitalism is no more, and respond to that situation. I was more referring to a previous post of Amebix where he said something to the tune of "burning down a factory because who needs capitalism anyway?"

Getting back on topic, and to respond to your post - from what I remember a sect of the LSD movement tried to break off from society in the 70's with no luck. Timothy Leary said it was near impossible to find a plot of unclaimed land big enough to support a small society. I imagine now almost 40 years later it would be even tougher. However I'm not one to say it could never happen, "if there's a will theres a way" ... or so I hear.
 
Paleolithic society, which needn't depend on hierarchy, was very stable during the dawn of human history and afforded its members a vast amount of liesure time (depending on locale).
The idea that there was "no coercion" in paleolithic society is laughable. There is always coercion, even if it is the weather determining where you go to find food or water. Thus the hierarchy was that nature was above man. I would bet that in these paleolithic tribes, there was a man who was in command of where they went, and what they did when trouble erupted. This is natural human behavior. Please stop bringing up the pre-modern man as this wonderful "evidence" that we can live without any sort of hierarchy.

No...that is not what a police department is. The police department is an armed, externalized body that exerts rules over the populace.
How is it an externalized body? We both know someone from our high school class that became a cop. My cousin's boyfriend is a cop. A police department forms itself to protect those who play by the rules from those who don't. Any anarchist society would form a similar body.

It is the nature of the state, or rather it is the nature of hierarchical institutions in general, to extend rule OVER their constituency rather than to truly serve this constituency. I think this is a basic fact of social institutions that are in this way "cut off" from the populace at large.
You think it is a "basic fact" when actually it is an assertion that only makes sense when I buy your premises, which I, and most of us, don't. I think our hierarchical society serves society as a whole. If my house catches on fire, people come to put the fire out. If someone steals my shit, I get it back. How is that not serving constituents. If the police were actually in the business of stealing my shit, then I'd have to agree with you. But they aren't.

With more widespread appeal, factory OCCUPATIONS will become more worthwhile.
A factory occupation is a futile attempt to control something that cannot be controlled: the flow of capital. The only factories that get "occupied" are old out-of-date facilities that need to be scrapped anyway.

-------------------

Here is the problem with anarchists: they seem to have an irrational aversion to hierarchy. While most people would agree that too much hierarchy is bad, most normal people would also agree that to achieve a stable society, you have to follow a certain minimum set of rules that are adhered to by everyone. It's for our own good that we aren't allowed to steal someone else's car, because some people given the chance would do exactly that. Without a specific value structure in place to teach people how to live in a large society, people would revert to animal/tribal behavior and nothing would ever get done. Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time). Without hierarchy there would be no modern society. That's what modern society IS - Hierarchy. Without it, we'd have no computers, cars, or internet. All these things get built by regular people playing by the rules, not by disparate small groups of anarchists opposed to any sort of "hierarchy."

What anarchists seem to not realize is that in the real world, like in business and research, most everything is done in a team (not a hierarchical command line). Business has already figured out that strict hierarchies are NOT efficient. What works is to group people together into teams and then let them solve problems with their innate creativity.

An anarchist looks at only the most "official" institutions of society (police) and quickly determines that there is "too much" hierarchy today and that things would be much better off if nobody was ever told what to do ever. Well, sorry, but that is just not true. And it won't become more true just by "wishing" it was. The real world is out there, they just don't want to see it. They stop their analysis at the security guard at the back door, not realizing that just inside there is a team of people working on something in a completely non-hierarchical way. And further, they don't see that it's because of the security guard that those people can continue to work away on that cure for cancer or that new green building.

I also think the anarchist builds up a perfectionistic view of man. They have an ideal of man that says we are altruistic, non-violent, and non-competetive. In reality, people are very competetive. And we are altruistic to a certain degree, but not before we get the resources we need. And also, individual people are DIFFERENT. Some people are great at coming up with ideas about how to make things. But sometimes these same people suck at gathering together all the right people to make it into reality. That's why at a building site you have a bunch of workers who know the mechanical stuff, and then project managers who know all the contractors and have the big picture stuff all figured out.

There is a REAL distinction between people, that sets apart managers, scientists, mechanics, executives, etc. People have different personality types. This necessitates hierarchy because not everybody can do everything. Big, complex jobs require an interplay of people and a degree of organization. Often this role is assumed by the "organizers" and I'm glad we have them (I'm not one of them, that's for sure).

I don't mind being told what to do by someone if they share the same goal as I do. And in a modern hierarchical society, everyone does share the same goals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

And I'm sure the anarchists are thinking right now, "He just doesn't get it." But let me tell you, I get it. I've read through the entire Anarchist FAQ and at one time considered myself an anarchist.

But then I discovered people, and the many ways in which they differ from one and other. My message to anyone that is an anarchist is that life is messy. People aren't all alike. We need structure and order to be able to accomplish great things.

Don't ASSUME that the people giving the orders have different values than those taking the orders.

Don't ASSUME that it's always the same people giving the orders. We are all in command in some part of our lives.

Don't ASSUME that hierarchy is something to be avoided. It is natural, and it works when all actors have shared values.
 
Last edited:
^Woa that was trippy. As I was reading that I was thinking some like "it seems like this guy is having more of an argument with himself, like he has a split anarchist//non-anarchist persona and he thinks that EVERY anarchist has the same generalized perspective and viewpoint as him." and BAM one time you yourself were an anarchist.
I could understand your criticisms if you were talking about someone who believed in anarchist idealogies, and anarchist ideologies ALONE. But do you have to reject them ALL because it was a part of your past? I think anarchism has a lot too offer, and a lot that does sound quite a bit like a fantasy.
Lack of hierarchal CONTROL does NOT mean imply we as parents would lose our ability to teach our children how to behave correctly as a society or revert to animalistic behaviour. I think SOME people would use the situation to their own sinister advantage however. A lot of our society is actually quite degrading to the development of our psyche. And I can't really provide specifics results this is just what I've seen throughout my life and in others', so I guess that's kind of void.

Amebix said:
indigenous cultures.
You aim high don't you? Burning all the corporate buildings and now convincing everyone to live as people of looooong ago did. ;)
 
jam uh weezy said:
^Woa that was trippy. As I was reading that I was thinking some like "it seems like this guy is having more of an argument with himself, like he has a split anarchist//non-anarchist persona and he thinks that EVERY anarchist has the same generalized perspective and viewpoint as him." and BAM one time you yourself were an anarchist.
I could understand your criticisms if you were talking about someone who believed in anarchist idealogies, and anarchist ideologies ALONE. But do you have to reject them ALL because it was a part of your past? I think anarchism has a lot too offer, and a lot that does sound quite a bit like a fantasy.
Lack of hierarchal CONTROL does NOT mean imply we as parents would lose our ability to teach our children how to behave correctly as a society or revert to animalistic behaviour. I think SOME people would use the situation to their own sinister advantage however. A lot of our society is actually quite degrading to the development of our psyche. And I can't really provide specifics results this is just what I've seen throughout my life and in others', so I guess that's kind of void.


You aim high don't you? Burning all the corporate buildings and now convincing everyone to live as people of looooong ago did. ;)


Rather than make judgement calls about his character why not respond to the points he was making? They seem like damned good points to me.
 
protovack said:
The idea that there was "no coercion" in paleolithic society is laughable. There is always coercion, even if it is the weather determining where you go to find food or water. Thus the hierarchy was that nature was above man. I would bet that in these paleolithic tribes, there was a man who was in command of where they went, and what they did when trouble erupted. This is natural human behavior. Please stop bringing up the pre-modern man as this wonderful "evidence" that we can live without any sort of hierarchy.

How is it an externalized body? We both know someone from our high school class that became a cop. My cousin's boyfriend is a cop. A police department forms itself to protect those who play by the rules from those who don't. Any anarchist society would form a similar body.

You think it is a "basic fact" when actually it is an assertion that only makes sense when I buy your premises, which I, and most of us, don't. I think our hierarchical society serves society as a whole. If my house catches on fire, people come to put the fire out. If someone steals my shit, I get it back. How is that not serving constituents. If the police were actually in the business of stealing my shit, then I'd have to agree with you. But they aren't.

A factory occupation is a futile attempt to control something that cannot be controlled: the flow of capital. The only factories that get "occupied" are old out-of-date facilities that need to be scrapped anyway.

-------------------

Here is the problem with anarchists: they seem to have an irrational aversion to hierarchy. While most people would agree that too much hierarchy is bad, most normal people would also agree that to achieve a stable society, you have to follow a certain minimum set of rules that are adhered to by everyone. It's for our own good that we aren't allowed to steal someone else's car, because some people given the chance would do exactly that. Without a specific value structure in place to teach people how to live in a large society, people would revert to animal/tribal behavior and nothing would ever get done. Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time). Without hierarchy there would be no modern society. That's what modern society IS - Hierarchy. Without it, we'd have no computers, cars, or internet. All these things get built by regular people playing by the rules, not by disparate small groups of anarchists opposed to any sort of "hierarchy."

What anarchists seem to not realize is that in the real world, like in business and research, most everything is done in a team (not a hierarchical command line). Business has already figured out that strict hierarchies are NOT efficient. What works is to group people together into teams and then let them solve problems with their innate creativity.

An anarchist looks at only the most "official" institutions of society (police) and quickly determines that there is "too much" hierarchy today and that things would be much better off if nobody was ever told what to do ever. Well, sorry, but that is just not true. And it won't become more true just by "wishing" it was. The real world is out there, they just don't want to see it. They stop their analysis at the security guard at the back door, not realizing that just inside there is a team of people working on something in a completely non-hierarchical way. And further, they don't see that it's because of the security guard that those people can continue to work away on that cure for cancer or that new green building.

I also think the anarchist builds up a perfectionistic view of man. They have an ideal of man that says we are altruistic, non-violent, and non-competetive. In reality, people are very competetive. And we are altruistic to a certain degree, but not before we get the resources we need. And also, individual people are DIFFERENT. Some people are great at coming up with ideas about how to make things. But sometimes these same people suck at gathering together all the right people to make it into reality. That's why at a building site you have a bunch of workers who know the mechanical stuff, and then project managers who know all the contractors and have the big picture stuff all figured out.

There is a REAL distinction between people, that sets apart managers, scientists, mechanics, executives, etc. People have different personality types. This necessitates hierarchy because not everybody can do everything. Big, complex jobs require an interplay of people and a degree of organization. Often this role is assumed by the "organizers" and I'm glad we have them (I'm not one of them, that's for sure).

I don't mind being told what to do by someone if they share the same goal as I do. And in a modern hierarchical society, everyone does share the same goals (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

And I'm sure the anarchists are thinking right now, "He just doesn't get it." But let me tell you, I get it. I've read through the entire Anarchist FAQ and at one time considered myself an anarchist.

But then I discovered people, and the many ways in which they differ from one and other. My message to anyone that is an anarchist is that life is messy. People aren't all alike. We need structure and order to be able to accomplish great things.

Don't ASSUME that the people giving the orders have different values than those taking the orders.

Don't ASSUME that it's always the same people giving the orders. We are all in command in some part of our lives.

Don't ASSUME that hierarchy is something to be avoided. It is natural, and it works when all actors have shared values.

Look i think your mistaking heirarchy for organization. Noone said that in this perfect anarchy land that noone would ever have to listen to anyone or do anything they didnt want to. Of course people would have to do things they dont necessarily want to do to ensure their survival, thats natural. Here, let me change one of your sentances for better understanding of what im trying to say.

There is a REAL distinction between people, that sets apart managers, scientists, mechanics, executives, etc. People have different personality types. This necessitates ORGANIZATION because not everybody can do everything.

See what im trying to say? Do we need ginormous gaps between rich and poor, where, you guessed it, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The people on the top have shown countless time that they willing to lie, murder and steal to stay there. Do we really need that? The rich just wanna stay rich. They dont care about us, or anything for that matter. This planet, you. Nothing. Well maybe themselves....

Participatory democracy is a process emphasizing the broad involvement of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems.

That sounds nice...
 
jam uh weezy said:
You aim high don't you? Burning all the corporate buildings and now convincing everyone to live as people of looooong ago did. ;)

Shows theres a better way.
 
It's for our own good that we aren't allowed to steal someone else's car, because some people given the chance would do exactly that. Without a specific value structure in place to teach people how to live in a large society, people would revert to animal/tribal behavior and nothing would ever get done. Or they'd kill each other (which does happen even today between primitive tribes, or just look at any premodern tribal system - it is war all the time).

Oh yeah just for your information, cause you seem to think we live in a crime free society, the stuff you described happens every day. Our culture is founded on murder and theft.
 
Top