It's hard.
Because He is my friend and I don't want to upset or offend him by telling him his political philosophy is moronic.
But.
His political philosophy is moronic.
© DrownedinSound.com | From the Archive - Songsmith for a culture fragmented: Simon Breed dissects future critique
My dad used to hang out with anarchists in the 70s
but they used to come round and eat all his bread so he realised maybe anarchism wasn't for a man who likes his bread to be left alone
Not his bread!
unforgivable.
He spent all his money on records so he had to eat on the cheap
reminds me of Jaroslav Hasek
joining an anarchist group then bartering the office bicycle of beer :D
does he really live it
and understand his stance properly?
Or is it one of those phases of youthful "rebellion"?
^ if its the first then i dont see how you could have a problem with it
its not any less valid than other philosophies really is it?
UUUUUUUuuuummm, yes.
It is less valid.
expand, or do what you usually do
and when challenged, dont respond.
Zing!
haha, CG fail
no idea
well how can you call it moronic then!
well
because whether he holds strongly held convictions or not, it's still a moronic political philosophy.
Not that hard...
oh i misunderstood your reply
i thought you were responding to my statement that its not really worse than any other philosophy. nevermind
I thought that too!
curse this stupid indent system
I think I might have accidentally replied
in the wrong place.
I've got out the set square
and it looks like you did reply in the right place.
Yeah
There are lots of thoughtful proponents of anarcho-related political philosophies, Chomsky for one. I'd hardly call his positions moronic.
i would.
linguistics people are dumb lol
what does being an anarchist
involve?
BEING AN ANTICHRISTTTTAAAAHHH
Molotov cocktails
and denim jackets.
Sounds sexual
His political philosophy is moronic.
Particular if hypocrisy becomes involved (for example anarchists who don't work 'cos they don't want to support the system but are happy to use the wlefare state).
Actually it's not fair to say all anarchists are morons.
Most anarchists are though.
most people who call themselves 'anarchist' might be
although i wouldnt say most anyway. but the philosophy itself isnt moronic
Yes it is.
well done
yeah
well, i wouldn't normally agree with chilcheguevara, but he's right. anarchy in a 'developed' economic nation would be terrible.
i suppose more people would care about the social aspects, but the bigger effects would come from unregulated markets, monopolies, etc. laws have been put in place to protect people (such as minimum wage, maximum length of a working day), and have been fought for for a hugely long time and protect us from all kinds of abuses.
basically, anarchy would suck. democracy is better.
Exactly
Although the social aspects aren't great either.
Laws exist for a reason and they're often to protect vulnerable people. Under an anarchist system people could treat children/old people/very disabled people however they chose with no rules or laws to protect them. Rape, robbery and murders would be more frequent with no proection of the law and it would create a society where whoever punches hardest gets what they want.
So basically my view of anarachists
is that they tend to be either
a) misguided and naive people who don't really understand the importance social structures.
b) People who want a moral justification for the fact they don't want to get a job
or
c) People who actually want a world that I really wouldn't want to live in.
no because anarchy
suggest that peoples greed and whatever means that laws are required come from the capitalist democratic system that we live under. im not saying its right, but im not writing it off as moronic.
Which is precisely why it's moronic.
Capitalism Democracy has existed since the mid-18th century at its earliest (before that were Feudalism, Despotism and varios other systems. Laws to prevent greed have existed pre-date Capitalist Democracy by years.
Anyone who believes that greed is a product of capitalist democracy is bascially choosing to ignore all available evidence to the contrary and it is argubaly justifiable to call them a moron.
Nah
The whole point of anarchist systems is that different mechanisms protect people.
Anarchism =/= lack of order
Plus worries about rampant capitalism are pretty meaningless - if you're an anarchist that doesn't believe in private property, then there is no market or capitalism to go rampant. If you're an anarcho-capitalist, many of capitalism's (in its current form) problems stem from disenfranchisement by government being centralised away from populations. If you have more immediate control over resources than it provides inbuilt checks and balances to replace competition laws.
I feel there are a lot of people here talking about simply a society with no rules, rather than a completely different organisational structure, but then it's not as if anarchism has been popular or studied in depth by lots of people for decades (over a century, really). When 'anarchism' gets conflated with the popular conception of 'anarchy' it's bound to cause misunderstanding.
^ This
Anarchism isnt a homogenous political philosophy. Thats like saying every kind of conservative is the same, when we all know there are varying degrees, and of course there are varying degrees of anarchism. Before Im grossly misunderstood, I dont have much time for anarchism, but to use what you think is a roughly suitable definition of the term and to extrapolate that as all their is to anarchist philosophy is actually quite moronic. Also, I wouldnt be so audacious to write off the amazing things that happened in Spain during the revolution as "moronic".
Very much so
Those Spaniards were doing some highly effective worthwhile and interesting things before those fascists took over.
Its actually
quite depressing to see how easily people shut themselves off from information. Its quite easily accessible and available to them, and many of the arguments I have read in this thread are simply worthless. Lots of people seem to be arguing from a basis of seeming intuition, using vague dictionary definitions mixed with homespun wisdom to completely destroy (in their minds) any positive learning they could be doing. Its more than fine not to agree with anarchism, I dont agree with it, but at least read about it and dont throw around terms like "moronic". Its unbearably smug.
Excellent Post
I still feel anarchism is based on a naive view of human nature.
I'm far from being soeone who takes a dystopian viewpoint but I think anarchism (along with Marxism) fall down in the same place - which is that as long as everyone's essentially selfless and altruistic the system's fine but they don't have appropriate means for dealing with selfish or self-interested behaviour and, as such, can only function as an ideal rather than as a practicla workable society.
Ultimately it's not capitalism and existing political systems that have shaped human nature but human nature that's shaped capitalism and existing political systems.
But if you have a system whereby the people grow up with a complete
abscence of greed and concept of looking out for themselves, they have no oppertunity to be selfish. You are looking at everything as if it has come from a revoloution, rather than just the system existing and working.
But early humans didn't have that and they developed it.
Ultimately what would happen in an anarchic state is the removla of the centralised state would lead to someone filling the vacuum.
but surely thats an issue you have not with the principles of anarchism itself?
just how it might work
But the point is I don't think it could work in practice.
Which I'd argue is a fundamental flaw in the principles.
It's an ideology I like it many ways and I can see why people believe in it but I honestly don't think it's a system that either could want in practice or that I'd want to happen.
Yeah i understand that totally
but given the current failings in the system, an alternative one that is equally flawed is hardly more moronic is it?
I don't believe for a second it'd be equally flawed.
I think it would be far, far, far more so.
well thats your take on it
i dont know enough about it to know for sure how flawed it would be, but i maintain its not moronic to agree with the philosopy.
As I've already acknowledged.
^
a last word competition?
No
;(
Not every kind of anarchism does contend that, though
Only really the more classical, 19th century ones do, "property is theft," and so on. And even then it's not essential.
And Marx certainly didn't think people were essentially selfless, or capable of existing in such a society.
All "anarchism" denotes is a society which does not have a centralised state. What else follows from that depends on a huge number of moral and economic beliefs which are just as varied as those in the state-based liberal, conservative, fascist, etc systems.
Just to be clear I'm not disputing there are different kinds of anarchism*
but at the same time I do maintain the majority of anarachists I've met (whcih isn't a small number) do not have an intelligent well-reasoned and cohesive ideology.
That's not to say anarachists can't and I'm sure some do, I'm only speaking of my own personal experience of anarchists.
*although I would query whether in some cases they stray too far from its original ideology to be classed as anarchism
PS I don't really think it's moronic - I was just adopting the word Fullerov used.
i would think if its is a person that claims to be anarchist
but has no real idea about any of the principles, yeah you could call them a moron. But if someone clases themselves as an anarchist and can fully explain their beliefs, it would be hard to call them moronic.
Precisely.
agree with everything posted here
all people, whether they choose to admit it are not are to some degree selfish. It is part of human nature, and a part of human nature that renders communism (i don't have enough of a knowledge of anarchism to comment, but i expect that it applies to it as well) idealistic and ulitmately unworkable.
sorry, this was to theguywithno username
although the above one is good as well.
yeah but anarchists argue that this selfishness
is not ingrained in the human nature, more that various systems instill it in people. all people are selfish now, but if there is an abscence of personal property, how could you be selfish?
Animals can be selfish
and they don't have personal property.
I'm aware many anarchists argue that systems ingrain it on people but I fear they're wrong about that.
I guess that is a sticking point!
i definately think there is a degree of truth in it though. There is no doubt in my mind that consumerism, and the need to have loads of possessions is ingrained by society a great deal.
your post assumes that selfishness stems from material things only
which while you probably didn't mean it in that way, i will challenge it anyway.
people will always make selfish choices, even in the absence of material gain. It may include trying to improve ones social status, recognition or even, taking it to a baser level, sexual conquest.
but even stuff like that is combated by an anarchist community
social status would be less relevant, and whilst i agree that personal possessions is not the only thing people can be selfish about, its probably the most obvious one. I dont know how anarchism would deal with other aspects of selfishness, so i wont pretend i do!
good post
good answer
the one about private property is especially important, i think. i was going to continue, but i've decided not to go any deeper.
whether its discussions of anarchy, liberal communism, libertarianism (etc), a lot of the arguments for and against have been played out so many times that very rarely are new points made.
at their best, they are all systems that could lead to a fairer, freer society. at their worst: highly manipulable systems, whether via authoritarian or corporatist interests (depending on the system)
the easiest thing to say about politics is that our democracy doesn't work a lot of the time, and we do not inhabit a very free or fair society. hence why people continue to discuss these things. but that is obvious....
^
urgh. that makes me sound so apathetic. i'm not...
i dont disagree with the belief in democracy
but i think to call anarchism moronic is stupid. its proven to work in small communities, and the fact is no one can really say it wouldnt work as it is a complete departure to any system we have at the moment. i think as a theory there is little wrong with it, just dunno how it would work in practise. that doesnt mean i can call it moronic
I can say "it wouldn't work".
And I'd be right.
I'm not sure what your experience is of small anarchist communities but, in my experience, they aren't any nicer or better-run places than non-anarchist communities. The same amounts of bullying, backstabbing and even bureaucracy have been in place in the anarchist communities I've experienced as to outside of them and perhaps they've been even worse.
yeah but thats not a problem with the philosophy
its the application of it. and you could say it wouldnt work, but you wouldnt know, and just because it might not work, doesnt mean someone who beleives in it is a moron? im sure they could put forward valid points to explain how our system isnt too great either.
But it's the application were discussing.
I mean a philosophy's fine but I thought your point was about how it'd work in practice and my experience is that, even in small communities, I've never seen it work effectively and I don't beleive it would work in wider practice.
No i dont actually believe it would work on large scales
but as a philosophy i think a lot of it is interesting, and often sensible. I was just trying to say a belief in anarchism isnt moronic.
As I say below
I don't actually think a belief in a form of anarchist system is moronic but vague non-specfic anarchism I do find a little silly* and disturbingly common place.
*I wouldn't have used the word moronic if it hadn't been the word in the original post and thus the 'theme' of the thread.
Yeah
i see your point, but i think defining yourself as having a particular set of beliefs without fully understand what you mean is moronic, whatever philosophy it is.
Of course.
yeah
thats fine, and i agree it can work in small societies where people share concepts of social values. thats basically a commune, and would be ideal/amazing to live that kind of life - some people have done / still do.
the problem is when that is applied to a larger, 'developed' systems, where people are alienated by age, distance, class, etc. i don't think social systems that are full of alienating gaps could function anarchistically (such as are in our urban spaces).
poorly written ^
fair enough
and i woudlnt disagree with you, but i dont think anarchism, if used in its correct context- as people have pointed about above- is moronic.
It isn't
I was just being needlesly provocative. I still maintain it's impractical though.
Yeah i would agree with you
and thanks for admitting you was just winding me up :)
It probably is impractical, but i maintain that our current system is far from perfect. As it is, political systems can sound good in theory, but are undermined.
Just to clarify
when I did say "most anarchists are morons" I was really referring to a specific group of people that call themsleves 'anarchists' (in a vague-unspecified sense) rather than people who subscribe to specific political systems rooted in anarchism who I may disagree with but I don't think are morons.
suuureee you were
I was
They really, really annoy me.
I mean if I'm honest I was ignoring the existence of the more intelligent anarchist philosophies rather than discounting them bt nonetheless I was still referring to the vague-unspecified anarchists.
No i know you were
i think we have reached a fair agreement really
people who wear Anarchist badges because they heard a sex pistols song once
annoy me more than anything. My friends got me a Punk Badges set from HMV for my birthday this year as a joke, possibly the wost thing ever.
My dad was in the anarchist club at uni
they had one meeting and decided a meeting was against the principle of anarchy. They disbanded.
True story.
^That's brilliant.
:) excellent
I don't want to call you a liar
Either it's true or my dad's lying.
I suspect it is true, but that someone said "hey gregor the anarchists are meeting. They're at the pub, do you want to come?" and my dad only heard the last sentence.
He's not a liar -
his dad is.
Thats an old one isnt it?
that sounds a lot like
the Bill Hicks gag about the People Who Hate People Party having a tough time getting a meeting together.
Or the Workaholics Anonymous meeting
that in the end couldn't be scheduled.
well
I'm against picketing.
But how to show that?
I agree
Considering what an annoying moron he is, he should be far more hatable, yet i find myself wanting to be on good terms with him.....can you ...like your enemy?
can a liberal tolerate the intolerable
intollerant?
I hate myself for sometimes liking him
or for wanting to be his freind. Im in denial.
who?
cg of course
I didnt reply about anarchy cos as a concept or word it was formed as against existing political/social models. The word or nomenclature would not exist in their absence (only a really true hardcore anarchist would deny the very description, or choose not to debate it)
Anarchy and discussions about it (in the pure 'non-movement' sense) would not be entered into by a true true anarchist, hence nihilism tends to more describe peoples tendancies or demeanor
the love that dare not
speak its name?
there are some parts of anarchism
that would probably work well in an economically developed society
not all of them though
but it's hardly moronic...
In my opinion...it is
Anarchy that is.
yeah
it would work well according to an economic measuring stick. but that is because anarchistic* economy also = ultimate free market environment.
(*in the send of fully ungoverned)
thjat isnt anarchy is it though
because if you enter into that system thinking its a good idea, then thats because YOU can see benefit from it....it is not an entirely natural untainted pure system, it never can be because its mechanisms need to be operated maintained by humans who are NOT forces of natural anarchistic nature, they are not objective, you cannot geet a pure system like this because the initial operators of the mechanisms will be subjectiuve and the mechanisms will introduce certain unatural quirks and oddities. ity would not be anarchy.....Mammon would be dictating
even if you are not envisaging a universally centralised market
then that is not anarchy and if it is not centralised an uniform then trading/markets would be uneven and clumped or not at all (this is more realistically anarchistic) imo but i am being a purist
well yeah
but the post i replied to said 'some parts of anarchy'. the only people pushing for 'some parts' of an 'anarchic' system (as far as i know) are liberal economists...
but this relies on smudged definitions of anarchy, and what the 'parts' of it would be. but of course you couldn't have 'some parts' of anarchism.
so you're right. but so am i, in the context above.
Indeed: see also political realists
who utilise a conception of anarchy to justify aggression/resource acquisition.
indeed indeed
but then they quickly backtrack on the idea of anarchy in other areas, therefor this is not anarchy in any degree, it is a ruse/technique to enable them, to carry out what they want to, to get to their specific ends.
Or to be more specific, it is called upon to remove the bar, of (chosen) rules from another party or org, that prevents their progress to doing something specific.
yes you are right in that context
the thing is that anarchism
is a very broad definition and means too many different things to dismiss it all as moronic. Most people who define themselves with some rigid political ideology (as they define it) which they probably don't understand properly are moronic though.
^ agreed
If someone specifies that they believe in Anarcho-Capitalism for example, I wouldn't agree with them, but I wouldn't regard them as moronic.
If someone just says Anarchism though....
i have a friend who calls herself an 'anarcho-punk'
what do you make of that
she likes crass?
i dunno
she almost exclusively listens to hardcore and posthardcore so maybe
ive never really figured out what the 'punk' bit denotes in her political philosophy though...
no idea
but anarcho-punk refers to all those bands... so she might just have a mohawk and think anarchism is good?
ahh, maybe
she's done the whole living on a commune in australia bit, and is quite stridently and admirably anarchist in her views. hmmm.
I think i might have been described as that at one time.
i wasnt really though, i was just me
did you ever work out what the
'punk' bit meant?
well there is the music which kind of
fits a bit better than corporate stuff.
innit
anarcho punk agit prop seems to seem to be often used too.
Crass. Dead Kennedies.
I also liked New Model Army, rather than anarchism though, they like me are looking backwards to a time when peoples attitudes mayube hadnt all been quite so subjugatesd and perverted (well their name does) so again its a kind of idealism like anarchy.
I thought that Chumbawumbas most powerful record was actuall something many gentle folk would also like. a lovely little mini albumn 'English Rebel songs' its nice cos it tries to encourage people not to have guilt about being british....the british were also oppressed by british government first as well. Like there is loads of sh*t you havnt been taught at school so in a way it is (like one of their songs) like the world is upside down...which is like a kind of anarchy (I was alagorising that learning is upside down) the original idea of a world upside down was like the idea there was a social contract....cos hard work was not rewarded with even a living without extreme hunger, yet rich 'lauded' and 'praised' gentle folk who did bugger all swanned around doing bugger all and getting loads for nothing...merely their position......considering people were preached at by the bible about hard work n dilligence n frugel ness n being temporate this looked like madness when the church would support the gentry, and if a father protested or tried to get food for his kids another way he would be punished by the nobs, supported by the church.......the idea that virtue was not rewarded here on earth and that seeming comparitive vice was, and at the same time the feckless lazy nobs also got praise and virtue applied to them 'by dint of their high birth (or a fortuitous marriage)
in some ways anarchy might just be calling a spade a spade.....this whole world does not fit in with our preached morality value system, so why follow rules if they are only to disadvantage you and do not reward the virtuous....why follow crap rules?
angry anarchy not happy hardcore
but how the mighty are fallen
apparently some daytime tv were going to talk to alice nutter later today, bout her play?
how are the mighty fallen indeed
Dead Kennedys werent really anarchists
more strong left wing.
Other anarcho punk bands beyond crass for people who might be interested...
Conflict
Flux Of Pink Indians
Rudimentary Peni
Subhumans
Citizen Fish
Aus-Rotten
Discharge
im not anything like an expert on this, but the above are all really good
yes but i think that the roots of
political anarchy do kind of have roots in social protests, which whilst possibly being tinged as left wing were basically anarchy in that they represented the breaking of rules that were imposed to continue the norm, which are seen in later years as left wing....yet to the people at the time were alos about the tyranny of rules stopping them, from protesting, or doing something about the awful unfairness of their lives at the time.
Hence before the ECW and the french reveolution and russion revolution were tolpuddle martyrs, levellers diggers chartists, all varied and across time, but examples of people who were oppressed by existing rules, they have been used as symbols by both the left wing and by anarchists of some hues. such history does not belong to the left exclusively.
Knocking a powerful and vocal fat cat on top of the pile who is likely top have got there by using the rules, can be both anarchist and or leftist. 'Rules used by powerful to oppress the masses' could be the driving force for both anarchists and leftists
OK, but now we are splitting hairs
the bands i listed above are more traditionally 'anarcho-punk'. Dont get me wrong though, i love Dead Kennedys.
yeah it wasn't responding to your question really
i was looking at a wider idea in my head.
PS communes are fun when you're young and exploring and indestructable, you should all definately try it before u get too old (assuming the hammer doesnt come down)
yeah fair enough
it sounds interesting though, how did you get involved with it?
stayed with a freind in her squat in camden
liked it so much i decided to myself, a couple of days later met a swedish punk called Kirsten, a cornishman who lived in offord rd in islington said there were houses there, so we went there the next night and found a big house, others moved in later.
To be more lyrical
some anarchist movements do have a common goal with some leftist movements.
i.e. ideally
'You charge the barricades, to get to the people on the other side'
not to 'get' to them to get revenge, but to be with them, cos it is the barricade that you should (ideally try to hate not the people separated from you by it)
yeah of course
i just was trying to make the point that the bands i was talking about were focused on being anarchist, whereas DKs were more just leftist in their attitudes. and the left wing tend to be crap at unifying historically
I used to welcome and love anarchy
in my everyday life.....like all you youngsters do.....I loved not knowing where I would sleep that night, or even if it was inside, or when or what id eat, or who id meet or what id do, but i wasnt scared then. Youth helps a lot, but i think it might also be a phase that you may go through and discover you like at some point, hence it also drives your political views, cos its like romantic innit. If you fall in love with soimething then you can tend to see the world through that or model how you see the world based on that that you love...it might be niave, but it seems a lot better than to interpret the world in any other way.
The problem is with all the famous anarchists.......well.....when its written down its all so proscriptive isnt it?
it's all been pretty well discussed above
so i would just sum up my viewpoint by saying that stating anarchy as being moronic is a moronic assertion in itself. it may be misguided and unworkable, but in the same way as communism has been written off as idealistic in its attempt to seek equality for all, surely anarchy is simply idealistic as well?
I'd agree with that.