• iolo
    171
    Experience, especially in the Ukraine and in Spain, seems to show that anarchy is impossible to achieve without an organised political party to hold people together and teach them about the past, but such parties either fail or turn deeply authoritarian in revolutionary crises. If you just stop obeying on a mass scale, they send in the bully-boys to kill a few of you and frighten the others. There seems to be a similar personal development over time - the two keenest anarchists I've known are appallingly authoritarian figures. Obviously, any kind of power of one person over others is obnoxious, but the best answer seems to be to co-operate as little as possible, always. Italy seems to me rather good at this, despite everything that has happened there.
  • Lif3r
    219
    yeah I have thought of that too and the best I have come up with is blockchain law, with ledgers and records. I dont even know how to conceptualize it.
  • Lif3r
    219
    what do you mean by cooperate as little as possible always?

    Isolation?
    Or do you mean defiance?
  • Lif3r
    219
    Ok so maybe it's a voting system, but instead of electoral college, it's built like a blockchain.

    A blockchain is basically a transfer of money from one person, to a public list of every transaction, and then to another person.

    What if it wasn't a transfer of money to a public list, but a transfer of information?

    What if you cast your vote from your phone, it uploads to a public list that you can verify your vote is yours with your registered number, and you can also verify anyone in your community if they give you their number? Then it is transparent to the degree that you can prove your individual vote and the votes of others. And then instead of the electoral college making the decisions it can actually be the people.
  • Pfhorrest
    592
    So it’s just a method to implement a direct democracy?

    What about all the problems with direct democracies, or the problems they just don’t solve?
  • Lif3r
    219
    yeah I dont know anything about that, I have just always been skeptical of the electoral college system
  • Lif3r
    219
    Like I said, this is an idea and I don't really know what I mean by it. Basically what I am trying to do is limit human fallibility in the system that is in play by implementing something new into the mix.
  • Lif3r
    219
    Blockchain is designed to decentralize money. I like that. It takes part of the human out of the game and gives you honest organization of where your money actually is.

    I like the idea of doing the same with government somehow, at least I think removing much of the centralization could help if there is more accountability to honest distribution of information, voting or otherwise?
  • Gus Lamarch
    61
    yeah I have thought of that too and the best I have come up with is blockchain law, with ledgers and records. I dont even know how to conceptualize it.Lif3r

    We could come up with something in the near future to replace the "State". The problem is how to stop people of corrupting it, and how are we supposed to implement it on society nowadays. Some may call it "Anarcho-Capitalism" but this line of thought, in my view, is not the correct way, because as I already pointed out, Anarchism is, indeed, stupid.
  • Pfhorrest
    592
    Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism anyway because capitalism is hierarchical and so antithetical to anarchism.
  • Gus Lamarch
    61
    Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism anywayPfhorrest

    Oh my friend, but there is many people that still views it as an anarchist ideology...
  • Pfhorrest
    592
    Not anarchists though.
  • Gus Lamarch
    61
    Not anarchists though.Pfhorrest

    I'm not disagreeing with you on this one.
  • iolo
    171


    Never ever volunteer, never rush to obey the bosses, always express extreme scepticism, make fun of the mugs who believe in the system - stuff like that.
  • ovdtogt
    378
    Blind obedience is stupid. Blind dis-obedience is also stupid. Anarchy is 'well-considered) dis-obedience.
  • Lif3r
    219
    Well at least we agree on something.
  • iolo
    171
    I'm baffled. Why should I obey anyone?
  • ovdtogt
    378
    Why should I obey anyone?iolo

    You don't know why you should obey the rules (not made by you) that regulate traffic or society?
  • iolo
    171
    I don't 'obey' anything - I observe rules I think sensible.
  • ovdtogt
    378
    Observe, obey oh yes. let us quibble about semantics. Observe is what I do when I see 2 people arguing.
  • iolo
    171
    'Obey' is what you do when you allow someone to treat you as a trained dog. I'm not one of those. If they want me to obey, they'll need someone standing over me with a rifle all day, and there's no profit in that, or in shooting me. Why give inadequates power over you unless you have to?
  • ovdtogt
    378
    You are constantly obeying rules. You are just not aware of it because you agree with most of them. You have been pre-conditioned by your parents and teachers to obey societies rules without questioning them.
  • iolo
    171
    If I agree then I'm not obeying anything - I'm doing what I choose. What society are you talking about? Capitalism? The English occupiers here? It is easier to grin and bear this silliness, but I certainly don't 'obey' these clowns. In schools they used to teach you to respect them by hitting you on the arse with sticks. Happy days! I just developed a tough arse, and they couldn't kick me out because they wanted an Oxbridge scholarship out of me! :)
  • ovdtogt
    378
    The Op is "Anarchy is Stupid'

    The essence of Anarchy concerns dis-obeying. Perhaps you should just restrict your thoughts on that.
  • iolo
    171
    The point about Anarchy is that it is hard to achieve, and people are too easily persuaded into striking prematurely.. Compete disbelief in the bosses' propaganda is an essential start.
  • ovdtogt
    378
    Anarchy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Anarchy is the civil disobedience in an autocratic political system in order to achieve a (more) plural democracy.
  • iolo
    171
    Anarchy is an attempt to get bullying clowns off our backs. Governments are systems for allowing bullying and exploitation. There are further - economic - questions about how such idiocies could have developed, but I stick to the obvious.
  • ovdtogt
    378
    Governments are systems for allowing bullying and exploitation.iolo

    I live in a plural democracy. I have the ability to vote for who I believe best represents my values.

    ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

    Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
  • iolo
    171
    The point is that all forms of government stink. That's why anarchism exists. Do vote for whomever you please, if that's the way you like to pass the time: it will have very little influence on your capitalist masters. Churchill was the gangster who sent troops to Pontypridd in 1910, to scare the most Liberal working-class seat in Britain. That's why his Liberal Party soon disappeared as a serious force - they demonstrated just how much capitalist democracy was worth.
  • ovdtogt
    378
    As day follows night you will always have rulers. Try to make good out of bad situation.
    Anarchy is war.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.