Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

reasons why people say anarchism could never work

Page 2 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Feb 2012, 3:54 pm

Tbh, any formulation of 'anarchism' I've seen has been juvenile nonsense. If you can't understand the current system then demolishing it doesn't stop a new system you don't like emerging, and if you stop emergent systems then you're talking about authoritarianism - maybe where the authorities begin as your friends rather than distant governments, but it's hopelessly naive expecting that to be stable.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

01 Feb 2012, 3:55 pm

JWC wrote:
peebo wrote:
well for an anarchist community to function as an anarchist community would require mutual consent. if the members of a community mutually consented to decisions made within it, it's unlikely a group of them would want to get together and set up a monetary system or a corporation. however there is much discussion of enforcement in anarchism, you should look it up.


Is mutual consent a reasonable expectation among any group of people? I have yet to meet any two people who can agree completely on anything. Who will arbitrate disagreements?


the people. different variants of anarchism propose different means of decision making.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Feb 2012, 4:00 pm

Well, Communism doesn't work because most people aren't autistic. The regulating authorities would be corrupt.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

01 Feb 2012, 4:01 pm

peebo wrote:
JWC wrote:
peebo wrote:
well for an anarchist community to function as an anarchist community would require mutual consent. if the members of a community mutually consented to decisions made within it, it's unlikely a group of them would want to get together and set up a monetary system or a corporation. however there is much discussion of enforcement in anarchism, you should look it up.


Is mutual consent a reasonable expectation among any group of people? I have yet to meet any two people who can agree completely on anything. Who will arbitrate disagreements?


the people. different variants of anarchism propose different means of decision making.


What does the variant you support propose?



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

01 Feb 2012, 4:03 pm

fraac wrote:
Well, Communism doesn't work because most people aren't autistic. The regulating authorities would be corrupt.


communism rejects authority.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Feb 2012, 4:04 pm

peebo wrote:
fraac wrote:
Well, Communism doesn't work because most people aren't autistic. The regulating authorities would be corrupt.


communism rejects authority.


Hence the reason 'communism' did not work in Soviet Russia......can't have a ruling class or that f**ks it up.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

01 Feb 2012, 4:05 pm

fraac wrote:
Tbh, any formulation of 'anarchism' I've seen has been juvenile nonsense. If you can't understand the current system then demolishing it doesn't stop a new system you don't like emerging, and if you stop emergent systems then you're talking about authoritarianism - maybe where the authorities begin as your friends rather than distant governments, but it's hopelessly naive expecting that to be stable.


i think it would be imprudent to label someone such as noam chomsky, for instance, as juvenile and nonsensical, whether you agree with his outlook or not.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Feb 2012, 4:23 pm

I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Feb 2012, 4:28 pm

fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Feb 2012, 4:35 pm

That's my point. How do you create Platonic Communism without it becoming the human version of Communism?



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

01 Feb 2012, 4:38 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.
Oh right it hasn't been tried yet. Or maybe it was tried plenty of times and left a power vacuum for the state to fill.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Feb 2012, 4:41 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.
Oh right it hasn't been tried yet. Or maybe it was tried plenty of times and left a power vacuum for the state to fill.


a way around that would have to be found, but it would take quite some time and the way society has conditioned people to behave would take quite some time to ever be overturned on a large scale.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

01 Feb 2012, 4:50 pm

Regulators aren't corrupt because society conditioned them. They're corrupt because they're nonautistic humans. They'll always be selfish, shortsighted, petty and spiteful.

Only way it would work is with a single powerful (autistic) ruler. A Hitler figure, if you will.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

01 Feb 2012, 5:07 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.
Oh right it hasn't been tried yet. Or maybe it was tried plenty of times and left a power vacuum for the state to fill.


a way around that would have to be found, but it would take quite some time and the way society has conditioned people to behave would take quite some time to ever be overturned on a large scale.
Like what? You really need to stop being so vague. Also if everyone else has to make it work, then it won't work because it fails to address the liabilities of people working against the system.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

01 Feb 2012, 5:31 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
fraac wrote:
I labelled the formulations of anarchism that I've seen, not Noam Chomsky. I always like to be sufficiently specific.

'Communism rejects authority'... but you said 'no individual has the right to coerce another' and 'anarchism generally holds that a set of rules...' and 'capital would be held in common ownership'. Those all imply an authority to stop unwanted things happening. Also, ACTUAL HISTORY, where Communism didn't work because the regulators weren't autistic so considered themselves a privileged class. How do you argue against actual history that shows the failings of a system designed to control human nature?


See none of those examples in history are actually Communism....communism by default cannot have any sort of ruling class, that would defeat the purpose of communism.


You are correct, but the issue is that Communism will always fall to human nature. It is hard-coded in to the majority to be better than others, the competitive drive.

It's a crying shame, because aside from that Communism is an amazing system that could achieve so much, if it wasn't for human beings.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


artrat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,269
Location: The Butthole of the American Empire

01 Feb 2012, 9:39 pm

It can't work because of human nature and mental illnesses such as sociopathy and schizophrenia.
I once thought that a similar philosophy may work but then I grew up. Anarchy is noting more than a Utopian dream that can never work because of human nature.

If it ever would work then many people would die in the process of achieving anarchy. That would mean a bloody world revolution.
It would be impossible to have an anarchist nation without the participation of the entire world.


_________________
?During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~George Orwell

"I belive in God, only I spell it Nature."
~ Frank Llyod Wright