Post by K+1 on Aug 15, 2014 13:35:18 GMT 2
What follows is a debate about Anarchy. One of my personalities had made a post, and this post was pretty benign, considering the vitriol that permeates South African News and Social Media. Yet we found it poignant and important to note that this was on our mind.
I would really like more discussions on this subject, as it is very important in this time that we live in.
You can comment below or use the Chaotic Front Chat Channel.
It begins with a Facebook status update:
Some radical Anarchists suggest dissolving the State apparatus before true governace can begin. I wouldn't stop them.
LikeLike • • Promote • Share
• Daz Matraz, C'de Anele and Thando Lwaphakade like this.
•
Paul Murphy What solvent do you suggest ?
12 August at 15:34 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard What functional counter-offer do these radical anarchists have? The anarchic view doesn't seem to account for the more animalistic attributes within the human psyche that need to be restrained with some semblance of order so that the whole clock can keep ticking. Do anarchists honestly believe that everyone will just hug and eat cheese cake after the state is dissolved?
12 August at 15:45 • Like • 1
•
Lemeul Garstang I am a firm believer in the Anarchy cause- I do however have a few concerns. I do not see an "Anarchist State" as a real possibilty at the moment. People in general are not yet mature enough. Without a government with "proper" laws- the strong willed will form a new system of power and the normal citizens will continue to suffer under opression. Is my logic flawed?
12 August at 15:45 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Also: "Before true governance can begin"? Isn't that statement inherently contradictory? How does any form of governace fit in with an anarchic world-view? Self-governance, perhaps? My question then would be: what happens when the myriad self-governing entities have to compete for resources? Who's sense of wholesome, anarchic propriety would they use to determine who gets what?
12 August at 16:14 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz @ Chris: You are robably one of thos that believe we need government to make roads for us and protect us from those "Violent thugs" out there. Mean while the government / state are the most murderous, villainous, thieving bastards. They rob and kill millions everyday, we should be more afraid of the government than the one or two humans with bad attitudes. Most people are inherently good and we can make our own roads. The police aren't there to protect us either, they're only there to ENFORCE the law.
12 August at 17:54 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard All governments rob and kill millions every day? Daz, come on, you can't really believe that. In any case, how can the collective government be held accountable in the way that you're implying? Are the clerical workers sneaking out to kill people on their lunch breaks? That's just a sweeping generalisation.
Bad people do bad things, whether they're in government or not. With governance, there is an agreed-upon sense of accountability and responsibility. Without an agreed-upon way of doing things every person gets to interpret the grey areas of morality as they suit them. How would there be any accountability in an anarchic society? What room would I have to resist someone spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere when there is no law to be enforced regarding environmental sustainability?
Can't you see that anarchy is poetic but grossly under-equipped to deal with the world and that it would obliterate itself the moment it took root, as per Lemeul's argument about the strong-willed? The moment you claim that common human values will suffice, you're implying society and thereby rules of common conduct. Ergo, no more anarchy.
12 August at 18:18 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz You can't be serious. Who's responsible for spewing green house gasses? Think about it....Corporation & Government, not humans. Who culled entire civilizations?Government. Who funds wars in Israel and Iraq and funded the Holocaust? Government. Who is responsible for genocides all over the world? Government / appointed leaders / the institution of governance. Am I wrong? This happens all over the world, all the time and people still believe that we need government. Who do we pay tax? GOVERNMENT. Why? BECAUSE. They're robbing us and the planet blind!
There wouldn't be all this shit if it wasn't for our fucking leaders, fascism, tax, corporation. If you believe in Democracy then you're also believing that your vote actually has any consequence. Trust me, you are being robbed and MILLIONS are being killed. The democratic government protects CORPORATIONS which are spewing oil into our oceans, causing wars, exploiting the poor, responsible for famine, robbing millions of their hard earned cash. If it wasn't for them we would lead way healthier lives and be wealthier and the world would be a more peaceful place. THIS IS OBVIOUS TO ME. Is everyone brainwashed?
12 August at 18:57 • Edited • Like
•
Daz Matraz Without our so called "Righteous Government" there would probably be more peace, less pollution, more equality and a general healthier lifestyle. There would be rules, natural order and we would make our own products, TAX FREE and earn the profit. We would make our own rules.
12 August at 18:59 • Unlike • 1
•
Daz Matraz The common misconception of Anarchy is that it's "disorder" and "romanticism". We don't need government, people survived for centuries without it and life was way better than it is now days. How do we implement anarchy? That's a good question.
12 August at 19:04 • Like
•
Daz Matraz It would work but it might be practically impossible to bring about.
12 August at 19:04 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Life was way better? What do you base that on? People dying of their teeth? Tribal wars? Regularly dying in childbirth? Your opinion is far too fueled with emotion and generalisation.
It is clear that you harbour very strong feelings of empathy and that human and wider ecological suffering is an issue that you hold close to your heart but you're just not looking at the wider issues.
If you're so keen on this system to topple, please provide a workable alternative. Watching everything burn so that we can guess about it then can't be your best bet, surely.
12 August at 19:06 • Like
•
Daz Matraz If we worked voluntarily worked and sold our services and products, there would be less greed as well and more accountability.
12 August at 19:07 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard You're making a lot of unsubstantiated and romantic claims for someone who claims to be speaking from a place of certainty and sobriety.
12 August at 19:07 • Like
•
Daz Matraz No, I have done my research brah
12 August at 19:08 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Ditto
12 August at 19:08 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz You're right it is kind of a romantic ideal but one that could and would work. It would be almost impossible to implement also but people all over the world are living sustainable lifestyles and proving that it can be done. If not on a large scale, at least for themselves.
12 August at 19:11 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard I can concede that point. I also think that a healthy dose of anti-establishment sentiment is good and necessary within one's mental array. We can't remain stagnant. We need antagonists to create the tension that drives transformation. My argument is simply: if an all-out dissolution of established governance is to be implemented, what alternative do we have to strive towards?
Democracy is far from great but it's better than the tribal fiefdoms and aristocracies that we had going. We need to work on a better, ecologically sound system. Our focus can't be a preoccupation with casting stones at something that doesn't work perfectly. Fix it or replace it. Don't just fuck it up even more.
12 August at 19:18 • Edited • Like
•
Rachel Parnassus Solomon "Who's responsible for spewing green house gasses? Think about it....Corporation & Government, not humans".:
Government and people are inextricable entities. Bad people running a government allows for deals made with other bad people running other governments. Government is not a 1-dimensional brickhouse devoid of humanity, rather made of people, some of which may be bad (because to be evil/selfish and to do bad things for individual prudence is as much in our nature as it is to be kind and do good things).
"We don't need government, people survived for centuries without it and life was way better than it is now days.":
Which stateless society are you referring to here? Most stateless societies that have existed have only done so for a short amount of time, after which have been taken up by governed societies around. And to counter a probable retort to this; No, they were not taken up because government is evil and want to crush the individualism and self-sufficiency of others. They were taken up because in most cases the ungoverned realized they needed something or other, or succumbed to the over-powering force that can be found in human nature's predisposition to self-destruct - NO MATTER THE SITUATION.
Oh, also, government is pretty much the oldest concept - like ever. Ever. Sometimes it works, sometimes is doesn't, but to be honest it's a complex structure of responsibility that needs to be shared between the leader of a government and the people who (if in a democratic state) have fallen under the spells of a fucking dog-and-pony magic show and elected a completely incompetent and selfish buffoon, and still hope to have their needs met.
Obviously there exist totalitarian regimes... which is another fuckin thing altogether.
Anyhhooooozer, I know your whole debate is over, just wanted to chime in on those points.
P.S Khaya's status spoke about true governance - true being key word. Honesty, transparency, judiciousness.
Peace out mothertruckers
12 August at 21:27 • Like • 1
•
Khaya Maseko I love this. This is going up on the Blog
12 August at 22:43 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Rachel, you had me up to your postscript. Khaya's status spoke about radical anarchists wanting to bring about true governance. The statement just seems self-contradictory. I can concede that true governance should be honest, fair and transparent but anarchy, because of its anti-governace sentiments, just can't achieve what these radicals are suggesting.
13 August at 06:13 • Like
•
Daz Matraz Rachel : For instance; the British monarchy only started in 1066, before then there were communities surviving on their own with rules and leaders that were appointed by the PEOPLE (That isn't too long ago if you consider how long humans have been around). There was way less war and tyranny than there is today, no tax and less environmental decay.
This debate has only started. If it isn't obvious to you what is and has been done to us by appointed government and leaders, then I despair. If you believe that we need these knobs to control us and keep us safe, I suppose that can be narrowed down to centuries of conditioning of human behaviour. You also seem to believe that humans cause greenhouse emissions!! You believe that corporations are run by people so they must be 'Friendly'. If you believe police are here to keep us safe, you have another thing coming. WRONG! Especially since they're trying to reinstate marshall law internationally. Don't you believe we can survive without state?
The fact that you believe humans are self destructive is another example of bullshit conditioning. We have survived and thrived for so long. I am of the school of thought that believe all humans are inherently good and I believe we'll be better off without state, government, institution and corporation. Some people believe we need that shit to destroy this planet and make our lives easier. Do you even know what happens to your tax money, do you actually think it gets spent on protecting us (The community) and helping us thrive? Well then I think you are living a LIE.
13 August at 14:55 • Edited • Like
•
Daz Matraz www.alternet.org/.../noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i...
Noam Chomsky: The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What's Wrong with Libertarians
www.alternet.org
Anarchism "assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them," explains Chomsky.
13 August at 15:06 • Unlike • 1 • Remove Preview
•
Chris Taljaard All I get are wild and sweeping claims. The same kind of rhetoric offered by the Zeitgeist movement and other conspiracy theorists. Keep being angry. It's all anarchists ever seem to do.
13 August at 19:41 • Like
•
Khaya Maseko For lack of conviction, creavity or maybe it's just downright fear, people are afraid of running their own world. Anarchy is brave enough to make these steps. If we won't step to alter bad governance, who will. Julius Malema?
13 August at 20:02 • Like • 2
•
Chris Taljaard Alter it to what? Nobody is providing any sensible counter-offers. The comment about people banding together before 1066 is also grossly ignorant of the current human population and the effects of globalisation.
Like I said earlier, anarchists just seem to want to burn everything down because they don't like it, yet they have nothing better to offer in return except: "Well, a stateless way of life worked (which it really didn't) before." Or they say something like: "Anything is better than what we have, bring on the revolution!" Which is just childish.
People don't spew out greenhouse gasses? The corporations do? Who the hell do you think runs them? The fairies? None of these perspectives show anything more than juvenile dissatisfaction.
13 August at 20:11 • Edited • Like
•
Chris Taljaard As much as I disagree with Malema, at least he has some kind of plan to be evaluated. I've yet to see anything even remotely concrete from the anarchic society that doesn't seem like social democracy, ergo, not anarchic and, therefore, part of the proof that shows just how senseless such a self-defeating albeit poetic position is.
13 August at 20:14 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Also: "The fact that you believe humans are self destructive is another example of bullshit conditioning." Who's the one claiming that the evil elves of the corporations are out to get us? It sure as hell isn't me. Isn't your view not just a tad misanthropic?
•
Daz Matraz Chris, Anarchism is not about being angry and burning things down. For some "insurrectionists" it is and I don't disagree with them they are angry. Ultimately it is an age old political standpoint that has been vastly researched and studied. There are ...See More
13 August at 21:45 • Edited • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001633.html
Defining Anarchism
www.spunk.org
Towards a definition of anarchy and anarchism
13 August at 21:35 •
f
I would really like more discussions on this subject, as it is very important in this time that we live in.
You can comment below or use the Chaotic Front Chat Channel.
It begins with a Facebook status update:
Some radical Anarchists suggest dissolving the State apparatus before true governace can begin. I wouldn't stop them.
LikeLike • • Promote • Share
• Daz Matraz, C'de Anele and Thando Lwaphakade like this.
•
Paul Murphy What solvent do you suggest ?
12 August at 15:34 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard What functional counter-offer do these radical anarchists have? The anarchic view doesn't seem to account for the more animalistic attributes within the human psyche that need to be restrained with some semblance of order so that the whole clock can keep ticking. Do anarchists honestly believe that everyone will just hug and eat cheese cake after the state is dissolved?
12 August at 15:45 • Like • 1
•
Lemeul Garstang I am a firm believer in the Anarchy cause- I do however have a few concerns. I do not see an "Anarchist State" as a real possibilty at the moment. People in general are not yet mature enough. Without a government with "proper" laws- the strong willed will form a new system of power and the normal citizens will continue to suffer under opression. Is my logic flawed?
12 August at 15:45 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Also: "Before true governance can begin"? Isn't that statement inherently contradictory? How does any form of governace fit in with an anarchic world-view? Self-governance, perhaps? My question then would be: what happens when the myriad self-governing entities have to compete for resources? Who's sense of wholesome, anarchic propriety would they use to determine who gets what?
12 August at 16:14 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz @ Chris: You are robably one of thos that believe we need government to make roads for us and protect us from those "Violent thugs" out there. Mean while the government / state are the most murderous, villainous, thieving bastards. They rob and kill millions everyday, we should be more afraid of the government than the one or two humans with bad attitudes. Most people are inherently good and we can make our own roads. The police aren't there to protect us either, they're only there to ENFORCE the law.
12 August at 17:54 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard All governments rob and kill millions every day? Daz, come on, you can't really believe that. In any case, how can the collective government be held accountable in the way that you're implying? Are the clerical workers sneaking out to kill people on their lunch breaks? That's just a sweeping generalisation.
Bad people do bad things, whether they're in government or not. With governance, there is an agreed-upon sense of accountability and responsibility. Without an agreed-upon way of doing things every person gets to interpret the grey areas of morality as they suit them. How would there be any accountability in an anarchic society? What room would I have to resist someone spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere when there is no law to be enforced regarding environmental sustainability?
Can't you see that anarchy is poetic but grossly under-equipped to deal with the world and that it would obliterate itself the moment it took root, as per Lemeul's argument about the strong-willed? The moment you claim that common human values will suffice, you're implying society and thereby rules of common conduct. Ergo, no more anarchy.
12 August at 18:18 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz You can't be serious. Who's responsible for spewing green house gasses? Think about it....Corporation & Government, not humans. Who culled entire civilizations?Government. Who funds wars in Israel and Iraq and funded the Holocaust? Government. Who is responsible for genocides all over the world? Government / appointed leaders / the institution of governance. Am I wrong? This happens all over the world, all the time and people still believe that we need government. Who do we pay tax? GOVERNMENT. Why? BECAUSE. They're robbing us and the planet blind!
There wouldn't be all this shit if it wasn't for our fucking leaders, fascism, tax, corporation. If you believe in Democracy then you're also believing that your vote actually has any consequence. Trust me, you are being robbed and MILLIONS are being killed. The democratic government protects CORPORATIONS which are spewing oil into our oceans, causing wars, exploiting the poor, responsible for famine, robbing millions of their hard earned cash. If it wasn't for them we would lead way healthier lives and be wealthier and the world would be a more peaceful place. THIS IS OBVIOUS TO ME. Is everyone brainwashed?
12 August at 18:57 • Edited • Like
•
Daz Matraz Without our so called "Righteous Government" there would probably be more peace, less pollution, more equality and a general healthier lifestyle. There would be rules, natural order and we would make our own products, TAX FREE and earn the profit. We would make our own rules.
12 August at 18:59 • Unlike • 1
•
Daz Matraz The common misconception of Anarchy is that it's "disorder" and "romanticism". We don't need government, people survived for centuries without it and life was way better than it is now days. How do we implement anarchy? That's a good question.
12 August at 19:04 • Like
•
Daz Matraz It would work but it might be practically impossible to bring about.
12 August at 19:04 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Life was way better? What do you base that on? People dying of their teeth? Tribal wars? Regularly dying in childbirth? Your opinion is far too fueled with emotion and generalisation.
It is clear that you harbour very strong feelings of empathy and that human and wider ecological suffering is an issue that you hold close to your heart but you're just not looking at the wider issues.
If you're so keen on this system to topple, please provide a workable alternative. Watching everything burn so that we can guess about it then can't be your best bet, surely.
12 August at 19:06 • Like
•
Daz Matraz If we worked voluntarily worked and sold our services and products, there would be less greed as well and more accountability.
12 August at 19:07 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard You're making a lot of unsubstantiated and romantic claims for someone who claims to be speaking from a place of certainty and sobriety.
12 August at 19:07 • Like
•
Daz Matraz No, I have done my research brah
12 August at 19:08 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Ditto
12 August at 19:08 • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz You're right it is kind of a romantic ideal but one that could and would work. It would be almost impossible to implement also but people all over the world are living sustainable lifestyles and proving that it can be done. If not on a large scale, at least for themselves.
12 August at 19:11 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard I can concede that point. I also think that a healthy dose of anti-establishment sentiment is good and necessary within one's mental array. We can't remain stagnant. We need antagonists to create the tension that drives transformation. My argument is simply: if an all-out dissolution of established governance is to be implemented, what alternative do we have to strive towards?
Democracy is far from great but it's better than the tribal fiefdoms and aristocracies that we had going. We need to work on a better, ecologically sound system. Our focus can't be a preoccupation with casting stones at something that doesn't work perfectly. Fix it or replace it. Don't just fuck it up even more.
12 August at 19:18 • Edited • Like
•
Rachel Parnassus Solomon "Who's responsible for spewing green house gasses? Think about it....Corporation & Government, not humans".:
Government and people are inextricable entities. Bad people running a government allows for deals made with other bad people running other governments. Government is not a 1-dimensional brickhouse devoid of humanity, rather made of people, some of which may be bad (because to be evil/selfish and to do bad things for individual prudence is as much in our nature as it is to be kind and do good things).
"We don't need government, people survived for centuries without it and life was way better than it is now days.":
Which stateless society are you referring to here? Most stateless societies that have existed have only done so for a short amount of time, after which have been taken up by governed societies around. And to counter a probable retort to this; No, they were not taken up because government is evil and want to crush the individualism and self-sufficiency of others. They were taken up because in most cases the ungoverned realized they needed something or other, or succumbed to the over-powering force that can be found in human nature's predisposition to self-destruct - NO MATTER THE SITUATION.
Oh, also, government is pretty much the oldest concept - like ever. Ever. Sometimes it works, sometimes is doesn't, but to be honest it's a complex structure of responsibility that needs to be shared between the leader of a government and the people who (if in a democratic state) have fallen under the spells of a fucking dog-and-pony magic show and elected a completely incompetent and selfish buffoon, and still hope to have their needs met.
Obviously there exist totalitarian regimes... which is another fuckin thing altogether.
Anyhhooooozer, I know your whole debate is over, just wanted to chime in on those points.
P.S Khaya's status spoke about true governance - true being key word. Honesty, transparency, judiciousness.
Peace out mothertruckers
12 August at 21:27 • Like • 1
•
Khaya Maseko I love this. This is going up on the Blog
12 August at 22:43 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Rachel, you had me up to your postscript. Khaya's status spoke about radical anarchists wanting to bring about true governance. The statement just seems self-contradictory. I can concede that true governance should be honest, fair and transparent but anarchy, because of its anti-governace sentiments, just can't achieve what these radicals are suggesting.
13 August at 06:13 • Like
•
Daz Matraz Rachel : For instance; the British monarchy only started in 1066, before then there were communities surviving on their own with rules and leaders that were appointed by the PEOPLE (That isn't too long ago if you consider how long humans have been around). There was way less war and tyranny than there is today, no tax and less environmental decay.
This debate has only started. If it isn't obvious to you what is and has been done to us by appointed government and leaders, then I despair. If you believe that we need these knobs to control us and keep us safe, I suppose that can be narrowed down to centuries of conditioning of human behaviour. You also seem to believe that humans cause greenhouse emissions!! You believe that corporations are run by people so they must be 'Friendly'. If you believe police are here to keep us safe, you have another thing coming. WRONG! Especially since they're trying to reinstate marshall law internationally. Don't you believe we can survive without state?
The fact that you believe humans are self destructive is another example of bullshit conditioning. We have survived and thrived for so long. I am of the school of thought that believe all humans are inherently good and I believe we'll be better off without state, government, institution and corporation. Some people believe we need that shit to destroy this planet and make our lives easier. Do you even know what happens to your tax money, do you actually think it gets spent on protecting us (The community) and helping us thrive? Well then I think you are living a LIE.
13 August at 14:55 • Edited • Like
•
Daz Matraz www.alternet.org/.../noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i...
Noam Chomsky: The Kind of Anarchism I Believe in, and What's Wrong with Libertarians
www.alternet.org
Anarchism "assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them," explains Chomsky.
13 August at 15:06 • Unlike • 1 • Remove Preview
•
Chris Taljaard All I get are wild and sweeping claims. The same kind of rhetoric offered by the Zeitgeist movement and other conspiracy theorists. Keep being angry. It's all anarchists ever seem to do.
13 August at 19:41 • Like
•
Khaya Maseko For lack of conviction, creavity or maybe it's just downright fear, people are afraid of running their own world. Anarchy is brave enough to make these steps. If we won't step to alter bad governance, who will. Julius Malema?
13 August at 20:02 • Like • 2
•
Chris Taljaard Alter it to what? Nobody is providing any sensible counter-offers. The comment about people banding together before 1066 is also grossly ignorant of the current human population and the effects of globalisation.
Like I said earlier, anarchists just seem to want to burn everything down because they don't like it, yet they have nothing better to offer in return except: "Well, a stateless way of life worked (which it really didn't) before." Or they say something like: "Anything is better than what we have, bring on the revolution!" Which is just childish.
People don't spew out greenhouse gasses? The corporations do? Who the hell do you think runs them? The fairies? None of these perspectives show anything more than juvenile dissatisfaction.
13 August at 20:11 • Edited • Like
•
Chris Taljaard As much as I disagree with Malema, at least he has some kind of plan to be evaluated. I've yet to see anything even remotely concrete from the anarchic society that doesn't seem like social democracy, ergo, not anarchic and, therefore, part of the proof that shows just how senseless such a self-defeating albeit poetic position is.
13 August at 20:14 • Like
•
Chris Taljaard Also: "The fact that you believe humans are self destructive is another example of bullshit conditioning." Who's the one claiming that the evil elves of the corporations are out to get us? It sure as hell isn't me. Isn't your view not just a tad misanthropic?
•
Daz Matraz Chris, Anarchism is not about being angry and burning things down. For some "insurrectionists" it is and I don't disagree with them they are angry. Ultimately it is an age old political standpoint that has been vastly researched and studied. There are ...See More
13 August at 21:45 • Edited • Like • 1
•
Daz Matraz www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001633.html
Defining Anarchism
www.spunk.org
Towards a definition of anarchy and anarchism
13 August at 21:35 •
f
