Why does anarchism matter to me?

[Guest]

Let us envision a scenario: I am a middle class, white man living in the US. I have a nice house, a good car, a job that pays well, and enough to eat. I have friends and family that care about me and a wife and children. I am in no immediate danger of being killed in war, arrested without good cause, or experiencing a famine. My life is confortable, enjoyable, and quite happy on the whole. My question to you is this: What do I have to gain from supporting anarchism? Given that I am already happy, confortable, and have everything I need, what reason do I have to help you overthrow the government and capitalism?

If there is no practical reason for me to support anarchism, then maybe there is a moral one. For the sake of argument, let us assume that I have no belief in morality and that any attempt to appeal to moral obligation will not work on me unless you can show that such an obligation truly exists. What arguments can you present that would show that I am morally required to support anarchism, even if I do not need to support it to gain anything?

[i986]

you could smoke a joint in public, walk down mainstreet naked, and know that your childern are going to be able to live as freely as your percieve yourself doing so.

[Guest]

you could smoke a joint in public, walk down mainstreet naked, and know that your childern are going to be able to live as freely as your percieve yourself doing so.

But I just don't care about using drugs or public nudity. I simply have no interest in them or desire to do them and neither do my children. Why should I fight for a freedom I have no intention of ever using when not fighting leaves me with more time to do things I actually enjoy?

[i986]

you have nothing to gain.

congrat-u-fucking-lations

[MilitancyFetish]

Why does anarchism matter to me?

Why do you or your opinions matter to me?

[Blomacovidoxian]

Why does anarchism matter to me?

Why do you or your opinions matter to me?

Ditto.

Further, the scenario that you describe is highly unlikely. It's not very clever. You might as well have said:

"Alright guys, here's a real tough one! Suppose that I am a person who cannot be convinced, ever, to support anarchism. Now, my question is, how would you get me to support anarchism?"

No thanks, pointless discussions such as these bore me.

[|Y|]

Guest,

What do I have to gain from supporting anarchism?

No taxes, no work? Free health care, education, technology and general resources? You would still have your house, and your car wouldn't be taken away from you (despite what some anarchists say and what their agendas are).

Given that I am already happy, confortable, and have everything I need, what reason do I have to help you overthrow the government and capitalism?

Given that your lifestyle stands only on the backs of millions of the worlds most poorest people, what reason do you have to prevent others from stopping their capitalistic labor and living in their own world of wealth? If they no longer work for you, and they wouldn't by any standards, what would you do? Would you have a real choice in the matter?

What arguments can you present that would show that I am morally required to support anarchism, even if I do not need to support it to gain anything?

The only moral argument that can be made is if anarchism were to come about and the vast vast majority of the worlds population stopped working for the machine (and given the choice; work for the machine, or not work for anarchism, they would chose the latter). The argument is simple. You must accept the system otherwise you starve and die.

Of course, accepting the new system could be as simple (and as free, unlike current capitalism) as going down to the new Mart-Wal and acquiring whatever goods you want for free (free being without monetary payment; the energy you expend to get there is of course not free). Or you could go the mutualist route assuming you actually had some service which was of value in a highly post-scarce economy.

[Guest]

No taxes, no work? Free health care, education, technology and general resources? You would still have your house, and your car wouldn't be taken away from you (despite what some anarchists say and what their agendas are).

Well, given that you can't abolish work or make everything free with today's technology, that in itself isn't a reason to support anarchism, I would think. I hope anarchists aren't claiming they can make everything free to over 6 billion people with current technology and without sucking the earth dry.

Given that your lifestyle stands only on the backs of millions of the worlds most poorest people, what reason do you have to prevent others from stopping their capitalistic labor and living in their own world of wealth? If they no longer work for you, and they wouldn't by any standards, what would you do? Would you have a real choice in the matter?

Because it benefits me and gives me a life I enjoy. Why would I want to let my relative wealth go down the drain? Remember, appealing to morality will not work. I am a moral skeptic in this hypothetical scenario and won't be swayed unless you can show that it is objectively immoral to live that way.

Further, the scenario that you describe is highly unlikely. It's not very clever. You might as well have said:

"Alright guys, here's a real tough one! Suppose that I am a person who cannot be convinced, ever, to support anarchism. Now, my question is, how would you get me to support anarchism?"

No thanks, pointless discussions such as these bore me.

It's not unlikely at all; in fact, it happens everyday. Otherwise, there would be millions and millions of anarchists already. As far as many people are concerned, though, anarchism just isn't worth it. Hell, even people who would clearly benefit from anarchism, like the poor, seem to ignore it. Haven't you debated people before who simply have no interest in it?

[Blomacovidoxian]

Further, the scenario that you describe is highly unlikely. It's not very clever. You might as well have said:

"Alright guys, here's a real tough one! Suppose that I am a person who cannot be convinced, ever, to support anarchism. Now, my question is, how would you get me to support anarchism?"

No thanks, pointless discussions such as these bore me.

It's not unlikely at all; in fact, it happens everyday. Otherwise, there would be millions and millions of anarchists already. As far as many people are concerned, though, anarchism just isn't worth it. Hell, even people who would clearly benefit from anarchism, like the poor, seem to ignore it. Haven't you debated people before who simply have no interest in it?

Most people do not even know that anarchism exists as a political theory. Those who do tend to fall into two camps: those who find it desirable but unworkable (the vast majority), and those who simply find it undesirable. Either way, you're missing the point of my post, which was that it's preposterous of you to ask anybody to engage in an intellectual exercise where one must convince somebody of something, even though, at the outset, it has been stated that such convincing is impossible. It's pointless.

If you're looking for people to apologize for the unpopularity of anarchism, you may find some here, but I won't. Whether or not a philosophy is popular is but one factor in many regarding its merits.

[Guest]

Most people do not even know that anarchism exists as a political theory. Those who do tend to fall into two camps: those who find it desirable but unworkable (the vast majority), and those who simply find it undesirable. Either way, you're missing the point of my post, which was that it's preposterous of you to ask anybody to engage in an intellectual exercise where one must convince somebody of something, even though, at the outset, it has been stated that such convincing is impossible. It's pointless.

If you're looking for people to apologize for the unpopularity of anarchism, you may find some here, but I won't. Whether or not a philosophy is popular is but one factor in many regarding its merits.

I guess my question then is this: If people don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things, why do they need a massive revolution? Why fix, or rather clean rip out of the wall and throw in the street, what most people simply don't feel is broken to begin with?

[g2]

I guess my question then is this: If people don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things, why do they need a massive revolution? Why fix, or rather clean rip out of the wall and throw in the street, what most people simply don't feel is broken to begin with?

indeed you are right - even if people can be shown definitive proof that their lavish lifestyles come at the cost of misery and death for billions, they just don't care.

an interesting thing, this lack of care, though. what happens when people don't give a fuck is that extremely evil people with issues take power - it's easy when no one cares.

these extremely evil people don't really care if you are oppressed or not, as long as they are on top of the heap.

and recently these people have been doing some things which are going to result in changes in your lavvish lifestyle. for one thing, they have stopped releasing the value of M3 - the total number of dollars that exist in the universe. M3 had been growing at a rate of 20% per year - now it is at an UNKNOWN rate.

as any basic understanding of economics will tell you, when there are more dollars, each individual dollar is worth a lesser percentage of the whole. without a coresponding growth in the economy, the extra dollars have no where to go, resulting in inflation. the government intervenes (haevily) to curb inflation, which means the economic pressure just builds.

in other words, your dollar is about to collapse in waves of hyperinflation and hyperdeflation. almost everything you buy comes from other countries. when your dollar isnt worth anything... you WILL be contemplating radical changes.

of course, it's most likely that you'll just join the local aryan militia or perhaps the local 'democrats against crime' vigilante group rather than consider anarchism, but *yawn* we'll be here just in case.

[Guest]

indeed you are right - even if people can be shown definitive proof that their lavish lifestyles come at the cost of misery and death for billions, they just don't care.

an interesting thing, this lack of care, though. what happens when people don't give a fuck is that extremely evil people with issues take power - it's easy when no one cares.

these extremely evil people don't really care if you are oppressed or not, as long as they are on top of the heap.

Ok, but I already do care if people are trying to screw me over. I may not care about other nations, but I do care about my own life.

as any basic understanding of economics will tell you, when there are more dollars, each individual dollar is worth a lesser percentage of the whole. without a coresponding growth in the economy, the extra dollars have no where to go, resulting in inflation. the government intervenes (haevily) to curb inflation, which means the economic pressure just builds.

in other words, your dollar is about to collapse in waves of hyperinflation and hyperdeflation. almost everything you buy comes from other countries. when your dollar isnt worth anything... you WILL be contemplating radical changes.

What do the politicians have to gain from destroying their own economy and their own source of luxury? They wouldn't do anything they thought would hurt them and this would obviously do just that. And of course, that's what voting is for. No need to gun down politicians when you can just vote them out, after all.

of course, it's most likely that you'll just join the local aryan militia or perhaps the local 'democrats against crime' vigilante group rather than consider anarchism, but *yawn* we'll be here just in case.

Considering that the Democrat party has had more success than anarchism, anyway, I probably would.

[|Y|]

Guest,

Well, given that you can't abolish work or make everything free with today's technology, that in itself isn't a reason to support anarchism, I would think.

And on what information do you base this claim? Do you know anything about science and technology? You do realize that physics and chemistry have basically reached an upper bound of understanding, right? Sure a lot has yet to be learned with organic chemistry, but that isn't necessary to provide general necessities. We can't really know more about physics until someone builds the next big particle accelerator, otherwise we have the basis for all things physical (in the context of physics). The world lives on industrial processes, what prevents us from taking those processes, making them compact/smaller, and distributing them throughout the world?

Nothing that a few dollars and a lot of volunteers can't fix.

I hope anarchists aren't claiming they can make everything free to over 6 billion people with current technology and without sucking the earth dry.

Actually, that is precisely what I'm saying. Perhaps you should read my previous posts here, on infoshop.org forums or on ASC, where I go in depth on various approaches that can be had. The key is sustainablity, decentralization, and freeness. After that anyone who is poor will be willing.

Building a water system for ones small village beats working in a sweatshop factory hoping a capitalist will come along when it would be profitable to do so.

Because it benefits me and gives me a life I enjoy. Why would I want to let my relative wealth go down the drain?

So you are saying that you would stop these people or would support stopping these people from pulling themselves out of the poverty that they exist in?

This has nothing to do about morality, this has to do about practicality. Do you think it is practical to build up police states in a third world country when the people themselves reach a level of self-sustainablity? It's untenable, it won't work. You can't make people do your bidding. Over and over again throughout history it has shown to be a complete dead end. What do you propose to do to former sweatshop workers, rubber farmers, banana farmers, whatever who no longer wish to do those things to survive?

I am a moral skeptic in this hypothetical scenario and won't be swayed unless you can show that it is objectively immoral to live that way.

I don't care so much about morals either. I just know how the world works. I know that one action creates another and so on. What you are proposing, don't get me wrong, is that you would happily subjucate these poor people to your whims even though they no longer rely on your economic support.

It's not unlikely at all; in fact, it happens everyday. Otherwise, there would be millions and millions of anarchists already. As far as many people are concerned, though, anarchism just isn't worth it.

That is correct, anarchism is a poor and fragmented ideology that will take awhile to actually ferment into society. Anarchism needs to do some introspection before it's going to get anywhere. But you have the wrong critique when it comes to me because I do know some of the answers.

Hell, even people who would clearly benefit from anarchism, like the poor, seem to ignore it.

Nah, some poor people identify with it, but the current form of anarchism isn't going anywhere. What happens in cases like the Argentine coops is that they cannot compete, they're run out of the markets, and so on. Look at the current goings on in Mexico which are marginally anarchist. The fucking police state is coming down on them like they're animals. It's sad, but that's generally how it works. We need the upper hand before we can really make inroads into achieving anarchism.

Haven't you debated people before who simply have no interest in it?

Like "anarcho"-capitalists? Yeah...

But really. It doesn't matter what people want because anarchism is natural (from an entirely objective point of view). All it takes is for a large enough population to enjoy a lifestyle of anarchism and the rest would become a part of the overall system eventually.

I guess my question then is this: If people don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things, why do they need a massive revolution?

I don't think you've qualified that people "don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things." As I wrote in another thread on the infoshop.org forums recently, look at suicide rates, look at rates of crime and violence. Look at how people really are. Consider the amounts of anti-depressants that are being pumped into our current population. Then come back and tell me that people are happy with their current state of affairs. There's one thing that I'm struggling with. The idea that anarchists are simutaneously 100% correct about the state and society, while at the same time completely out of touch. We need to bridge those gaps but overall we are on the right track. And it is people like you, who delude themselves in their own world view and belief that the world is fine and dandy, it is people like you who perpetuate the bullshit. But sorry, you don't want a moral judgement, and I don't intend one. I'm just showing how the system is self-perpetuating in that way.

Why fix, or rather clean rip out of the wall and throw in the street, what most people simply don't feel is broken to begin with?

If we do manage a realistic alternative that leads to anarchism, and then the people don't chose it, then you have an argument. Until then it is all supposition. And if we offer at least trying to better the world for everyone else, I don't think you can create a very strong argument in opposition to that. Unless you can really show that people are happy with the way things are. And they're not.



g2,

even if people can be shown definitive proof that their lavish lifestyles come at the cost of misery and death for billions, they just don't care.

And why would you? People simply cannot care about others of another society another world away. They simply cannot. They don't have the physical comprehension to really give a shit. Why do we care? Because we're high and mighty and we have something to think about in our spare time. But even we don't geniunely care. We want to care, we have an inclination, but it's not there for real. Until you actually visit these places, and meet the people, you cannot say you geniunely care about someone. But it doesn't matter if someone cares or not. If these poor people had their wealth increased, and were no longer forced to work for the system, we'd have to fix our shit in any case.

what happens when people don't give a fuck is that extremely evil people with issues take power - it's easy when no one cares.

That's the great thing about apathy, because there is a strong argument that they wouldn't care when those evil people with issues are overthrown from power.

for one thing, they have stopped releasing the value of M3 - the total number of dollars that exist in the universe.

M3 is about credit more than anything, and I can see why they would stop releasing it. You can't have the world knowing that you own most of the worlds debt. It also has a bit to do with the Euro gaining ground on the dollar. Seeing that Eurodollars have increasingly more say on the international monies markets is very bad for the Fed.

Just to be clear, physical dollars are M0, and that is where the fed can create wealth, otherwise the value of a given M1-3 asset is real, it really does exist.

3 had been growing at a rate of 20% per year - now it is at an UNKNOWN rate.

I think you're exaggerating, got a link? I'm seeing an annual growth of less than 10% or thereabouts.

as any basic understanding of economics will tell you, when there are more dollars, each individual dollar is worth a lesser percentage of the whole.

You cannot just magically create money, the only way to do that is to print more. Most money held in CDs and other funds are real because they will invariably return on the investment, assuming the economy still stands in the timeframe in which the CDs exist. Savings and checking accounts are, likewise, real, because they initiated with physical monetary deposits.

in other words, your dollar is about to collapse in waves of hyperinflation and hyperdeflation. almost everything you buy comes from other countries. when your dollar isnt worth anything... you WILL be contemplating radical changes.

Color me skeptical.

[Guest]

And on what information do you base this claim? Do you know anything about science and technology? You do realize that physics and chemistry have basically reached an upper bound of understanding, right? Sure a lot has yet to be learned with organic chemistry, but that isn't necessary to provide general necessities. We can't really know more about physics until someone builds the next big particle accelerator, otherwise we have the basis for all things physical (in the context of physics). The world lives on industrial processes, what prevents us from taking those processes, making them compact/smaller, and distributing them throughout the world?

Nothing that a few dollars and a lot of volunteers can't fix.

Actually, that is precisely what I'm saying. Perhaps you should read my previous posts here, on infoshop.org forums or on ASC, where I go in depth on various approaches that can be had. The key is sustainablity, decentralization, and freeness. After that anyone who is poor will be willing.

Building a water system for ones small village beats working in a sweatshop factory hoping a capitalist will come along when it would be profitable to do so.

You can't give 6 billion people cars, houses, computers, phones, and a lifetime supply of near limitless heathcare, food, water, clothes, gasoline, electricity and education without some extraordinary technology or vast amounts of labor and resources. It would take Star Trek-style to churn out all that stuff unless anarchists have found a way to turn water into wine

So you are saying that you would stop these people or would support stopping these people from pulling themselves out of the poverty that they exist in?

This has nothing to do about morality, this has to do about practicality. Do you think it is practical to build up police states in a third world country when the people themselves reach a level of self-sustainablity? It's untenable, it won't work. You can't make people do your bidding. Over and over again throughout history it has shown to be a complete dead end. What do you propose to do to former sweatshop workers, rubber farmers, banana farmers, whatever who no longer wish to do those things to survive?

States make people do their bidding all the time. In fact, don't anarchists criticize the US for doing just what you propose, backing police states in third world nations that keep the populace in sweatshops?

But really. It doesn't matter what people want because anarchism is natural (from an entirely objective point of view). All it takes is for a large enough population to enjoy a lifestyle of anarchism and the rest would become a part of the overall system eventually.

That seems like a bold assertion given that less than 1% of the entire world even supports anarchism and hierarchy is rife in the animal kingdom. If it were natural, shouldn't it be very common and something we tend toward instinctively?

I don't think you've qualified that people "don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things." As I wrote in another thread on the infoshop.org forums recently, look at suicide rates, look at rates of crime and violence. Look at how people really are. Consider the amounts of anti-depressants that are being pumped into our current population. Then come back and tell me that people are happy with their current state of affairs.

Those don't necessarily point to a lack of support for the status quo. Depression has nothing to do with what political system is in power; it's the result of brain chemistry and ultimately of genes. Crime and violence are the result of desires going unfullfilled and generally have nothing to do with a specific antagonism toward the state. It's not as though people rob banks because they're angry about Bush being reelected.

There's one thing that I'm struggling with. The idea that anarchists are simutaneously 100% correct about the state and society, while at the same time completely out of touch. We need to bridge those gaps but overall we are on the right track. And it is people like you, who delude themselves in their own world view and belief that the world is fine and dandy, it is people like you who perpetuate the bullshit. But sorry, you don't want a moral judgement, and I don't intend one. I'm just showing how the system is self-perpetuating in that way.

In other words, I'm terribly oppressed, but I just don't notice it because I'm deluded. If that's the case, I reinterate my question: Why do I care? Perhaps you may not realize this, but not everyone values freedom for its own sake. If people are happy with the state and capitalism, why not just leave it at that? I hope you don't mean to suggest that the average person is too deluded to run their own lives and that it is up to some anarchist brotherhood to step in and save them.

[Blomacovidoxian]

I guess my question then is this: If people don't feel oppressed or particularly unhappy with things, why do they need a massive revolution? Why fix, or rather clean rip out of the wall and throw in the street, what most people simply don't feel is broken to begin with?

Nobody thinks that the world is perfect, or couldn't be any better, and only some anarchists argue for a massive revolution. For many, anarchy is a theoretical ideal towards which the world should always be progressing.