Lets just say...

[Guest]

Lets just say, tommorow there was an anarchist revolution in the U.S, and there was no government anymore. What would stop society from becoming a somalian-like state with warlords running everything? Would'nt the people who decide to start pillaging become more sucessfull and powerfull than the people who decide to set up anarchist communes?
I guess in summary my guestion is what about human nature do you belive would allow a peacfull, communist anarchist system to happen, and then flurish with no destructive interferance from any warlord raids, pillages, etc...

[Infinite]

I think anarchists should all support the ability for people to own guns to prevent this. A lot of people on the left blame the right to bare arms as the cause for somewhat high gun violence in the U.S. but I think it's due to the social conditions of poverty. I think people policing themselves and having the tools to do so would be a lot more fair than the police. I'm skeptical of supposed 'anarchist' police forces some people talk about too, I think any situation where you have only some people held as the designated 'enforcers' of the law it's a hierarchy and will attract authoritarian and bully-minded type people.

[Guest]

Lets just say, tommorow there was an anarchist revolution in the U.S, and there was no government anymore. What would stop society from becoming a somalian-like state with warlords running everything?

Let's just say "A" and "not A" at the same time, shall we?

When you say "...state with warlords running everything..." that isn't anarchy, since the "warlords" you speak of would clearly qualify as "rulers." Anarchism means "no rulers."

The argument I believe you are trying to articulate is one which anarchists hear quite a bit - the "human nature argument."

Allow me to attempt an analogy: Slavery has always existed. It existed in the past. It exists in the present time. A case could be made that within "human nature" some people will be slaves - afterall it has always been so. Therefore those who fight against slavery are misguided in seeing slavery as "wrong" or as something to be abolished, since slavery is merely an outcome of "human nature."

Do you not see the flaw in that argument?

The state is an evil, no matter what its source. Opposing it is a matter of principle.

I cannot speak for others, but when I say "anarchy" I am not merely speaking of the day when there is no more state, but also of the day when humanity no longer *needs* the state.

Let's face it... under the scenario you present - an overall removal of the state in the USA - there would be a disaster. Americans are such pathetic little drugged-up spoiled children, and they are clearly the most violent and bloodthirsty people on the planet. You've seen the video of the woman getting violent because the McDonald's wouldn't serve her McNuggets during breakfast hour, right? Not to mention the legions of subhuman thugs that the Americans have sent to murder and rape Iraqi and Afghan children - we already see how they act when there's no authority above them - they become openly violent child molesters - so there's little hope that they could be relied upon to act responsibly in an anarchist society. The very "nature" of clown-Ameriscum would have to change in order for anarchy to work. Luckily, the USA is in its final spasms as an empire, so Ameriscum become far less relevant as time goes on.

[Guest]

[quote="GuestI cannot speak for others, but when I say "anarchy" I am not merely speaking of the day when there is no more state, but also of the day when humanity no longer *needs* the state.

Let's face it... under the scenario you present - an overall removal of the state in the USA - there would be a disaster. Americans are such pathetic little drugged-up spoiled children, and they are clearly the most violent and bloodthirsty people on the planet. You've seen the video of the woman getting violent because the McDonald's wouldn't serve her McNuggets during breakfast hour, right? Not to mention the legions of subhuman thugs that the Americans have sent to murder and rape Iraqi and Afghan children - we already see how they act when there's no authority above them - they become openly violent child molesters - so there's little hope that they could be relied upon to act responsibly in an anarchist society. The very "nature" of clown-Ameriscum would have to change in order for anarchy to work. Luckily, the USA is in its final spasms as an empire, so Ameriscum become far less relevant as time goes on.

Interesting. I've never heard that argument before, and, I must say, I completly agree. How though,do you think we can help to acheive a society that is ready for anarchy ? Do you belive in some kind of marxist transition state, or to just let society run its due course?
On a similar note, do you belive a bigger, more syndicalist governemnt is more beneficial to society than a smaller, more corpratist one?

[Infinite]

Let's face it... under the scenario you present - an overall removal of the state in the USA - there would be a disaster. Americans are such pathetic little drugged-up spoiled children, and they are clearly the most violent and bloodthirsty people on the planet. You've seen the video of the woman getting violent because the McDonald's wouldn't serve her McNuggets during breakfast hour, right? Not to mention the legions of subhuman thugs that the Americans have sent to murder and rape Iraqi and Afghan children - we already see how they act when there's no authority above them - they become openly violent child molesters - so there's little hope that they could be relied upon to act responsibly in an anarchist society. The very "nature" of clown-Ameriscum would have to change in order for anarchy to work. Luckily, the USA is in its final spasms as an empire, so Ameriscum become far less relevant as time goes on.

The soldiers have the ability to do those things b/c of the government which waged the war

[Guest]

How though,do you think we can help to acheive a society that is ready for anarchy ? Do you belive in some kind of marxist transition state, or to just let society run its due course?
On a similar note, do you belive a bigger, more syndicalist governemnt is more beneficial to society than a smaller, more corpratist one?

as the empire(s) crumble, people will have to build new, localized, systems. marxist government? no - marxism is the favored system of the banking class believe it or not. big unions? no - localize, localize, loclalize.

[Guest]

The soldiers have the ability to do those things b/c of the government which waged the war

military service is 100% voluntary in the USA. just because everyone seems to make it socially acceptable ("oh i'm so proud of my son the marine") doesn't really make it ok. occupation always, always involves rape. if you're in a rape gang, you're in a rape gang; there isn't really any excuse for it.

[tedster]

I don't know what the answer is, at least not off hand. But what does need to happen to make a smoother revolution is to make sure we work for parallel systems today. If a Somalian style war lord situation did happen, it is because we haven't completed the revolution. We should also make sure that we look at the errors of the Spanish Revolution don't repeat repeat themselves.

[Infinite]

The soldiers have the ability to do those things b/c of the government which waged the war

military service is 100% voluntary in the USA. just because everyone seems to make it socially acceptable ("oh i'm so proud of my son the marine") doesn't really make it ok. occupation always, always involves rape. if you're in a rape gang, you're in a rape gang; there isn't really any excuse for it.

No I wasn't saying it's excusable, just that governments enable these people who I agree are psychopaths to have a legal outlet to go wild and terrorize and kill people. I'm in total agreement w/you. And of course the ruling moneyed interests are who induce the government to do it.

[Guest]

i hear you. the recent story of the afghanistan "kill squad" is telling...