Philosophy Now Forum

Before I start, I should lay out my past political beliefs..
One of them was Anarchism.. I was an anarchist for 20 years...
and as I don't do things half ass, I lived the anarchist life,
no car, no paying taxes, no real home, I was totally off the grid..
so my prior history includes being an anarchist and this plays into
my defense of Anarchism...

there are a couple of ways I can approach this, first way is to lay
out what Anarchism is... the best way to understand it, is by its
favorite slogan..

no masters, no god...

and by no masters, we mean no political, social, philosophical,
or economic masters... and the second point of reference is
the two schools of Anarchism... The second school is far better known
as the violent school of Anarchism... I reject this school, yesterday, today
and tomorrow... violence solves nothing and creates often unsolvable issues
in the wake of that violence.. and the second school of Anarchism flows
from the idea of Christian anarchism...which is to say, flows from Jesus
to some religious sect during the middle ages, and in the 18th century rose simultaneously with
communism...in fact, in the early days of Anarchism was connected
with communism... the first of several internationals were held starting in
1864 in which both communist and anarchist played a role...
non-violent Anarchists were my name sake, Peter Kropotkin and others including
Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau...
and what separated Communism from Anarchism during the 18th century?

Communist including MARX, and Anarchist like Kropotkin started in the same place,
a hatred of what capitalism has done to people.. and how to fight back against
destruction of people lives by Capitalism?

In reading Marx and in reading Kropotkin, one can see the vital difference...
the question of what happens next? Marxism is simply a plan for the replacement
of capitalism and what happened after capitalism... Anarchist never came up with
a, what happens next? There was no plan in place for what happens after the revolution
in Anarchism as there was in Communism...
and that is why, in part, why Anarchism failed to gain ground like communism did...

so for my defense of Anarchism, I point to the flawed idea of communism
that there is some sweeping large scale substructure that is economics
that defines everyone lives... in Communism, there is no place for the
individual...for the individual is swept away in the wave that is capitalism
and the large scale wave that is communism... the individual doesn't matter,
in either capitalism or in communism.. the individual is simple a pawn in
the large scale actions of both capitalism and communism... the individual
simply doesn't matter in either...
and any political or social or economic system that doesn't make room for
the individual, I don't need to believe in.. or support...

whereas within Anarchism, the individual does hold a very important place...
the question isn't, one or the other, the economic system, be it capitalism
or be it communism, the question is, how does the individual fit within
the political, social and economic systems?

In fact, one may argue that the political, social and economic
problem of our times comes from what is the role of the
individual and what is the role of the system? How do those two
pieces mesh in our modern times?

for in large scale political, social and economic systems in our times,
the one individual has been forgotten.. within capitalism, the individual
doesn't count at all and that is true within communism and within socialism...
and that is true within our political systems of democracy and monarchy
and dictatorship... the individual doesn't count...

and it is that aspect of the political, social and economic we must
engage with... bring the individual back into the equation of the
political, social and economic systems that populate our current
universe...
and this is the aspect of Anarchism that I like, the engagement with
the individual that doesn't exists within our current political, social
and economic systems today...

I hold to peace and so I reject the violent river that has been anarchism
over the last century and half... I hold to peaceful solutions to our current
problems that mean's I hold with Jesus and Tolstoy... among others...

so, one of the primary questions of today is the role of the individual
within society and conversely the role of the society within the individual
life and experiences...

Kropotkin

"We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society." - F. Engels

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... hority.htm

All this is, of course, granted if your end goal is a properly functioning society of a large industrial scale. At best an anarcho-syndicalist system might work, but such would just delegate authority to syndicate committees that run everything.

On the other hand, if you care not whether human civilization flourishes or flounders, then you might be a genuine anarchist.

Every anarchist from Proudhon to Stirner is correct to say revolution only ends up replacing one form of state with another, but equally naive in believing that human life is even possible without a state.

'pends in what u wanna be, keter. You a mickey mouse anarchist or a novatorean?

In fact, I am no longer an anarchist and haven't
been in decades... but I want to get people to at least think
about the possibility of anarchism...

especially in terms of our modern clusterfuck that is politics today...

there are other possibilities.. you just have to be open to them...

Kropotkin

"On Novatore's body the detectives found some false documents, a Browning gun with two full magazines, one hand grenade and a ring with a secret container filled with a lethal dose of cyanide."

GASP!

I prefer non-violent anarchist like Prince Peter Kropotkin...
violence never got anyone anywhere...

Kropotkin

Peter,

We, you and me, see anarchism differently. Me, I call myself a natural rights libertarian but that's just a semi-fancy way of sayin' I'm anarchistic which is just another way of sayin' I'm unruly.

What all that wordplay comes down to is: I am my own. I belong to myself. My life, liberty, and property are mine. You are your own. You belong to yourself. Your life, liberty, and property are yours. I have the only say over what's mine and you have the only say over what's yours.

The base obligation we, you and me, have to one another is: don't fuck around with the other guy's life, liberty, and property without just cause. Best I can tell: the only just cause is defense of self, other, and property.

In other words: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

Incidentally: this is my roundabout answer to your question about values, in that other thread.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:12 am Peter,

We, you and me, see anarchism differently. Me, I call myself a natural rights libertarian but that's just a semi-fancy way of sayin' I'm anarchistic which is just another way of sayin' I'm unruly.

What all that wordplay comes down to is: I am my own. I belong to myself. My life, liberty, and property are mine.

BUT what 'you' call 'your property' is NOT ACTUALLY 'yours', as some of it was STOLEN in the FIRST PLACE.

Your REFUSAL to LOOK AT and ACKNOWLEDGE this Fact makes you even MORE of a HYPOCRITE than you are SHOWING and REVEALING here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:12 am You are your own. You belong to yourself. Your life, liberty, and property are yours. I have the only say over what's mine and you have the only say over what's yours.

If only 'you' KNEW "henry quirk". If only 'you' KNEW.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:12 am The base obligation we, you and me, have to one another is: don't fuck around with the other guy's life, liberty, and property without just cause. Best I can tell: the only just cause is defense of self, other, and property.

In other words: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

In other words; IF you come to or touch MY country/property I BELIEVE I have a 'right' to SHOOT you DEAD. And, if I BELIEVE you are GOING TO come to MY country/property I can go 'to you' to SHOOT you DEAD.

Which the ABSURDITY and absolutely STUPIDITY OF speaks for itself. But, which is the MENTALITY of more than enough of those who live in that place called "united states of america".

And which is WHY the people of the "united states of america" were among one of the most hated people within the whole world, in the days when this was
being written.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:12 am Incidentally: this is my roundabout answer to your question about values, in that other thread.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:12 am In other words: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

Despite agreeing with much I do want to ask: in this world with the technology and interconnectedness we have, our hands have become 'hands'. How can one possibly keep one's hands to oneself without going off the grid and living off the land in some forest somewhere? Also, related, does it count if one is, essentially, paying another person to put their hands on someone for one's benefit? You descriptions sounds like values related to the individual? Are corporations evaluated the same way? What about their hands?

in this world with the technology and interconnectedness we have, our hands have become 'hands'. How can one possibly keep one's hands to oneself without going off the grid and living off the land in some forest somewhere?

Seems pretty straightforward to me: outside the just cause of (self, other, property) defense, don't kill, injure, mislead, or take from other guy (and never rape or slave cuz there's no cause that ever justifies either).

And I don't see what bein' on or off the grid has to do with it.

Also, related, does it count if one is, essentially, paying another person to put their hands on someone for one's benefit?

What folks consent to, or how they freely transact, or what they freely exchange, all that ain't got nuthin' to do with keepin' your hands to yourself. You did read the whole post, yeah? You get the context of natural rights, yeah?

You descriptions sounds like values related to the individual? Are corporations evaluated the same way? What about their hands?

A corp, no matter the legal definition, is just a group of individuals. The corp only does what the individuals who comprise do. A corp, then is no different than a tribe or team. So, none of them folks, as individuals, as employees, as shareholders, as heads of departments, as directors, or as CEO, ought to be fuckin' around, without just cause, with the lives, liberties, or properties of anyone.

Now there is another dumb-ass title. Is Anarchim, in any way defensible. No big bag of words are even needed.

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions they claim maintain coercion and hierarchy, typically including, though not necessarily limited to, the state and capitalism. Wiki.

So, let us, by the most fundamental example possible to just spot a damned fool.

A mind, by biological fact, as every philosopher, who can be called one, knows. A mind is evolved by living life forms, in order to govern, the body whole.

Now how can anyone, even capable, of a smidgen of thinking, claim that they, themselves, should be excised from their own body? God, everyone is praying that you and all like you practice what you preach. The point of philosophy is for right human behavior itself.

Notice, that the Wiki def is even a self-referential fallacy. Philosophers search for standards of human behavior, so you got plenty of dumb-asses who cannot even think. Anarchism is the Philosophy of no Philosophy. What a concept!
And people ask why I call Chomsky a dribbling idiot.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:15 pm https://www.hbo.com/the-anarchists

What a wonderful idea! send the kitties to go watch TV, while adults are trying to learn how to reason by definition.
Congratulations, Milly!

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:41 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:15 pm https://www.hbo.com/the-anarchists

What a wonderful idea! send the kitties to go watch TV, while adults are trying to learn how to reason by definition.
Congratulations, Milly!

Great. Another pinhead.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 12:02 am

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:41 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 10:15 pm https://www.hbo.com/the-anarchists

What a wonderful idea! send the kitties to go watch TV, while adults are trying to learn how to reason by definition.
Congratulations, Milly!

Great. Another pinhead.

I see you are blind and looking for your twin, how sweat.

There are anarchists who are not advocating a total, free for all or even no State, though they generally want much smaller, local, participatory governing. The central problem is how to decentralize. Perhaps these anarcho- communities would work and even be stable, but how to get to them with powerful states and corporations and banks that have other plans. How does one disown central power when dealing with competitors and even enemies that are content with their enormous centralized power?