Anarchists attack photographer

drh681 · Jun 11, 2011

in a "true anarchy" any collective action would require the consent of every member of the collective.

because, if the collective took action over even a single objection, some one is being ruled.

so very few things would be done collctively and any that were would rarely be done in a timely manner.

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.
--
Member of The Pet Rock Owners and Breeders Association
Boarding and Training at Reasonable Rates
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

bikinchris · Jun 11, 2011

drh681 said:
A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.

THANK YOU. You have said what I have been trying to say in just a few words and did it very well.

drh681 said:
--
Member of The Pet Rock Owners and Breeders Association
Boarding and Training at Reasonable Rates
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike
Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection.

Chris, Broussard, LA

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

drh681 said:
in a "true anarchy" any collective action would require the consent of every member of the collective.

because, if the collective took action over even a single objection, some one is being ruled.

so very few things would be done collctively and any that were would rarely be done in a timely manner.

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.
--

But I know of no Anarchist theorist who embraces it. What is common to Anarchist theory is the abhorance of physical compulsion. Most believe that peer group presure would be sufficient. At any event no one would be forced to do embrace the collective decision, But those who opposed it, And refused to go along, would not be able to share in it's benefits.

Dave

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
drh681 said:

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU. You have said what I have been trying to say in just a few words and did it very well.

But those who are Anarchists, or Fascists or Communists, or Budhists, or anything else for that matter, have the right to define themselves.

I can define Capitalism as a system whose only purpose is to exploit people for personal gain. But I allow Capitalists to define things anyway they want to. If I want to criticize an economic or political view, I do so on what their actual practice is.

It's convenient to attack a viewpoint according to your own defiinition but ultimately that becomes absurd, as in your previous statement that Anarchists don't believe in organisation. That is YOUR statement not THEIRS...

Dave

igb · Jun 11, 2011

drh681 said:
in a "true anarchy" any collective action would require the consent of every member of the collective.

because, if the collective took action over even a single objection, some one is being ruled.

so very few things would be done collctively and any that were would rarely be done in a timely manner.

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.

This way off topic and we probably shouldn't be having this discussion here but I don't feel comfortable letting pass such blanket such statements on subjects which have generated incredible amounts of literature.

Suffice it to say that there are lots of examples through history (from tribal societies to the collectivist experiment in Spanish civil war) where collective issues (they aren't that many) were decided collectively. It can be argued that said examples belong to simpler and basically rural societies, incompatible with the concept of a nation and that would be fair .

I'll gladly avoid, however what it is that entitle you to issue authenticity certificates on anarchy.

--

No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system (Mikhail Bakunin on Brand Wars)

igb · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
drh681 said:

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU. You have said what I have been trying to say in just a few words and did it very well.

You're very good at concealing your intentions, then.

On the question of what humans are made of I feel that it's a pity that so many people has fallen for the idea (spinned for generations with military precision) that they're not worthy and need masters.

That is life, I guess.
--

No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system (Mikhail Bakunin on Brand Wars)

bikinchris · Jun 11, 2011

igb said:
bikinchris said:

I think we just need to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

We'd need to agree on what , first.

Let me see if I can define it. You think that Anarchists have a decent idea. I think that human nature has never and will never allow any such idea as Anarchy as defined by you and the article you have cited.

Human nature is selfish and greedy for the most part. It is true that for some people, this might work. But even that chance is extremely low.
Personally I will continue to be a disbeliever.

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike
Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection.

Chris, Broussard, LA

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
igb said:

bikinchris said:

I think we just need to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

We'd need to agree on what , first.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can define it. You think that Anarchists have a decent idea. I think that human nature has never and will never allow any such idea as Anarchy as defined by you and the article you have cited.

Human nature is selfish and greedy for the most part. It is true that for some people, this might work. But even that chance is extremely low.
Personally I will continue to be a disbeliever.

While its true that Anarchist theory has a much higher opinion of humanity then you do, they do not have the illusions that you assign them.

In their projected society, the means by which people exploit or abuse each other will not exist, and therefore the minority (a smaller minority then you believe in) will be unable to abuse and exploit people. They also believe that much of the greed and poor behavior of people is necesitated by living in a society in which the law of the jungle is acceptable behavior. That people do what they have to do to survive. Once survival is assured, more people will be willing to live cooperatively.

Dave

nick_webster · Jun 11, 2011

Whose opinion are you going to use to decide if the publication is left/centre/right ? And then you have to ask whether their opinion is biased

Read it yourself and make up your own mind,

Nick

knox · Jun 11, 2011

ahhh . . so NOW you are debating what an anarchist is . . . at a photography site!
What is next?

Chato said:
While its true that Anarchist theory has a much higher opinion of humanity then you do, they do not have the illusions that you assign them.

In their projected society, the means by which people exploit or abuse each other will not exist, and therefore the minority (a smaller minority then you believe in) will be unable to abuse and exploit people. They also believe that much of the greed and poor behavior of people is necesitated by living in a society in which the law of the jungle is acceptable behavior. That people do what they have to do to survive. Once survival is assured, more people will be willing to live cooperatively.

Dave

--
Knox
--
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

knox said:
ahhh . . so NOW you are debating what an anarchist is . . . at a photography site!
What is next?

Chato said:

While its true that Anarchist theory has a much higher opinion of humanity then you do, they do not have the illusions that you assign them.

In their projected society, the means by which people exploit or abuse each other will not exist, and therefore the minority (a smaller minority then you believe in) will be unable to abuse and exploit people. They also believe that much of the greed and poor behavior of people is necesitated by living in a society in which the law of the jungle is acceptable behavior. That people do what they have to do to survive. Once survival is assured, more people will be willing to live cooperatively.

Dave

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com

http://www.pbase.com/streetkid/galleries

Chris59 · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
The story below details multiple attacks on a photographer and his newspaper building:

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/09/1681579/olympian-building-photographer.html

Is it not the definition of irony to actually have an "Anarchy movement?"

The only name that fits that kind of behaviour is criminal. Calling them anything else is to pander to them.

bikinchris said:
--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike
Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection.

Chris, Broussard, LA

bikinchris · Jun 11, 2011

Chris59 said:
bikinchris said:

The story below details multiple attacks on a photographer and his newspaper building:

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/09/1681579/olympian-building-photographer.html

Is it not the definition of irony to actually have an "Anarchy movement?"

Click to expand...

The only name that fits that kind of behaviour is criminal. Calling them anything else is to pander to them.

You are correct, actually. I would think the "good" anarchists would speak out about this, but that would be telling someone else what to do. They apparently think that other people shouldn't tell them what to do.

Chris59 said:
Chris59 said:

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike
Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection.

Chris, Broussard, LA

Click to expand...

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike
Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection.

Chris, Broussard, LA

drh681 · Jun 11, 2011

Chato said:
drh681 said:

in a "true anarchy" any collective action would require the consent of every member of the collective.

because, if the collective took action over even a single objection, some one is being ruled.

so very few things would be done collctively and any that were would rarely be done in a timely manner.

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.
--

Click to expand...

But I know of no Anarchist theorist who embraces it. What is common to Anarchist theory is the abhorance of physical compulsion. Most believe that peer group presure would be sufficient. At any event no one would be forced to do embrace the collective decision, But those who opposed it, And refused to go along, would not be able to share in it's benefits.

Dave

O.K. but would the refuseniks be forced to fund the collective decision? presuming the collective is going to use capital from the collective. Or is the total available funding reduced on a par value to the input of the refuseniks?

ALL political systems are designed to spend money on the good of the members of the system.

from the first time men agreed to clear the bears out of a cave, someone has to make the first decision as to how much effort is needed, and where to apply it.

anyway; a true anarchy would be so dedicated to NOT ruling, as to preclude actions not agreed to by all the members. from there ANY coercive action, including exclusion, negates the essence of the anarchy.

--
Member of The Pet Rock Owners and Breeders Association
Boarding and Training at Reasonable Rates
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

drh681 said:
Chato said:

drh681 said:

in a "true anarchy" any collective action would require the consent of every member of the collective.

because, if the collective took action over even a single objection, some one is being ruled.

so very few things would be done collctively and any that were would rarely be done in a timely manner.

A true anarchy would require a universal rationality that is unlikely to ever be found amongst humans.
--

Click to expand...

But I know of no Anarchist theorist who embraces it. What is common to Anarchist theory is the abhorance of physical compulsion. Most believe that peer group presure would be sufficient. At any event no one would be forced to do embrace the collective decision, But those who opposed it, And refused to go along, would not be able to share in it's benefits.

Dave

Click to expand...

O.K. but would the refuseniks be forced to fund the collective decision? presuming the collective is going to use capital from the collective. Or is the total available funding reduced on a par value to the input of the refuseniks?

Democratic decisions are democratic decisions. If a factory is jointly "owned" by the workers, and they make a decision, which you cannot abide by - They would suggest you join another collective.

It is in fact identical to any democratic process. We win an election, we put our program into effect. It works? Fine. It doesn't work, we make another decision.

In practice, when "our side" loses a vote, we simply go along, and campaign for a change of policy. The Anarchist theory would be to avoid physical compulsion. But it's not a question of compulsion when the majority votes to spend the collectives funds.

drh681 said:
ALL political systems are designed to spend money on the good of the members of the system.

from the first time men agreed to clear the bears out of a cave, someone has to make the first decision as to how much effort is needed, and where to apply it.

anyway; a true anarchy would be so dedicated to NOT ruling, as to preclude actions not agreed to by all the members. from there ANY coercive action, including exclusion, negates the essence of the anarchy.

"Exclusion" would mean physically forcing a member to leave the collective, would it not? This would violate Anarchist theory.

Keep in mind that one factory or farm does not a society make. Anarchist theory calls for industries to have their own representatives, to regulate one industry, and representatitives of each industry would meet to set industrial policy as a whole.

Look, I'm NOT an Anarchist. I am objectively presenting their theory not mine.

Such a society is very attractive, since it is basically Libertarian in nature. Personally I believe such a society can only evolve gradually, whereas Anarchists generally believe it can be created virtually over night. They have an answer to my objections...

Dave

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
Chris59 said:

bikinchris said:

The story below details multiple attacks on a photographer and his newspaper building:

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/09/1681579/olympian-building-photographer.html

Is it not the definition of irony to actually have an "Anarchy movement?"

Click to expand...

The only name that fits that kind of behaviour is criminal. Calling them anything else is to pander to them.

Click to expand...

You are correct, actually. I would think the "good" anarchists would speak out about this, but that would be telling someone else what to do. They apparently think that other people shouldn't tell them what to do.

You have interviewed the group involved? Has anyone interviewed the group involved? In fact what are the position of the group involved?

Based on the information presented to us, these people acted criminally. I strongly doubt that any one sought out the opinions of the organisation. I tend to believe the story. So what? I didn't interview anyone either...

Dave

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
Let me see if I can define it. You think that Anarchists have a decent idea. I think that human nature has never and will never allow any such idea as Anarchy as defined by you and the article you have cited.

Human nature is selfish and greedy for the most part. It is true that for some people, this might work. But even that chance is extremely low.
Personally I will continue to be a disbeliever.

John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?

Emma Goldman, "What is Anarchy?"

drh681 · Jun 11, 2011

Chato said:
drh681 said:

O.K. ...Or is the total available funding reduced on a par value to the input of the refuseniks?

Click to expand...

Democratic decisions are democratic decisions. If a factory is jointly "owned" by the workers, and they make a decision, which you cannot abide by - They would suggest you join another collective.

It is in fact identical to any democratic process. We win an election, we put our program into effect. It works? Fine. It doesn't work, we make another decision.

In practice, when "our side" loses a vote, we simply go along, and campaign for a change of policy. The Anarchist theory would be to avoid physical compulsion. But it's not a question of compulsion when the majority votes to spend the collectives funds.

Chato said:

ALL political systems are designed to spend money on the good of the members of the system.

from the first time men agreed to clear the bears out of a cave, someone has to make the first decision as to how much effort is needed, and where to apply it.

anyway; a true anarchy would be so dedicated to NOT ruling, as to preclude actions not agreed to by all the members. from there ANY coercive action, including exclusion, negates the essence of the anarchy.

Click to expand...

"Exclusion" would mean physically forcing a member to leave the collective, would it not? This would violate Anarchist theory.

Keep in mind that one factory or farm does not a society make. Anarchist theory calls for industries to have their own representatives, to regulate one industry, and representatitives of each industry would meet to set industrial policy as a whole.

Look, I'm NOT an Anarchist. I am objectively presenting their theory not mine.

Such a society is very attractive, since it is basically Libertarian in nature. Personally I believe such a society can only evolve gradually, whereas Anarchists generally believe it can be created virtually over night. They have an answer to my objections...

Dave

see you have hit on the problem with anarchy as a theoretical concept.
It seems to be a logically impossible system of behavior.

Any alteration to allow for collective action in the presence of opposition by even one member, changes it from an anarchy to something else.

But as a true anarchy there may form groups that decide to act even against the will of a majority.
the essence of anarchy is a refusal to be ruled even by a democratic vote.
As an orginizational concept, Anarchy does not work.
at least not without the rigid rationality I mentioned earlier.

fun conversation.

---

Member of The Pet Rock Owners and Breeders Association
Boarding and Training at Reasonable Rates
Photons by the bag.
Gravitons no longer shipped outside US or Canada
-----.....------

if I mock you, it may be well deserved.

Chato · Jun 11, 2011

drh681 said:
Chato said:

drh681 said:

O.K. ...Or is the total available funding reduced on a par value to the input of the refuseniks?

Click to expand...

Democratic decisions are democratic decisions. If a factory is jointly "owned" by the workers, and they make a decision, which you cannot abide by - They would suggest you join another collective.

It is in fact identical to any democratic process. We win an election, we put our program into effect. It works? Fine. It doesn't work, we make another decision.

In practice, when "our side" loses a vote, we simply go along, and campaign for a change of policy. The Anarchist theory would be to avoid physical compulsion. But it's not a question of compulsion when the majority votes to spend the collectives funds.

drh681 said:

ALL political systems are designed to spend money on the good of the members of the system.

from the first time men agreed to clear the bears out of a cave, someone has to make the first decision as to how much effort is needed, and where to apply it.

anyway; a true anarchy would be so dedicated to NOT ruling, as to preclude actions not agreed to by all the members. from there ANY coercive action, including exclusion, negates the essence of the anarchy.

Click to expand...

"Exclusion" would mean physically forcing a member to leave the collective, would it not? This would violate Anarchist theory.

Keep in mind that one factory or farm does not a society make. Anarchist theory calls for industries to have their own representatives, to regulate one industry, and representatitives of each industry would meet to set industrial policy as a whole.

Look, I'm NOT an Anarchist. I am objectively presenting their theory not mine.

Such a society is very attractive, since it is basically Libertarian in nature. Personally I believe such a society can only evolve gradually, whereas Anarchists generally believe it can be created virtually over night. They have an answer to my objections...

Dave

Click to expand...

see you have hit on the problem with anarchy as a theoretical concept.
It seems to be a logically impossible system of behavior.

You have to free your mind from one of Mr. Dictionary's definitions . "Anarchy" is chaos, Anarchism is a system for soceity to function. In and of itself I have no problem with Democratic decision making. And obviously Democratic decision making has proved viable.

Anarchism doesn't want a State. They envision united collectives. The aim of these collectives is not to impose decisions by force, but rather simple common sense decisions; i.e. Society needs "x" amount of such and such gadgets.

drh681 said:
Any alteration to allow for collective action in the presence of opposition by even one member, changes it from an anarchy to something else.

You are imposing your definition on Anarchists. You are juxtoposing a Democratic decision as the imposition of force. This is neither fair, and more importantly, it's not true. For example, Native Americans would democratically decide to move to a new location. Even those who opposed this would pack up and move with the majority. But those who couldn't handle that decision, could stay or go where they wanted to.

drh681 said:
But as a true anarchy there may form groups that decide to act even against the will of a majority.

drh681 said:
the essence of anarchy is a refusal to be ruled even by a democratic vote.
As an orginizational concept, Anarchy does not work.
at least not without the rigid rationality I mentioned earlier.

Well, as I pointed out, you have created a straw man to demolish, and you have indeed demolished the strawman. But since I have taken the time to actually read Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others, no offense, but you haven't touched Anarchism...

drh681 said:
fun conversation.

I'm a Libertarian Socialist. My quarrel with Anarchism is that it can only come about after humanity has done away with private ownership of the Means of Production. Mind you, not done away with the concept of private property.

But at it's core, Anarchism IS libertarianism...

It assumes that most people can 'live" with Democratic decisions, and for the minority who not only disagree, but can't live with the decision, there are always other collectives to join -

Dave

igb · Jun 11, 2011

bikinchris said:
igb said:

bikinchris said:

I think we just need to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

We'd need to agree on what , first.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can define it. You think that Anarchists have a decent idea.

When have I said so?

bikinchris said:
I think that human nature has never and will never allow any such idea as Anarchy as defined by you and the article you have cited.

Human nature is selfish and greedy for the most part. It is true that for some people, this might work. But even that chance is extremely low.

I'd really appreciate your being more self-restrained when voicing opinions on thing such as human nature (age old questions sorted out with a one liner, in DPR forums, no less, I think not).

Anyway, you might to consider a couple of things. First, it is you nature you're talking about and second aspiring to more fulfilling social organisations is mainly in one own interest, so maybe it's what selfish persons do.

bikinchris said:
Personally I will continue to be a disbeliever.

--

No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system (Mikhail Bakunin on Brand Wars)

Anarchists attack photographer

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

knox

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts