Anarchism (as in absence of hierarchy) is just true democracy (as in rule of the people). As long as everyone has insight into and control over all decisions, it's still anarchism.
Maybe we just define "anarchism" or "army" differently.
If you don't want to call it anarchy when people around the world voluntarily get together to form an army of volunteers to oppose an army of oppressors, so be it. In an anarchist army, I imagine you'd be free to leave at any time.
I have a feeling many an anarchist would turn out not to be an anarchist at all, if by definition, you can't voluntarily cooperate in a large scale army or some other large scale project, such as building railroad or exploring outer space.
"Wouldn't you prefer that the biggest and most powerful posse is one with well-defined rules, a sense of justice, and that gives you a vote?"
We can have that too. Yes, organization would be decentralized, but especially nowadays, it's a matter of a few keystrokes for my commune to tell the surrounding communes what we feel about stuff that matters on a scale that is larger than our daily doings. Decision making can easily scale outwards from the individual to the family to the village etc all the way to a global scale.
An example of a topic that probably would interest people around the world would be sustainability. The world would tell the polluters that however free you think you can bee, you can not mess up the planet for the rest of us, or else we will form a huge posse and come over.
Another example would be the oppressing posse. Interest in forming a counter-posse would scale with the rise in numbers and geographical impact of the bad posse.
Issues would get the geographical popularity they deserve, because if you can't solve a dispute you take it to next level by getting more people interested.
Government would be whatever people want it to be. If a family/commune/town/the world decides it wants to have some people do some "government-like" jobs, they could do that. I bet people would like full transparency and I don't think you'd need to have four year terms or whatever, since being appointed could be an ongoing vote. Abuse power and be voted off in an instant.
If most people around the world would like to have representative democracy instead of direct, decentralized democracy, then they would make that happen. That would be a real anti-climax, though.
What I think is interesting and perhaps controversial is that all this "all power to everyone" can't fit capitalism, as I see it. What to produce, where and how and where to ship it (and what to ship back) would be decided in the same way as everything else, by voluntary cooperation and by input from anyone it may concern.
Ok. I'd like to point out that I'm aware that this is not something we can just drop into place. This is just my vision of the goal. What is needed today is that people yearn for more democracy, more transparency, more knowledge, more information and more communication.
Apart for me being a peace loving defender of equality and justice, logically, nothing but a bigger posse will stop me and my posse. Whether that bigger posse would consist of police officers, hired to beat down the troublemakers or of voluntary defenders of equality and justice for all, doesn't matter. What matters is power and anarchism just aims for decentralized and equal power to all.
I guess the idea of a free and equal anarchist utopia requires that most people will side with freedom and equality. And I think most people would.
To maintain equality is up to everyone. If people aren't into the anarchism or democracy, and see it as their business not only to not be oppressed themselves, but to speak out and organize against the oppression of anyone, it cannot work.
So, it doesn't seem we could flip a switch today to get rid of government overnight. That could likely lead to the other, popular definition of anarchy, ie. the law of the jungle.
Anarchism/democracy/solidarity needs to happen through a revolution of the mind. People need to care more about running their lives and the world with equality and justice.
So, what to do now, in the real world? Well, I think speaking up for more democracy, against ignorance, suffering and powerlessness is probably on the right path.
Obviously, there are people who call themselves anarchist who might have very different views. Some might be more militant, arguing that capitalism is violence against the poor through its hierarchy and that it therefore is just to destroy or steal capital. And there are those who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, arguing for laizzes-faire capitalism, which IMO in practice will lead to kind of the opposite of equality and democracy.
So, I don't know... I just know I want freedom and equality for everyone and I can't see how that could be obtained through anything but direct democracy and socialism. I'm not very well versed in the writings about anarchist philosophy, so, all this is mainly my own, perhaps more or less ignorant/unintelligent views.
"Over time, you end up with very powerful people who can prey on the weak."
I don't know about "official policy" of anarchists (and as an anarchist, I'd recent anyone trying to force me to follow dogma), but as I see it...
If there are powerful and weak, then there's a hierarchy and if there's hierarchy, that's no longer anarchy. Anarchism is the road and the goal. It's true power to the people. I don't see how anarchism can be anything but real democracy where everyone has an equal say about everything. Power of the people without middle-men.
"we will just give them money and they will be happy giving things to us for free.
Is this what you had in mind?"
Basically, yes. Rich nations in the west could chip in to keep AP running. No need to sell information for a profit. It would be a little bit of international socialism, I guess.
I don't think this is very feasible, but I think it would be nice.
I wasn't absolutely certain if it was a joke or not. That is why I answered the way I did. Had I thought it was absolutely obvious I wouldn't have pointed it out. Good thing I did, though, seeing as you liked it.
I don't understand why you would want to thank me for pointing out the obvious. I don't think something obvious should need pointing out. But you are welcome. It makes me happy that I could help you.
Let's just get together and buy AP and fund them, and as their new owners, let the news be free. Like for example BBC is financed, but with all rich countries peoples that have an interest in journalists running around the world finding stuff out and reporting on it.
Ok. So we have two flawed systems. One wants to give power to a few rich people. The other wants to give power to all the poor people. I know which one I'd choose...
Seriously, though, I'm aware communism didn't in practice "give power to all the poor people".
What's wrong with communism, is that the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, isn't a good idea. You can't give power to a few, even temporarily, it seems.
The answer is anarchism. Anarchism can strive for the communist utopia (if that's what people want). Anarchism just won't give power to a small elite in the meanwhile.
Ok. That makes sense. I thought I had heard of tobacco and alcohol being net losses for Sweden, but maybe I heard wrong or was lied to. Thanks for correcting me.
"So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those."
There's no BS pretense here. I just said what I heard. I didn't mean to imply anything. I'm a smoker who lives off wellfare. I have nothing against "lower class leeches" such as myself.
I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.
The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.
Pfff.. You think there's much anti-capitalism? No there isn't. Not even enough of it.
We're soaking in capitalism and marketing and shit every day, here on slashdot and most everywhere else. Freemarketism is the fucking baseline of human culture in the west.
I've been trying to come up with sayings and I think I might have come up a good one:
"You can't come up with sayings. Either the saying you come up with is no good, or someone has said it before."
(If that is a good saying (maybe with some polish to the wording (english is my third language)), it's the last saying there can be. Or maybe someone's allready said it?)
"So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?"
Hell yes. Why? Because it would be good for me, the actual consumer/citizen/little guy. Why would you want to force Windows on me? Oh, you want to rip me off and you think you're entitled to that? Maybe you are, depending on where we live, but it shouldn't be that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Anarchism (as in absence of hierarchy) is just true democracy (as in rule of the people). As long as everyone has insight into and control over all decisions, it's still anarchism.
Maybe we just define "anarchism" or "army" differently.
If you don't want to call it anarchy when people around the world voluntarily get together to form an army of volunteers to oppose an army of oppressors, so be it. In an anarchist army, I imagine you'd be free to leave at any time.
I have a feeling many an anarchist would turn out not to be an anarchist at all, if by definition, you can't voluntarily cooperate in a large scale army or some other large scale project, such as building railroad or exploring outer space.
"Wouldn't you prefer that the biggest and most powerful posse is one with well-defined rules, a sense of justice, and that gives you a vote?"
We can have that too. Yes, organization would be decentralized, but especially nowadays, it's a matter of a few keystrokes for my commune to tell the surrounding communes what we feel about stuff that matters on a scale that is larger than our daily doings. Decision making can easily scale outwards from the individual to the family to the village etc all the way to a global scale.
An example of a topic that probably would interest people around the world would be sustainability. The world would tell the polluters that however free you think you can bee, you can not mess up the planet for the rest of us, or else we will form a huge posse and come over.
Another example would be the oppressing posse. Interest in forming a counter-posse would scale with the rise in numbers and geographical impact of the bad posse.
Issues would get the geographical popularity they deserve, because if you can't solve a dispute you take it to next level by getting more people interested.
Government would be whatever people want it to be. If a family/commune/town/the world decides it wants to have some people do some "government-like" jobs, they could do that. I bet people would like full transparency and I don't think you'd need to have four year terms or whatever, since being appointed could be an ongoing vote. Abuse power and be voted off in an instant.
If most people around the world would like to have representative democracy instead of direct, decentralized democracy, then they would make that happen. That would be a real anti-climax, though.
What I think is interesting and perhaps controversial is that all this "all power to everyone" can't fit capitalism, as I see it. What to produce, where and how and where to ship it (and what to ship back) would be decided in the same way as everything else, by voluntary cooperation and by input from anyone it may concern.
Ok. I'd like to point out that I'm aware that this is not something we can just drop into place. This is just my vision of the goal. What is needed today is that people yearn for more democracy, more transparency, more knowledge, more information and more communication.
Apart for me being a peace loving defender of equality and justice, logically, nothing but a bigger posse will stop me and my posse. Whether that bigger posse would consist of police officers, hired to beat down the troublemakers or of voluntary defenders of equality and justice for all, doesn't matter. What matters is power and anarchism just aims for decentralized and equal power to all.
I guess the idea of a free and equal anarchist utopia requires that most people will side with freedom and equality. And I think most people would.
If my neighbour starts bullying me, I call upon all the other neighbours. Nobody and everybody is the police.
You need to be almost incredibly stoic to kill, butcher and then eat your own meat, though.
5. They didn't want to sue Apple for a thousand billion in damages because of psychological distress.
You need corporate lawyers now to evolve into birds?
To maintain equality is up to everyone. If people aren't into the anarchism or democracy, and see it as their business not only to not be oppressed themselves, but to speak out and organize against the oppression of anyone, it cannot work.
So, it doesn't seem we could flip a switch today to get rid of government overnight. That could likely lead to the other, popular definition of anarchy, ie. the law of the jungle.
Anarchism/democracy/solidarity needs to happen through a revolution of the mind. People need to care more about running their lives and the world with equality and justice.
So, what to do now, in the real world? Well, I think speaking up for more democracy, against ignorance, suffering and powerlessness is probably on the right path.
Obviously, there are people who call themselves anarchist who might have very different views. Some might be more militant, arguing that capitalism is violence against the poor through its hierarchy and that it therefore is just to destroy or steal capital. And there are those who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, arguing for laizzes-faire capitalism, which IMO in practice will lead to kind of the opposite of equality and democracy.
So, I don't know... I just know I want freedom and equality for everyone and I can't see how that could be obtained through anything but direct democracy and socialism. I'm not very well versed in the writings about anarchist philosophy, so, all this is mainly my own, perhaps more or less ignorant/unintelligent views.
"Over time, you end up with very powerful people who can prey on the weak."
I don't know about "official policy" of anarchists (and as an anarchist, I'd recent anyone trying to force me to follow dogma), but as I see it...
If there are powerful and weak, then there's a hierarchy and if there's hierarchy, that's no longer anarchy. Anarchism is the road and the goal. It's true power to the people. I don't see how anarchism can be anything but real democracy where everyone has an equal say about everything. Power of the people without middle-men.
"we will just give them money and they will be happy giving things to us for free.
Is this what you had in mind?"
Basically, yes. Rich nations in the west could chip in to keep AP running. No need to sell information for a profit. It would be a little bit of international socialism, I guess.
I don't think this is very feasible, but I think it would be nice.
No problem. I can see how my comment was easily misunderstood.
I should be more aware of how my tone of voice and/or my background doesn't come through implicitly to strangers on the internet.
I'm glad there are people who are irked by lack of decency towards the less powerful. Keep it up! :)
I wasn't absolutely certain if it was a joke or not. That is why I answered the way I did. Had I thought it was absolutely obvious I wouldn't have pointed it out. Good thing I did, though, seeing as you liked it.
I don't understand why you would want to thank me for pointing out the obvious. I don't think something obvious should need pointing out. But you are welcome. It makes me happy that I could help you.
You're being subtly humorous, aren't you?
(in case you aren't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect )
Let's just get together and buy AP and fund them, and as their new owners, let the news be free. Like for example BBC is financed, but with all rich countries peoples that have an interest in journalists running around the world finding stuff out and reporting on it.
Well, illegal or not, spreading as much information to as many people as possible, is obviously a good thing.
I, for one, don't hate you. What I dislike is much of US foreign policy since decades back.
People who "hate Americans" really should learn about Noam Chomsky, Kurt Vonnegut and Bill Hicks, for example. All great Americans (IMO).
Ok. So we have two flawed systems. One wants to give power to a few rich people. The other wants to give power to all the poor people. I know which one I'd choose...
Seriously, though, I'm aware communism didn't in practice "give power to all the poor people".
What's wrong with communism, is that the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, isn't a good idea. You can't give power to a few, even temporarily, it seems.
The answer is anarchism. Anarchism can strive for the communist utopia (if that's what people want). Anarchism just won't give power to a small elite in the meanwhile.
Ok. That makes sense. I thought I had heard of tobacco and alcohol being net losses for Sweden, but maybe I heard wrong or was lied to. Thanks for correcting me.
"So please spare me the BS pretense that you somehow subsidize those."
There's no BS pretense here. I just said what I heard. I didn't mean to imply anything. I'm a smoker who lives off wellfare. I have nothing against "lower class leeches" such as myself.
I don't know if cigarette taxes are the reason to still allow cigarettes in Sweden, for example. I imagine the cost to society from smoking may well be greater than the income, thanks to universal healthcare.
The real reason is probably that banning cigarettes would cause a huge(er) smuggling problem and large mobs of angry, smoking protesters.
What they say is incorrect. Of course there is such a thing as bad press.
Pfff.. You think there's much anti-capitalism? No there isn't. Not even enough of it.
We're soaking in capitalism and marketing and shit every day, here on slashdot and most everywhere else. Freemarketism is the fucking baseline of human culture in the west.
I'm in.
I've been trying to come up with sayings and I think I might have come up a good one:
"You can't come up with sayings. Either the saying you come up with is no good, or someone has said it before."
(If that is a good saying (maybe with some polish to the wording (english is my third language)), it's the last saying there can be. Or maybe someone's allready said it?)
"So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?"
Hell yes. Why? Because it would be good for me, the actual consumer/citizen/little guy. Why would you want to force Windows on me? Oh, you want to rip me off and you think you're entitled to that? Maybe you are, depending on where we live, but it shouldn't be that way.
Ok. Here's me looking foolish. IPRED is an eu directive, hence the name not being in swedish.