I agree with that. Bear in mind Kaze-dono I'm ignorant where this topic is concerned but people are easy to figure out. Human beings by nature, want more. It's true that we're social creatures but we're also greedy ones to boot. The interest of the many will always be usurped by the greed of the few. Every system is flawed because systems are created by people. I am not aware of any structure or system in human history that was not tainted by corruption.
The Enigma of Anarchism.
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
First of all, you need to understand human nature as social animal. In such society, being greedy is to the detriment of one's survivability as one would be deemed as a social outcast. Prior to the introduction of proto-capitalism, human being lives in a socialist-anarchist type of society where everyone works for the benefit of the community. This alone, already proven that Anarchism is not a concept that is alien to human nature.
In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois. A French Jesuit priest who encountered them in the 1650s wrote: "No poorhouses are needed among them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers.. . . Their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common."
Howard Zinn - A People's History of The United States (pp. 16)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25994226/...s-Howard-Zinn-Audio-and-Textbook-for-Download
Modern day examples includes;
- Paris Commune
- Jewish Kibbutzim
- Anarchists communities in Catalonia and Aragon during the Second Spanish Civil War
- etc.
[MENTION=170]Zero Phoenix[/MENTION]
I'm not arguing Anarchism as flawless, to the contrary - I'm arguing Anarchism as the closest to my idealistic view of how society should function.
In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois. A French Jesuit priest who encountered them in the 1650s wrote: "No poorhouses are needed among them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers.. . . Their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common."
Howard Zinn - A People's History of The United States (pp. 16)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25994226/...s-Howard-Zinn-Audio-and-Textbook-for-Download
Modern day examples includes;
- Paris Commune
- Jewish Kibbutzim
- Anarchists communities in Catalonia and Aragon during the Second Spanish Civil War
- etc.
[MENTION=170]Zero Phoenix[/MENTION]
I'm not arguing Anarchism as flawless, to the contrary - I'm arguing Anarchism as the closest to my idealistic view of how society should function.
The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay
The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm
Refer once again to post #9.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Peter Jay
The Jay Interview, July 25, 1976
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm
Refer once again to post #9.
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations, but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism
Maybe this => Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority
Araki, you are aware that you can use information found on Wikipedia in arguments without a credibility issue... right? All you have to do is seek the sources at the bottom and verify them and use them to back up your article, rather than the Wikipedia article itself.
I learned that this is a permissible way of gaining credible sources from my college English class years ago. They agreed that much of the information on Wikipedia is worthwhile. It is only lacking credibility due to who writes the articles, but if you can back up information found with the sources that are usually provided at the very bottom - then there is no conflict of interest in using wiki-found information. Plenty of the sources provided ARE legitimate.
I learned that this is a permissible way of gaining credible sources from my college English class years ago. They agreed that much of the information on Wikipedia is worthwhile. It is only lacking credibility due to who writes the articles, but if you can back up information found with the sources that are usually provided at the very bottom - then there is no conflict of interest in using wiki-found information. Plenty of the sources provided ARE legitimate.
"Military" in the sense of absolute hierarchical order is against the Anarchist principle. During the Second Spanish Civil War, the Fascists army of Franco was not opposed by Anarchists Military per see, but by militiamen that voluntarily and spontaneously took up arms to defend their Syndicalist revolution.
Are you aware that the citation was quoted out of context?
Are you aware that the citation was quoted out of context?
I suppose I understand that but the issue I keep coming back to, is what makes "this" group incorruptible? Every system that we take issue with "today" started off as something "pure" relatively speaking. The same merits of anarchism that you are sharing with us today, someone did with democracy more than 200 years ago and someone did the same thing with monarchies centuries before that. My question to you Kaze-dono is what ensures the incorruptibility of this system?
Every system we have, did have their set of merits and the like yes. They still do. But again the issue always comes back to the people. As long as people are imperfect, the implementations of our systems will also be "imperfect" even if the systems themselves are fundamentally utopian.
So I'll give you the Iroquois then. However, your situation seems very ideal, i.e. it would only work if everyone subscribed to the anarchist philosophy. Using the plight of the native american nations as a reference, how long do you think a single anarchist country will survive among all of these other systems? In otherwords, how effective would an anarchist system be in times of war?