[Kamil]

The Russian and other revolutions weren't anarchistic, and in any event nobody succeeded in producing an anarchistic society.

On the contrary, the Russian Revolution of 1917, in fact, had been an anarchistic revolution. If you were at all oriented with Marxist-Leninism, you'd notice that, unlike Marx's predictions for the proletarian revolution, revolution was proven to arise in impoverished and semi-feudal nations,on account that they are semi-feudal and impoverished. It had always been Marx's belief that, simply because he thought revolution is likely to arise in industrialized nations, the industrial workers would be very cultivated in revolutionary tactics and goals, taking into consideration several aspects, although the details of these aspects are unimportant and already somewhat evident to the reader. Essentially, these industrial workers, come the time of revolution, would not need any vanguard parties to assist them. On the other hand, as Trotsky pointed out, this was not the case; revolutions are bound to be precipitated in semi-feudal third-world nations. Therefore, Lenin made an update in the Marxist theory of proletarian revolution by issuing a corresponding revolutionary guideline to the situation in these latently revolutionary third-world countries. It is fact that workers in third-world countries are not cultivated in revolutionary matters and tactics; even though many of these third-world countries have a Marxist majority, they surely do not sufficiently comprehend the Marxist theory; they simply understand what they are against, and not Marxist dialectical materialism or Marx's theory of alienation. Lenin knowing this, therefore emphasized the role of the vanguard to a much greater extent, in conclusion. The influence of the vanguard party should be proportionate to the amount of revolutionary comprehension held by the masses. Therefore, in the upcoming revolutions, the vanguard - a body of industrial workers and well-cultivated revolutionaries and tacticians - would serve as the impetus for the working classes, in the revolution, by rendering their expert advice and leading the workers to communism.

You see, these residents of third-world countries may simply call themselves Marxists because they're against the capitalists, and have a Marxist party near them, but they don't know shit about the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and what's entailed in the Marxist theory of proletarian revolution. All in all, these workers do not comprehend the in-depth nature of the Marxian philosophy, which is why they will not abide by these guidelines, unless they are told to do so. That is why, in the Russian Revolution of 1917, Russian workers' took spontaneous action against the capitalists and organized themselves along the lines of anarchistic principles; it may be so that these workers believed themselves to be Marxists, but it does not change the fact that they had prompted an anarchist revolution. Everything was going well. Sadly, being such vehement Marxists, the Bolshevik vanguard, without any difficulty, intervened in the spring of 1918 and suppressed the soviets.

As for the other listed anarchistic revolutions:

Ukrainian Revolution, 1918-21 In the Spring of 1918 the new Bolshevik government made peace with Germany and agreed to allow them to take over Ukraine and other areas formerly part of the Russian Empire. The people in the Ukraine had no say in this and revolted against the Germans. After the February revolution in Russia peasant village assemblies had begun taking over the land. They formed Free Soviets which, unlike the Russian versions subordinated to the Bolsheviks, were free of political parties and were controlled by the peasants & workers. In some places rescources were pooled and communes formed. They formed decentralized democratic militias that fought against reactionaries and foreign invaders. Anarchists played an important role in organizing all of this, especially the Anarcho-Communist Nestor Makhno. These partisan groups were able to defeat the Germans, Austrians, Ukrainian Nationalists and two white armies (the whites were Russian reactionaries). In 1921 the Bolsheviks invaded Ukraine and used their superior rescources to conquer it, violently supressing the communes, free Soviets and popular assemblies.

Italy, 1920 In 1920 workers in Italy began taking over their factories on a mass scale. Peasants also began taking over the land. The leaders of the Italian Socialist Party, who wanted to gain power for themselves by working within the system, effectively sabotaged the movement. They negotiated with the capitalists & state to gain a few reforms and then helped get the workers to give up control of the factories and go back to obeying the bosses. Because the Socialist Party commanded the loyalty of many workers they were effective at ending the occupations. Once the Socialist Party helped the capitalists end the occupation, the capitalists decided to put Mussolini in power and implement Fascism in order to maintain their rule.

This of course, too, had been a spontaneous revolution, but on account of the peoples' vehement connection with the Italian Socialist Party, capitulation naturally followed after the Italian Socialist Party made deals with the capitalists, and then urged the workers to give-up control of the lands.

Spanish Revolution, 1936-37 On July 19th, 1936 Fascists launched a coup against the Spanish Republic. In response the National Confederation of Labor (CNT), an anarcho-syndicalist union, and the General Union of Workers, a union affiliated with the Spanish Socialist Party, called a general strike. The Republic refused to release arms to the workers so they broke into the barracks and distributed arms to the people. After this happened the Republic decided to distribute arms to the workers. The workers fought and defeated the Fascist coup in two-thirds of Spain, in the process launching an anarcho-syndicalist revolution. As a result the state was effectively destroyed; the military was in rebellion and the police forces had dissolved during the fighting. The workers and peasants took over the land and factories, forming collectives throughout anti-fascist Spain. In some villages money was abolished and anarcho-communism implemented. Worker & village assemblies, and federations of assemblies, took over the running of the economy. Democratic militias were formed to fight against the Fascists. The anarcho-syndicalists, however, chose not to complete the revolution by forming neighborhood assemblies and completely abolishing money. Instead they chose to allow the state to be restored in order to form an alliance with other anti-fascist groups, including the Republicans and Marxists. In September 1936 Anarchists from the CNT were made ministers in the Republic and the state began to restore its' power. This was done in order to form an alliance with other groups against the Fascists. It was also hoped that putting the revolution on hold would increase the likelyhood that the western "democracies" would help the anti-fascist cause but they never did. A minority of Spanish anarchists denounced this and advocated a policy of 'revolutionary war' to both wage revolution and defeat the fascists. Over the next year the state gradually restored it's power, recreating traditional hierarchical military and police forces. In May of 1937 the anarchists were kicked out of the government and an offensive against the collectives launched; the Spanish Communist party played a major role in this. The collectives were eventually destroyed; land and industries were either nationalized or turned into private property. As a result of the destruction of the revolution by the Republic & Communist Party the population was demoralized and the Fascists won the civil war. The mistake of restoring the state destroyed the revolution.

Synopsis' on the following revolutions provided by: Question Everything

Mussolini was nonMarxist; so were many other authoritarian leaders even if they weren't totalitarian.

Authoritarian leaders that aren't affiliated with totalitarian thought or practise are simply politicians of any state. All the apparent democracies in the world are nothing but authoritarian and dictatorial regimes.

This totalitarian/Wholist system will IMO arise partly due to crises democracy can't handle, or exacerbates, and a major transformation of society due to automation etc. As for the quality of leadership, I'm pretty sure it won't, for one thing, be racist, because only the military can topple current government, and it's largely composed of minorities.

What type of crises' do you believe "democratic" society will precipitate, but then will not be able to handle? Do you have any scientific substantiation as to the possibilities of these crises'? Come the time of these crises, how will you succeed in rising to power? Will this, as traditionally, be indirect totalitarianism, or do you believe that a group of totalitarians will simply take power?
_____________________________________________________________

Forsooth, there are things innate to human beings; humans have noses, humans have legs, etc. Essentially, this deals with our physical/biological constitution; what distinguishes us as human beings. The same can be said for your example dealing with facial expression; it centers around the human anatomy. It'd be much more efficient to utilize the idea of emotion as a prime example of "human nature," rather than facial expression: emotion, after all, determines facial expression, save the cases of denial, acting, self-deception, etc. Therefore, in most cases, emotion and facial expression are inseperable. I don't know if you'll agree, which is why I'll proceed to argue your initial example. Oh, and by the way, congratulations on the plagiarism from Wikipedia.

Postulating that there's a "human nature" on account that humans share the same facial expressions, etc., is absurd. Facial expressions are something we are capable of, but we are not necessitated to experience all the manifold facial expressions; in a way, you could very well argue that facial expressions are learned rather than they are innate. Not that I abide by this notion, as I am neutral in this arguement, but it's just as legitimate as the notion that facial expressions are innate. I'm still searching for philosophical beliefs that suit me, which is why, at the moment, I still don't hold a certain position of a few topics., such as this one. Moreover, we are capable of smiling, but if we've never been subjected to something that precipitates us to smile, then our ability to smile remains a capability. - Experiencing happiness which, in turn, generates a spontaneous smile calls for a corresponding climate to precipitate the smile; certain emotions, in turn, facial expressions, require an enviroment or phenomena in accordance with that particular emotion for that emotion to become precipitated . Besides, if one is incapable of smiling as they suffer from abnormal facial construction, and this apparently innate quality of smiling is something they do not possess, are they not human? They do, after all, violate "human nature." - There could, after all be, however absurd this may sound, a facial expression never before experienced, that is innate. Only for the reason that there has been no corresponding phenomenon or enviroment to precipitate it, is why it has not yet been experienced. It is possible: our facial muscles are perfectly capable of such bizarre movement and formation. Or, perhaps, in the course of evolution will our muscles modify, and in turn, produce new sets of facial expression. It only seems absurd to us because we've never experienced this bizarre facial expression. For example, if you try to think of a colour you've never seen before, you won't succeed as it is a priori. To be more specific, say that a particular individual never perceived the colour 'green'; if you'd ask them the same question, they'd never think of green as a colour they never saw.

Every species has innate traits, but that doesn't signify that there's a sort of "nature" in accordance with these analogous characteristics. If the "human nature" arguement succeeded in rendering a credible theory substantiating the hypothesis that much of our behaviour is innate and not learned, then I'd find it acceptable for a "human nature" arguement to exist, however, the "human nature" arguement in no way renders a credible theory for such, and the only sensible idea it suggests is that humans, as a whole, innately possess the exact same uniform qualities such as emotion (anger, sadness, passive fear, etc.), as well as physical phenomenon, etc... There is definately more to that, such that deals with consciousness, but the "human nature" arguements for innate consciousness are not even worthy of mentioning. Simply saying that humans have a "nature" due to their uniform possession of analoguous emotions, facial expressions, physical constitutions, does not suffice to constitute what the "human nature" theory sets out to do: to agglomerate certain innate qualities and traits applicable to all humans. Indeed, there are several of these apparent 'innate' qualities such as the fact that all humans are capable of experiencing the manifold emotions, movement, facial expressions, utilization of the senses, etc., but a lot of these deal with the physical/biological constitutions of humans (how we are distinguished as humans) rather than their innate qualities of consciousness. To be credible, the "human nature" arguement should transcend that of physical phenomenon, the manifold emotions, and needs to deal with these innate aspects of consciousness; it should transcend the fact that people can be happy, sad, angry, but should perhaps become oriented on what exactly makes men happy, sad, angry: what objective and uniform behaviours and mannerisms are impossible to escape and applicable to all humans as innate or, because of these innate behaviourisms, what reactions are produced to certain various actions. However, this is why I discredit the idea of the "human nature" theory: it has already been sufficiently substantiated that our consciousness is determined by our material enviroment. The "human nature" theorists have already dealt with the issues of consciousness and transcended that of analoguous human physical innate characteristics and everything dealing with the human anatomy, but in reality, they cannot legitimately transcend all of this; they were merely attempts, and I perceive them to be unworthy of even mentioning.

There should not be a "nature" attributed to our being. The "human nature" theorists have already argued that much of our physical anatomy is innate, but that is what distinguishes as human beings from other animals, and should not be considered as a uniform "nature" for ourselves. After all, "human nature" presupposes a uniformity in men. Overall, if there were a nature in humans, it'd need to be more oriented about what stimulates human happiness, what are innate reactions to certain actions, etc. If the "human nature" theorists could somehow argue, legitimately, the notion that much of our consciousness is innate, then I'll buy into the whole idea of "human nature."

This is somewhat my take on the matter:

In the social production of their material life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their wills; these relations of production correspond to a definite state of the development of their material forces of production.

The sum total of these relations of production makes up the economic structure of sociey-the real foundations on which arises a legal and policial superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

The mode of production of material life determines the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but rather it is their social existence that determines their consciousness.

At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or--what is but a legal expression of the same thing--with property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. Within the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.

[Garibaldi]

Guns in the hands of private citizens are no match for the tanks and APCs etc of a modern military.

You're refering to a very limited military, less than half a million, versus the rest of the 300 million Americans. You are also overlooking the fact that Tanks and advanced weapontry have been no match for guerilla warfare. The military will be strapped to fight beyond the scope of their bases, and with the shere numbers of American's that exist, we can easily overthrow the bases one by one, or two by two, or state by state.

This, of course, assuming soldiers wouldn't go AWOL if the military demanded control over America; or the fact that much of our military might is set overseas. I doubt anyone in the military would stay if it decided to take control of America.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

Oh, and by the way, congratulations on the plagiarism from Wikipedia.

Somehow I knew you were going to figure that out. Well, what can I say? When English isn’t your prime language and you’re in a hurry, Wikipedia is an excellent source of inspiration…

As for your clarification of your views, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to respond for the same reasons stated above, even though I disagree with what your saying.

In the social production of their material life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their wills; these relations of production correspond to a definite state of the development of their material forces of production.

The sum total of these relations of production makes up the economic structure of sociey-the real foundations on which arises a legal and policial superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

The mode of production of material life determines the social, political, and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but rather it is their social existence that determines their consciousness.

At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or--what is but a legal expression of the same thing--with property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. Within the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.

Karl Marx from “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”. So I guess I was right in suspecting that you were a Marxist after all…I would say this is outdated, given the advances in biology and neurology that help to clarify the matter. Even though I can’t make a response worthy of yours myself, try searching for “sociobiology” and “evolutionary psychology” on Google. These theories are becoming more and more accepted, and shed some light on the nature vs. nurture debate. Also, the Pinker you mentioned wrote an excellent book criticizing leftist views on human nature.

But for now, it seems absurd to continue debating the concept of human nature, as my very point was that human nature isn’t fixed. Actually, a totalitarian government would probably be easier to implement if your views turn out to be correct.

[Kamil]

Somehow I knew you were going to figure that out. Well, what can I say? When English isn’t your prime language and you’re in a hurry, Wikipedia is an excellent source of inspiration…

Don't worry, I don't blaim you or anything. Just felt like getting that up in the air. Heh.

Karl Marx from “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”. So I guess I was right in suspecting that you were a Marxist after all...

I am certainly not a Marxist; I simply am in accord with Marx on certain economic and philosophical issues.

Actually, a totalitarian government would probably be easier to implement if your views turn out to be correct.

Could you further elaborate this idea?

[starman2003]

First of all, the military wouldn't attempt to topple current government unless conditions were ripe i.e. leaders of democratic government are totally discredited in some national emergency stemming from their blunders or when problems they can't solve reach a breaking point. The virtual leadership vacuum when action is needed could cause the military to step in and fill it, with minimal resistance. Guns in the hands of private citizens are no match for the tanks and APCs etc of a modern military. Look at the Soviet success in suppressing the Hungarians, Czechs and others. The nazis faced partisan resistance, but it certainly didn't jeopardize their grip on occupied countries, even though they could spare relatively few soldiers for anti-partisan operations. Btw, a greatly expanded future military is possible if or when the State is forced to soak up unemployment resulting from hi tech automation. The military may be largely composed of minorities, but has plenty of whites, and it would be very foolish to be anti-white if the military expected to establish or maintain its power.

I reiterate that the military wouldn't attempt to take over unless or until the present system loses support in a great national emergency. It would not attempt a coup without adaquate strength and support. There could be some resistance, but again, the nazis and Soviets effectively suppressed their opponents over wide geographical areas despite limits on the troops they could spare for this. Just making an example of a few enemies may suffice; Napoleon restored order with grapeshot. And of course the military would act under the banner of American patriotism to minimize resistance. So all democracies "are nothing but authoritarian and dictatorial regimes"? The masses have their way to a considerable degree, getting benefits despite the risk of eventual bankruptcy.There is still no proof that anarchistic systems can become established and work. I've long envisioned the Mideast as the first crisis to begin breaking the system. Current democratic government is compelled to support Israel because of the powerfull zionist lobby; support is also based on shared democratic etc values. But pro-Israel policy is not in the best longterm interest of the US in view of the vastly greater economic importance of Arab states. This situation, pitting old values against vital interests, should finally undermine the former. A fullscale future conflict is likely in part because of Israeli actions-present and future- against the Palestinians. The US will back Israel against the better judgment of many people in the State Deparment and military etc. US policy, based on shared democracy and zionist power, will provoke economic retaliation which will prove devastating in view of high US dependence on imported crude. Democratic government, and to an extent values, will be discredited in the wake of the disaster they'll get the country into. Under those circumstances, the military will step in to fill a leadership vacuum in a time of emergency, and break zionist power, with public support or acquiesence. One day, we'll see who was right.

[CCJ]

Starman, you still haven't answered my point about homophobia.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

I am certainly not a Marxist; I simply am in accord with Marx on certain economic and philosophical issues.

Libertarian Socialist then? You certainly seem like a bit of a Chomskyite…Personally I tend to walk back and forth between Anarchism and Totalitarianism, as I believe they are the only coherent political ideologies (even though neither of them are fully developed ideologies in the strictest sense). The twin concepts of freedom and control taken to their logical extremes, respectively. Not that a political ideology needs to be logically coherent to work in practice, of course.

Could you further elaborate this idea?

The Marx quote you provided shows us very clearly his view of the relationship between the material basis and the cultural, religious, political etc. superstructure (historical materialism). The way we behave and relate to each other basically has it’s roots in the way we produce. Very simple. Just change the material basis, the mode of production and then a new superstructure will arise. As all human characteristics are learned, not predefined, it is easy for totalitarians to mold the new man, the Ãœbermensch. It’s just a matter of the right environment. Whereas if the other position is true, that we do indeed have a “nature”, then totalitarians will always have to deal with these rebellious innate traits surfacing in their society. They will always have to deal with greed and lust for power as these are innate traits, and there is a great danger that egotistic individuals will sink the whole totalitarian project. But if greed and lust for power are learned characteristics, probably (in Marxist theory at least) a product of capitalistic society, then we simply have to make a society that doesn’t “learn” people these traits, so to speak. It’s easier said than done, but a lot simpler than having to deal with the troublesome human nature.

[Kamil]

Libertarian Socialist then? You certainly seem like a bit of a Chomskyite…

Yes, I do identify my political beliefs as within libertarian socialist nature, but I do not whatsoever consider myself as a Chomskyite, or what I like to call, a Chommunist.

Personally I tend to walk back and forth between Anarchism and Totalitarianism, as I believe they are the only coherent political ideologies (even though neither of them are fully developed ideologies in the strictest sense). The twin concepts of freedom and control taken to their logical extremes, respectively. Not that a political ideology needs to be logically coherent to work in practice, of course.

Firstly, anarchism is not an ideology, but more of a philosophical idea. Secondly, I think it's great that within your vacillations include that of anarchism; perhaps we can, later on, debate some of the ideas of anarchism and totalitarianism to facilitate your matters of vacillation.

Just change the material basis, the mode of production and then a new superstructure will arise.

Yes, but please do note that the process of historical materialism is spontaneous; therefore, you can't simply choose which historical epoch will follow, but only by undergoing in scientific and empirical reasoning could you attempt to formulate a reasonable hypothesis. If you take a look at Marx's whole theory of proletarian revolution, it's evident that this isn't specifically what he wants, but what he believes will happen, within the spontaneous progression of society. Moreover, as I wrote in great proportion, another Marxism - in terms of paving way for totalitarian regimes - will be unable to culminate prominent or monolithic status and power. Consequently, totalitarians will simply be required to wait for another people's movement which is, ironically, inherent unstable and perhaps latently totalitarian; or, you may perhaps devise an attempt to manipulate a people's movement. However, theoretical totalitarianists such as yourselves - those that believe in the ideals of progressing humanity for humanity's sake - are not likely to be found in the pinnacle positions of the totalitarian states as retrospectively, no totalitarian governments, from what I know, have corresponded to your ideals of progressing humanity.

As all human characteristics are learned, not predefined, it is easy for totalitarians to mold the new man, the Ãœbermensch. It’s just a matter of the right environment. Whereas if the other position is true, that we do indeed have a “nature”, then totalitarians will always have to deal with these rebellious innate traits surfacing in their society. They will always have to deal with greed and lust for power as these are innate traits, and there is a great danger that egotistic individuals will sink the whole totalitarian project.

On the contrary, man is condemned to be free, according to Sartre. If, hypothetically, the "instinct to freedom" is an innate trait, that would still not suffice to constitute a "human nature" theory into a reality. However, I conceive this "instinct to freedom" as simple science. If you beat a snake, it will come attack you. Unless you attack a mouse, it will simply run.

But if greed and lust for power are learned characteristics, probably (in Marxist theory at least) a product of capitalistic society, then we simply have to make a society that doesn’t “learn” people these traits, so to speak. It’s easier said than done, but a lot simpler than having to deal with the troublesome human nature.

Personally, I wouldn't consider greed to be "learned," as I believe that man's self-interest has always, in certain cases, came first, however, the establishment of class society was the genesis of that "greed" becoming more proportionate. I believe that, with the establishment of an anarchy, commodity fetishism will gradually diminish, and inclinations toward fulfilling desires of self-interest will not violate the rights and freedoms of others as, the means of production will not be monopolized. Moreover, an anarchy being oriented around the principle of free association, I doubt inclinations towards greediness will be fostered.

[starman2003]

Starman, you still haven't answered my point about homophobia.

I remember reading about how Hitler once defended a gay nazi, saying in effect who cares about a man's morals when what mattered most was that he was "a tireless fighter for the party." Gays probably have more to fear under so called judao-christian morality than under a wholist system. As I just posted, I think the military will ultimately act to eliminate blundering, zionist dominated government. Why target gays?; they're irrelevant.

[Neo-Manichaean Sarcophobe]

Firstly, anarchism is not an ideology, but more of a philosophical idea. Secondly, I think it's great that within your vacillations include that of anarchism; perhaps we can, later on, debate some of the ideas of anarchism and totalitarianism to facilitate your matters of vacillation.

I doubt it is universally accepted by all anarchists that anarchism isn’t a political ideology…You say your approach to anarchism is philosophical. Reading your posts, I sense the keyword is self-liberation. Now, I can see some similarities with existentialist themes here, but can it be considered anarchism in a historical sense? I’m not quite sure…

Yes, but please do note that the process of historical materialism is spontaneous; therefore, you can't simply choose which historical epoch will follow, but only by undergoing in scientific and empirical reasoning could you attempt to formulate a reasonable hypothesis. If you take a look at Marx's whole theory of proletarian revolution, it's evident that this isn't specifically what he wants, but what he believes will happen, within the spontaneous progression of society.

I used Marx’s theories about the relationship between “mind” and “matter” if you will because it illustrates the thesis that the social environment is the most important (if not the only factor) in determining human behaviour and so on. I do not necessarily adhere to Marxist notions of society progressing towards the final communist state, however I believe Marx had some interesting ideas and made some vitally important points. Today, mainstream scholars will admit that Marx has made great contributions to sociology. Even though they will not share his view that communism follows as the next natural step in human history, they will admire his insight into the relationship between the means of production and the ideological “superstructure” as Marx put it. When I use Marxist terms, I use them only to illustrate the social environment theory, and I do not believe that his theories in any way necessitate that those who find them useful must also adhere to his proposal that communism is the culmination of human civilization.

Moreover, as I wrote in great proportion, another Marxism - in terms of paving way for totalitarian regimes - will be unable to culminate prominent or monolithic status and power. Consequently, totalitarians will simply be required to wait for another people's movement which is, ironically, inherent unstable and perhaps latently totalitarian; or, you may perhaps devise an attempt to manipulate a people's movement. However, theoretical totalitarianists such as yourselves - those that believe in the ideals of progressing humanity for humanity's sake - are not likely to be found in the pinnacle positions of the totalitarian states as retrospectively, no totalitarian governments, from what I know, have corresponded to your ideals of progressing humanity.

Totalitarian attempts to make utopia come true have typically been hijacked by opportunistic power seekers. Totalitarian states are often (well, always) turned into the playgrounds of a few mad megalomanians. But fear not. Even though I disagree with Marx that all roads lead to communism, I too am in the nasty habit of making unfalsifiable predictions about the future. As I see it, current social, economic, political and technological trends all point the way to totalitarianism. Perhaps I will elaborate on this later on.

On the contrary, man is condemned to be free, according to Sartre. If, hypothetically, the "instinct to freedom" is an innate trait, that would still not suffice to constitute a "human nature" theory into a reality. However, I conceive this "instinct to freedom" as simple science. If you beat a snake, it will come attack you. Unless you attack a mouse, it will simply run.

You speak of the “instinct to freedom” as simple science, but I believe it has it’s roots primarily in your existentialist philosophy. It doesn't seem right to take a philosophical idea and force it upon science, so as to make science suit your views...However, as I’m not an expert on the various existentialist movements I will refrain from going deeper into this.

Personally, I wouldn't consider greed to be "learned," as I believe that man's self-interest has always, in certain cases, came first, however, the establishment of class society was the genesis of that "greed" becoming more proportionate. I believe that, with the establishment of an anarchy, commodity fetishism will gradually diminish, and inclinations toward fulfilling desires of self-interest will not violate the rights and freedoms of others as, the means of production will not be monopolized. Moreover, an anarchy being oriented around the principle of free association, I doubt inclinations towards greediness will be fostered.

A distinction can be made between greed, or egotism, and self-interest. Self-interest is universal, whereas egotism is not. The example you mentioned with a snake attacking and a mouse fleeing is probably more due to self-interest, in this case keeping alive, than due to the abstract philosophical concept of the “instinct to freedom”. While I am not exactly opposed to using the phrase, I think is unnecessary to do so; the term self-interest can be applied instead. The “instinct to freedom” is a superfluous idea, which only serves to further confuse the different concepts and to advance a specific philosophical view.

[Kamil]

I doubt it is universally accepted by all anarchists that anarchism isn’t a political ideology…You say your approach to anarchism is philosophical. Reading your posts, I sense the keyword is self-liberation. Now, I can see some similarities with existentialist themes here, but can it be considered anarchism in a historical sense? I’m not quite sure…

Yes, you are quite right in questioning whether this philosophical orientation of anarchism is universally acknowledged by anarchist affiliated thinkers or students of anarchism, but anarchism is only made out to be an ideological system. As for the apparent similiarities with existentialist themes that you sense, it is so because I happen to be an existentialist thinker myself. Now, concerning the question in the closing statement of the paragraph, do you ask if these existentialist themes can be identified with anarchism in a historical sense?

Totalitarian attempts to make utopia come true have typically been hijacked by opportunistic power seekers. Totalitarian states are often (well, always) turned into the playgrounds of a few mad megalomanians.

I'd say that totalitarian attempts to make utopia have simply not succeeded on account that they did not make effort, or did not prosper, in proselytizing the masses to their points of view. It's not that anyone hijacked these totalitarian movements, it's just that these movements were too impotent to succeed by their own effort; this is why, all totalitarian regimes, in my opinion, have not been causa sui, but have come into existence indirectly.

As I see it, current social, economic, political and technological trends all point the way to totalitarianism. Perhaps I will elaborate on this later on.

I'd definately love to argue the idea. Whenever you're ready, just go ahead.

You speak of the “instinct to freedom” as simple science, but I believe it has it’s roots primarily in your existentialist philosophy. It doesn't seem right to take a philosophical idea and force it upon science, so as to make science suit your views...

This whole issue is derived from my vehement existential roots, but in addition, I personally interpret it in a more scientific manner. I don't see anything wrong with taking a philosophical idea and applying a scientific interpretation to it. Over the centuries, I definately see a lot of this; I'm quite Hegel or Kant did this, and I'm 100% sure that Marx did so.

The example you mentioned with a snake attacking and a mouse fleeing is probably more due to self-interest, in this case keeping alive, than due to the abstract philosophical concept of the “instinct to freedom”.

I think you're a little confused. What I wrote was, "If you beat a snake, it will come attack you. Unless you attack a mouse, it will simply run." In the case of humans, the application of this logic is quite different, simply seeing as this domination and oppression, in the case of the snake or mouse - the abuse - is perceived as inherent and is legitimized by proportionate degrees of ideological hegemony, which in turn, produces a corresponding behaviourism; civil disobedience is secured by force. After being "beaten" and "abused," struggle for emancipation is latent, and not instantaneous as would be in the case of the snake.