Sup Bootlickers, I'm a 15 year old Arab Syrian Anarchist and new to these forums. - Page 24 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15018952
ingliz wrote:You choose to ignore my many posts presenting evidence showing inherent hierarchies in social networks.


Here's a really good idea. Read the rest of my post. That'll do you alot of good because I address this very thing.

If you're so confident in your abilities to "disprove my theory" then address the post in full rather than from a single out one sentence.
#15018957
@Palmyrene


an anarchy fit to service the status quo.

I have read your posts and in this thread you have said, at various times, as the mood takes you, your collection of sovereign, anti-capitalist, anarchic, 'non-state' states have (or you don't preclude them having)...

a permanent population,

a defined territory,

one government,

the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign 'states',

a monopoly on violence,

currency,

a market economy,

commodity exchange,

and

differential wage rates.


Why are you bothering with a revolution? Nothing much changes.


:lol:
#15018960
@ingliz

a permanent population,


Define permanent.

a defined territory,


There are no borders and there's a high chance anarchism will extend into other states and countries.

one government,


There is no government.

the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign 'states',


Anyone can. There isn't a state doing so.

a monopoly on violence,


I've explained this before. No one has a monopoly on violence because anyone can form a militia or defense organization.

currency,


1. The way mutualist currency functions is completely different from how state capitalist currency works.

2. Currency is not necessary for a mutualist economy to operate. Same with markets. Mutualism does not preclude markets; it does not mean it endorses them.

I've explained this to you several times but you haven't been able to address it given how you have ignored my explainations several times.

commodity exchange,


Exchanging commodities doesn't indicate a state. If so then me giving candy to a baby would indicate a state.

differential wage rates.


There is no wage labor. Why are you making things up?
#15018963
@Palmyrene

I am not making things up.

Differential wage rates:

ingliz wrote:Are you going to pay them in 'labour vouchers' (a wage). Also, who has the job of measuring their worth?

If an association or community wants to use labor vouchers they can.

How much an ability is valued fluctuates based on the needs of the community.

Palmyrene wrote:There are no borders

If there are no borders, what are you defending?


:)
#15018966
ingliz wrote:@Palmyrene

I am not making things up.




The first one is the exact same thing I responded to you just now with. A mutualist economy does not preclude market exchange but it doesn't endorse it either.

The second does not indicate wage labor which is something completely different entirely.

That differs from person to person in an anarchist society.
#15018970
Palmyrene wrote:@Nonsense

Actually anarchism does have an ideological structure. The assumption it doesn't is the rest of the most common stereotypes of anarchists as "rebels without a cause" which us undoubtedly a false characterization of anarchism.

Regardless in the post you just quoted, I've discussed counter institutions which are practical forms of dismantling and rebelling against hierarchy while also building the institutions which will be present in an anarchist society.

It's also a false characterization of nihilism. Probably from someone who has never read Nietzsche.



As has been stated previously, we are dealing with a troll here, notice has been served. :lol: :lol:

In your dream world, you replace other paradigms with your own, " I've discussed counter institutions which are practical forms of dismantling and rebelling against hierarchy while also building the institutions which will be present in an anarchist society", do you actually believe the nonsense that you post, when they are but mere thoughts?

Seriously, what makes you think, that, the "institutions" :lol: :lol: :lol: that will be "dismantled" & replaced by "building the 'institutions' which will be present in an anarchist society" are likely to escape self-destruction by :hmm: anarchist?

Supplanting one form of authority with another is simplistic nonsense, the Nazis under Hitler were in a state of combined anarchy & state order at the same time.
Replacing state control by an anarchical system of disorder leads to the breakdown of society through disorder into despotism, leading to another assertive force of order coming into existence to restore the balance, which is why your notions are complete nonsense.

It is a form of naive idealism that doesn't work in society, even in the most relaxed, remotest communities, there is always a degree of hierarchy or order, whether that is based on individual, family, or community status,that has been the case in the whole of human & animal history.

Being that is the case, further discussion on the topic is pointless.

Nothing "false" about my definition of nihilism or 'anarchism', just your own interpretation of them, I think that you have been reading too many(one) text book's on philosophy, which is way out of your depth, I would stick to the comics if I were you, they are much more suitable for someone with an absent cerebral cortex. :knife:
#15018988
Nonsense wrote:As has been stated previously, we are dealing with a troll here, notice has been served. :lol: :lol:

In your dream world, you replace other paradigms with your own, " I've discussed counter institutions which are practical forms of dismantling and rebelling against hierarchy while also building the institutions which will be present in an anarchist society", do you actually believe the nonsense that you post, when they are but mere thoughts?


If you don't know what a counter institution is I can explain it to you :)

Seriously, what makes you think, that, the "institutions" :lol: :lol: :lol: that will be "dismantled" & replaced by "building the 'institutions' which will be present in an anarchist society" are likely to escape self-destruction by :hmm: anarchist?


Ok you definitely don't get it.

Supplanting one form of authority with another is simplistic nonsense,


The institutions themselves aren't an authority given that they aren't hierarchial.

the Nazis under Hitler were in a state of combined anarchy & state order at the same time.


That's the most stupid statement I've ever heard. That's like saying the Nazis are socialist.

Replacing state control by an anarchical system of disorder leads to the breakdown of society through disorder into despotism, leading to another assertive force of order coming into existence to restore the balance, which is why your notions are complete nonsense.


You don't understand. Just wait until I make a whole FAQ on anarchism. It'll take a little while but you can wait until then.

Nothing "false" about my definition of nihilism or 'anarchism', just your own interpretation of them, I think that you have been reading too many(one) text book's on philosophy, which is way out of your depth, I would stick to the comics if I were you, they are much more suitable for someone with an absent cerebral cortex. :knife:


No, the way you're using nihilism does not actually represent the actual philosophy of nihilism. Simply saying "you read too much!" doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche meant something very different of nihilism than you do.
#15019139
ingliz wrote:It's 'Individual Authoritarianism', then - What you say goes! As far as it goes, which won't be far, if you are all playing lord and master.


:lol:


? Where did you get this impression. In fact I'm absolutely sure you're making this up because when you gave me your "proof" it didn't for a second indicate what you were claiming and relied on out of context quotes so you failed in both regards.
#15019141
Palmyrene wrote:If you don't know what a counter institution is I can explain it to you :).




"Ok you definitely don't get it".


I get it alright, in the context of the topic, it feels like a contradiction in terms.

"The institutions themselves aren't an authority given that they aren't hierarchial".

Name an 'authority' that doesn't consider itself as fitting into a hierarchical system, even an 'anarchical' one?



"That's the most stupid statement I've ever heard. That's like saying the Nazis are socialist".

Which is exactly how they viewed themselves :roll: there's nothing like 'free' education is there? :lol: :lol:



"You don't understand. Just wait until I make a whole FAQ on anarchism. It'll take a little while but you can wait until then".

Oh yes!'you' are an 'authority' on anarchism aren't you, don't waste your time sunshine, I would prefer a 'hierarchical' material source than some runny-nosed 15 year old just out of his diapers peddling his comic book musings on me. :evil:

"No, the way you're using nihilism does not actually represent the actual philosophy of nihilism. Simply saying "you read too much!" doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche meant something very different of nihilism than you do".

So, you think that nihilism is a philosophical construct. :hmm: too many books, not enough life experience, the Nazi experience was very much on cue on that score with destroying everything that didn't fit in with their 'Socialist' paradigm.

Hitler's own philosophical paradigm contained nihilism, even in respect of the notion that he invoked Darwinism, as well as Niezsche into his philosophy about Germans not deserving to live by not defending themselves.

As with any political movement, the Nazis 'adopted' Nietzsche into their ideas, in fact, he was something of an icon to them, but like all such movements or religions, they distort the realities to suit their own objectives,tainting the original ideas of thinkers, writers or others, in order to justify their actions.

There are many similarities between Nazism, with ISIS, if you really understood nihilism you would want to relate that to real world experience , not adopt it from the point of view of itself, many thinkers are reflecting on their own life experiences in very different times to today's world, which bears little comparison to even 75 years ago.
Last edited by Nonsense on 18 Jul 2019 16:27, edited 2 times in total.
#15019143
@Palmyrene

Before we get on to that, you haven't responded to this

Palmyrene wrote:There are no borders


If there are no borders, what are you defending?


:eh:

Palmyrene wrote:Where did you get this impression... I'm absolutely sure you're making this up

'Individual Authoritarianism':

There is no law

There is no government

What else is one to think?


:)
#15019147
ingliz wrote:@Palmyrene

Before we get on to that, you haven't responded to this



If there are no borders, what are you defending?


:eh:


The answer depends on who you're talking to. To some it is themselves, to others it's their community, to some it is their group of friends, family, or loved ones, and to others it is their workplaces (due to workplaces being owned by workers and the wage system being abolished work will be alot more enjoyable than it is now).

'Individual Authoritarianism':


There is no law

There is no government

What else is one to think?


:)


Are you seriously trying to claiming that "warlords will take over" after I've described to you several times the institutions which will prevent this.

@Nonsense

Alright dude you gotta put that shit in quotations. I have no fucking idea how to read that and I'm too tired for this shit.
#15019152
Palmyrene wrote:To some it is...

So you do have borders and lots of mini-states.

Are you a minarchist (a statist) pretending to be an anarchist?

claiming

I am not claiming that, although I fully expect them to, I am saying that under the system you describe you as an individual are 'The State' - A very small state but a state nonetheless.

Note:

You alone govern yourself.

You make law,

You have the monopoly on violence in the territory you control,

You issue currency,

You have the capacity to make agreements with other individuals (states),

etc, etc...


:)
#15019155
ingliz wrote:So you do have borders and lots of mini-states (If everything is held in common, why would anything need defending?).


You don't. Forming militias to defend specific things such as your family, workplace, community, etc. is not a mini-state. States are hierarchial, have a monopoly of violence (since anyone can form or disband militias there is no monopoly of violence), and coerce people to their will. None of that is occurring here.

I am not claiming that, although I fully expect them to, I am saying that under the system you describe you as an individual are 'The State' - A very small state but a state nonetheless.

Note:

You alone govern yourself.

You make law,

You have the monopoly on violence in the territory you control,

You issue currency,

You have the capacity to make agreements with other individuals (states),

etc, etc...


:)


No. Because while you yourself have autonomy you cannot impose yourself upon others and creating a hierarchy requires more than one person. That is not a state. Creating a currency isn't required of a state, and there is no law.
#15019175
Palmyrene wrote:You don't

Rhetorical question: If everything is held in common, why would anything need defending?

Answer: You would defend something against outsiders.

It follows then that if there is an outside, there must be an inside.... And betwixt an outside and an inside there must be a border.

You will have borders.

while you yourself have autonomy you cannot impose yourself upon others

Why not since anyone can form a militia?


:)
#15019189
ingliz wrote:Rhetorical question: If everything is held in common, why would anything need defending?


Who said that everything will be held in commons?

It follows then that if there is an outside, there must be an inside.... And betwixt an outside and an inside there must be a border.

You will have borders.


I guess I should clarify by saying there are no fixed borders. There is no manifest destiny or claims over a particular kind of land. No Casus Bellis and so forth. What is the borders of "anarchist society" will fluctuate and it won't be fixed at all.

Why not since anyone can form a militia?


Specifically because anyone can form a militia.
#15019217
Palmyrene wrote:Who said that everything will be held in commons?

If not, what changes?

People have always fought to control resources.

All wars are resource wars.

To some it is...

Here you say people will fight for what is theirs.

You say you will fight for what is yours.

your family, workplace, community, etc.

No Cassus Bellis [sic]

You also say that no act or situation will provoke or justify a war.

How does that work?

Specifically because anyone can form a militia.

Not an answer.

Try again.


:)
#15019230
ingliz wrote:If not, what changes?

People have always fought to control resources.

All wars are resource wars.


People aren't fighting for resources, they're sharing them according to the needs of others. Everyone will have their basic needs fulfilled. Beyond that no one will start a war over it. People aren't going to fight over art supplies.

Also all wars are started due to the interests of the upper class over control of resources not due to resources in general. Rarely are the lower classes given their share of resources.

Here you say people will fight for what is theirs.

You say you will fight for what is yours.

your family, workplace, community, etc.


That does not necessitate that they will haphazardly fight each other just because they can.

You also say that no act or situation will provoke or justify a war.

How does that work?


No war will start due to fighting over resources and stuff like rape or murders won't be wars or require militias to deal with. They'll be dealt with by the community or all the people effected by the act through discussion.

Not an answer.

Try again.


:)


It is an answer and it answers your question completely. Warlords will not form because A. the appeal of warlords and why people follow them won't exist and B. there will always be a bigger army that will spring up and crush them.
#15019239
Palmyrene wrote:People aren't fighting for resources, they're sharing them according to the needs of others.

I believe you said your anarchy does not preclude market exchange, so they are not sharing them according to the needs of others.

No war will start due to fighting over resources

Why not?

According to you, anarchists are not sharing resources, they are selling them.

Warlords will not form because...

Bollocks!


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 18 Jul 2019 20:19, edited 6 times in total.
#15019240
Palmyrene wrote:Like I said. Everyone has something that is valued and if they don't they can learn something that is valued. How much an ability is valued fluctuates based on the needs of the community.

But those who are able to control MORE of what is important to others will have higher status in the hierarchy. Try to get that through your head.
These aren't roles however because they change and shift frequently and often value to community can't be accurately measured.

And on Planet Zondo, that might be relevant. Not here on earth. It is people's perception of who can control what is important to them that gives those individuals higher status in the hierarchy, and perceptions do not change as fast as reality.
People are always driven by needs and people have more than basic needs.

No, people are driven by desires after their needs are met.
Honestly the fact that you can't think of any purpose for yourself after achieving your basic needs is depressing.

:roll: Do you really think PoFo readers don't notice when you make silly $#!+ like that up?
People may want to get into art, engineering, build statues for a living, go into entertainment, do scientific research, etc.

But those are DESIRES, not NEEDS. GET IT???
How can you be so dull and boring that you personally can't imagine anything you would want after you get a consistent supply of food and water. Self-actualization is something everyone wants.

Bingo: WANTS, not NEEDS. Thank you for agreeing that I am right and you are wrong.
No you simply don't get it and make up stupid shit as arguments.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Watch:
"People won't do anything after achieving their basic needs" is a stupid fucking idea

Yes, it is a stupid fucking idea that YOU MADE UP. Nothing to do with anything I said.
and tells us alot more about you than me.

No, don't be ridiculous. How could any silly nonsense that YOU made up say anything at all about me?
Difference in ability to control what? Property?

That's certainly a major part of hierarchy in advanced economies.
There is a limit to how much property you can occupy at a given moment.

Irrelevant. Control is the relevant factor, not occupancy.
Resources? Good luck building a modern industrial building without anyone's help.

Another miracle of irrelevancy...
Your arguments are ridiculous. I'm actually concerned about your well-being by this point.

No, you are aware that my arguments are not only valid but irrefutable. That is why you have to try to change the subject by makin' $#!+ up.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
The Evolution Fraud

I didn't qualify anything as omnipotent. What is […]

Are you trying to gaslight me or compliment me a[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

I can't get to everything since I'm on mobile. […]

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/[…]