Sup Bootlickers, I'm a 15 year old Arab Syrian Anarchist and new to these forums. - Page 25 - 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

#15019251
Truth To Power wrote: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.


Wow you're getting really angry here. Be prepared. I'm about to get you a whole lot angrier.

Control what? There are no managers or bosses so anything major won't be controlled by one person but a group of workers who've decided to work together to acquire or maintain that resource. In which case no one person owns it because they all have a part in it's production.

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.


If it relies upon perception (and thus someone can appear to be in control but not control anything at all) then hierarchy is nothing more than a fabrication or a bluff. By that point convincing people that hierarchy is just an illusion and making sure no formal hierarchy emerges is a good way to get rid of it which anarchism does anyways.

I'm glad we agree.

No, people are driven by desires after their needs are met.


Desires are needs. If you desire something you want and need it.

:roll: Do you really think PoFo readers don't notice when you make silly $#!+ like that up?


@Truth To Power the only people who have any illusions about what I mean on this site is you, ingliz, Zionist Nationalist, and blackjack. ZN and blackjack oppose it out of their own class position while ingliz just doesn't like me.

Everyone else got the general jist of it while you guys are still stuck on the basics.

But those are DESIRES, not NEEDS. GET IT???


I am not convinced that there is much of a difference between desires and needs. I'm also finding this fixation on semantics strange.

Bingo: WANTS, not NEEDS. Thank you for agreeing that I am right and you are wrong.


I use them interchangeably.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" Watch:

Yes, it is a stupid fucking idea that YOU MADE UP. Nothing to do with anything I said.


No, you said and I quote:

Needs don't address very much of what is important to people once the economy can satisfy their needs, so anarchism fails as an organizing principle for society above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding levels.


Disregarding the fact that any society which meets the basic needs of modern amenities isn't hunter gatherer at all, you are specially saying that no one will do anything after they get a consistent supply of food, water, and shelter.

It's the biggest strawman I have ever seen and the fact that you think I nade such a strawman indicates that.

No, don't be ridiculous. How could any silly nonsense that YOU made up say anything at all about me?


If only I did make it up.

That's certainly a major part of hierarchy in advanced economies.


Then you're wrong because anarchism follows occupancy and use property norms. Meaning if you consistently occupy it you own it.

Irrelevant. Control is the relevant factor, not occupancy.


Do you not understand the context of the statement you're responding to? Anarchism will not have hierarchy because you cannot control more property than you currently occupy. Absentee property ownership does not exist. You can claim more property than you currently occupy but no one will respect those claims.

Another miracle of irrelevancy...


You really have forgotten the context of the post you're responding to.

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.


No. You haven't made an argument that wasn't incoherent or bad shit insane.
#15019252
ingliz wrote:Power voids.

As in nature, politics abhors a vacuum.


:)


Mhmm. And do you know when a power vaccum occurs?

When there is hierarchy or when a hierarchy breaks down. When that happens, the second highest in the hierarchy use their land and resources they command to make power grabs.

If there is no hierarchy from the start or if you build counter institutions which take power from all levels of the hierarchy, then there is no power vaccuum because there was never someone at the top.
#15019258
Palmyrene wrote:When there is...

It's all bollocks.

You have just spent 25 pages telling us we are all atomistic individualists, joining and leaving your 'counter institutions' on a self interested whim.

Where would their power reside?


:)
#15019259
ingliz wrote:It's all bollocks.

You have just spent 25 pages telling us we are all atomistic individualists, joining and leaving your 'counter institutions' on a self interested whim.

Where would their power reside?


:)


I haven't. If you've come to that conclusion you've thoroughly missed the point.

Maybe you should've asked more questions instead of debating immediately.
#15019267
Palmyrene wrote:you've thoroughly missed the point.

I can only go by what you have posted which is incoherent tosh.

ingliz just doesn't like me.

Not just you.

I dislike all 'Kumbaya' idealists. Naive innocents with their "precious, touchy-feely, hand-holding spirit of rosy-eyed unity".

I would put them all against the wall come the revolution.


:)
#15019269
ingliz wrote:I can only go by what you have posted which is incoherent tosh.


You've taken most of my statements out of context.

Don't pretend that it wasn't your own fault.

Not just you.

I dislike all 'Kumbaya' idealists. Naive innocents with their "precious, touchy-feely, hand-holding spirit of rosy-eyed unity".

I would put them all against the wall come the revolution.


:)


:lol:

Oh if only you knew ingliz.

The funny thing is you aren't going to get your revolution but I am because I'm willing to put in the effort to do so. Thus, it honestly doesn't matter if you think I'm idealistic because I will start a revolution and I have practical methods of doing so.

MLism is dead and has been for decades. It is irrelevant to the issues of modern workers and faces insurmountable difficulties in the modern age.

In the post-2015 era, the relationship between activism and online radicalism has changed. Once, online radicalism was marginal. Now, though, online radicalism has replaced integration with activist communities as the main path towards radicalization.

Though it is unclear to me why this happened in 2015 and not 2005, I believe the narrowing of space on the internet to less than a dozen social media sites may have been a factor — or, alternatively, the proliferation of widespread and cheap smart-phones may have allowed the economically downtrodden voices greater access to these platforms. Regardless of the cause, the shift is a clear and empirical fact — and it presents new, perhaps insurmountable, difficulties for vanguard parties.

Vanguard parties, when not able to take on violence as a tactic –i.e., when not able to act as a state, criminal cartel, armed revolutionary group, etc.– have always relied upon the centralization of information, and sometimes resources, to maintain control over their members. The design of a vanguard party is one that privileges the leadership of the party over the rank and file.

The leadership ends up with access to a greater flow of information than most of the party, and so it becomes difficult for the party’s rank and file to act effectively without the guidance of the party’s leadership. The leadership is both able to selectively with-hold information from the party’s rank and file, and is incentivized to do so to maintain their power. These issues grow as the party does, of course.

However, in this new internet-using age, the party members have access to greater amounts of information relative to the party’s leadership, especially over long distances. The ability of the party’s leaders to control their members slips, at least somewhat.

The policy of democratic centralism has always been a somewhat ridiculous choice for a party that was out of power. How, after all, was the party supposed to enforce its decisions on its members? An activist group in the modern world can’t actually use any form of direct coercion to enforce its decisions. The only real sort of leverage available is for the group to dissociate from an individual — i.e., kicking them out of the party. So in reality, vanguardist organizations end up acting just like anarchist ones.

By this, I mean that these parties must effectively operate by consensus, and must effectively use freedom of (dis)association as their only discipline. By consensus, I mean that the parties cannot compel their members to do anything they really do not want to do — if they would rather quit the party than obey the party, they are always free to do so. On a daily basis, this can take an almost insurrectionary form — the party members will simply decline to volunteer for things that disinterest them, or just not show up to meetings they find pointless and boring.

However, abandoning a party isn’t always a slow process. Sometimes, members do so en masse and form a new group. The internet era makes this problem worse, too: what previously might have been a local split can now easily spread.

Ultimately, these party leaders are left with only the recourse of withholding funds, though there are usually minimal funds to withhold in the first place. But even this is less effective: the internet era makes soliciting donations quick and easy.

Before now, of course, the anarchist groups in the world have mostly been more effective at accomplishing immediate, short-term goals than vanguardists. The Naxalites stand out as an exception, though one operating under rather different circumstances. Forming a specialized group of a dozen or less in order to achieve a specific goal is usually going to be more effective at accomplishing that goal than forming a much larger group that mainly aims at growing its numbers and influence and may accomplish more immediate goals as a side-effect.

Further, small groups without central leadership are much more resistant to police infiltration.

They are also much more politically pluralistic. There isn’t a party line in an affinity group. You’re all there to accomplish a mission, and bigger differences don’t matter as long as you can work together. I generally work perfectly fine with anarcho-communists, despite being a mutualist, for example. Vanguardists, however, end up continually splitting into antagonistic and competing groups — which not only leads to unnecessary conflict, but also to them mutually delegitimizing each other. After all, they can’t all be “the leader of the workers.”

In conclusion, you're ideology is shit and your politics are shit.
#15019288
Palmyrene wrote:@Truth To Power the only people who have any illusions about what I mean on this site is you, ingliz, Zionist Nationalist, and blackjack. ZN and blackjack oppose it out of their own class position while ingliz just doesn't like me.

Everyone else got the general gist of it while you guys are still stuck on the basics.

No, not really.
Everyone is just getting tired of you already.
You keep going in circles, making stuff up, using tons of strawmen and of red herrings, ignore any evidence or proof or logical argument presented to you, and then strut around as if you won the day.

Noting that everything you presented so far not only doesn't make any sense or have any coherence, but it also goes against basic reality itself.

No worries, Ingliz will get tired as well shortly and start ignoring as well.
LoL


As I said in my very first post in this thread, you'll grow out of it and start taking a more pragmatic approach to things.
#15019291
anasawad wrote:No, not really.
Everyone is just getting tired of you already.
You keep going in circles, making stuff up, using tons of strawmen and of red herrings, ignore any evidence or proof or logical argument presented to you, and then strut around as if you won the day.


I haven't done that at all and the only circles that have been made were due to others repeating the same arguments I've addressed.

I haven't made the claim to win the day because my intention wasn't to debate at all. My intention was to answer questions. You cannot learn about a person's full ideology simply from debate.

Don't worry. I'll write an Anarchism 101 thread one of these days.

Noting that everything you presented so far not only doesn't make any sense or have any coherence, but it also goes against basic reality itself.


I'm not particularly sure you understand my points at all. When people here (including you) say "this is what you believe" it doesn't resemble that at all.

You see the issue here is that, instead of asking questions, people come in debating what they think anarchism is. My entire position here has been fighting these mistaken assumptions.

Of course it makes littls sense because no one has asked an actual good faithed question about what I believe and when people do ask questions, like ingliz, it's a segaway to debate and usually ends by him taking my answer out of context.

No worries, Ingliz will get tired as well shortly and start ignoring as well.
LoL


If he hasn't stopped by now, I highly doubt it. Who knows, maybe my last post to him hit too close to home. He is an ML after all.

As I said in my very first post in this thread, you'll grow out of it.


If only you've grown out of your nationalistic impulses and mistaken beliefs about Lebanon. It'll certainly make you far less gullible.
#15019297
Palmyrene wrote:Who knows, maybe my last post to him hit too close to home.

I think this is a textbook example of psychological projection. Projecting your undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, me in this case, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

The only person feeling any emotion in this thread is you.


:)
#15019300
ingliz wrote:I think this is a textbook example of psychological projection. Projecting your undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, me in this case, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.

The only person feeling any emotion in this thread is you.


:)



? What am I supposed to be projecting? Emotions? How does that make sense when you consider the post I am referring to?

Either way, now I've gotten your attention, I would like you to respond to my prior post. As a MList you're sure to find it fascinating.
#15019472
Palmyrene wrote:Wow you're getting really angry here. Be prepared. I'm about to get you a whole lot angrier.

I'm not angry with you, just weary.
Control what?

Anything that is important to others. Remember?
There are no managers or bosses so anything major won't be controlled by one person

Sometimes one person's skills are major.
but a group of workers who've decided to work together to acquire or maintain that resource.

They're going to "acquire" a resource? I.e., forcibly abrogate the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....
In which case no one person owns it because they all have a part in it's production.

I.e., it will in effect be owned by whoever is most politically astute -- and ruthless -- in the competition for control of the committee.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that, too....
If it relies upon perception (and thus someone can appear to be in control but not control anything at all) then hierarchy is nothing more than a fabrication or a bluff.

It could be. But that's politics for you.
By that point convincing people that hierarchy is just an illusion and making sure no formal hierarchy emerges is a good way to get rid of it which anarchism does anyways.

Anarchy is the rule of a thousand tyrants.
Desires are needs. If you desire something you want and need it.

No, that is just another objectively false claim on your part.
@Truth To Power the only people who have any illusions about what I mean on this site is you, ingliz, Zionist Nationalist, and blackjack. ZN and blackjack oppose it out of their own class position while ingliz just doesn't like me.

Oh, I know what you mean, all right. It's just absurd, puerile nonsense.
Everyone else got the general jist of it while you guys are still stuck on the basics.

Yes, well, sometimes the basics are where the problem lies.
I am not convinced that there is much of a difference between desires and needs. I'm also finding this fixation on semantics strange.

You wouldn't if you had studied real philosophy, and not just silly "Meeza hatesa gubmint" rants.
I use them interchangeably.

I don't, because I want to be clear.
No, you said and I quote:

Thank you for quoting me verbatim. It's a refreshing change, believe me. Now if you could only find a willingness to understand it....
Disregarding the fact that any society which meets the basic needs of modern amenities isn't hunter gatherer at all,

Which is kinda the point...
you are specially saying that no one will do anything after they get a consistent supply of food, water, and shelter.

No, and I invite readers to confirm that your claim is unrelated to what I said.
It's the biggest strawman I have ever seen and the fact that you think I nade such a strawman indicates that.

You did make it up, as I invite readers to confirm for themselves.
If only I did make it up.

As I said no such thing, you clearly did.
Then you're wrong because anarchism follows occupancy and use property norms.

Oh? Who enforces those norms?
Meaning if you consistently occupy it you own it.

So, "grabbers get"? That certainly explains why the anarchist economy can't rise above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding levels...
Do you not understand the context of the statement you're responding to?

I do. I'm just not going to accept your word for what will happen in the real world.
Anarchism will not have hierarchy because you cannot control more property than you currently occupy.

Wrong again. Lots of wild animals have hierarchy, and they have no property at all.
Absentee property ownership does not exist.

So, an animal level of economic existence.
You can claim more property than you currently occupy but no one will respect those claims.

So, no incentive to produce anything for anyone but yourself. Check.
You really have forgotten the context of the post you're responding to.

Wrong again.
No. You haven't made an argument that wasn't incoherent or bad shit insane.

You are aware of the fact that unlike you, I am actually very coherent, clear, and grounded in reality.
#15019491
@Truth To Power

I just spent an hour writing a response to you on my phone but I accidentally refreshed and now it's all gone. And it was sooo good too. Sorry, I can't respond to you. I'm not going to rewrite.

However the mods are going to get an earful. @noemon just make an app or something! I swear god it's 2019 and your site still sucks for mobile users! I live in Syria! I don't have anything else! Everything I wrote is gone! Jesus Christ just do something!
#15019635
Palmyrene wrote:You've established it. There's no "we" here.

Private property can only be guaranteed by a clan, gang, or kingdom large enough to create a legal system to defend it. Theives being punished is a symptom not the cause.


Private property can be guaranteed by any group of people who is strong enough to enforce it. Thieves exist as long as there's scarcity and people desire what others have. I'm sure they've existed in every society ever.

Palmyrene wrote:Organization and collective decisionmaking need not be hierarchial.


Some hierarchy is unavoidable in a complex society, but even if it weren't hierarchical, that wouldn't make it anarchist.

Palmyrene wrote:All those non state societies statistics were from the 19th century which certainly wasn't a good year to be a native. The ethnic cleansing was almost done and these tribes were a shell of their former selves.


That was only a single slide. There are others based on archeological evidence, showing the same picture. Under the link I posted.
  • 1
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26

@Palmyrene , Everybody is a little bit fascist.[…]

@Hindsite Quote the relevant text.

Election 2020

I'm thinking more of taking responsibility for pe[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@Palmyrene :p I'm not fully informed on the […]