UCD Public Meeting on Anarchism (2 Viewers)

[the strange guy]

most of the current concern isn't really the generation of new energy it is the transitioning from the socio-technical systems are build upon current energy....

If and when new sources of energy appear on the mass
market, getting people to adjust to designing for it and
using it will be a relatively minor hurdle. Most of the hard
work will have been done.

 

[Froog]

nice NASA article on peak oil and climate change trends:
i always underestimated the coal factor.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/peakoil.html

 

[taubstumm]

Well, you can't be a member of WSM or a supporter of 'anarchist theory' if you disagree with most of their 'stances', can you?
If your ideas differ or if you think they're talking shit then what WSM or 'the theory' says is irrelevant.
But what the WSM says holds a lot of sway with Irish anarchists, hence 'party line'.
THIS IS OUR IDEA OF ANARCHISM - STAY ANARCHIST OR ELSE YOU'RE OUT, that's pretty much what I mean by party line.
Afraid so. If anarchism isn't treated as a thought experiment then its consequences need to be taken just as seriously.

all true...

though i still can't see this as much more than a thought experiment: anarchism is a process of dismantling unjustifiable power hierarchies - we can't know what would replace them.

though, after yon revolution, i'm probably gonna be in trouble with the anarcho-cheka just like you.

anarchism isn't my dogma, it's just what i disagree with least.

 

[the strange guy]

though i still can't see this as much more than a thought experiment: anarchism is a process of dismantling unjustifiable power hierarchies - we can't know what would replace them.

...the anarcho-cheka

You just answered your own question!

anarchism isn't my dogma, it's just what i disagree with least.

I've had people explain anarchy as essentially democracy,
just without a leader.

Well, have you ever had a day where you wake up and just
wish that someone else would do all the shit you have to
do today?
That's democracy. You get to pick someone else to do the
shit you can't be arsed doing. The mistake is when you
confuse this person as your leader instead of your
representative.

 

[broken arm]

If and when new sources of energy appear on the mass
market, getting people to adjust to designing for it and
using it will be a relatively minor hurdle. Most of the hard
work will have been done.

I disagree though. Shifting systems of production and consumption in a particular direction is not that easy. It isn't about the money.

 

[the strange guy]

I disagree though. Shifting systems of production and consumption in a particular direction is not that easy. It isn't about the money.

Fair enough, I'm such a nerd all I can think about is the shift
from dialup to ADSL using the same copper, or VCR to
DVD and then I try and think energy and come up with
petrol pump to super-future-nuclear-fuel-tablet in a blister pack
analogies and how shit simple that would be.

 

[taubstumm]

You just answered your own question!

I've had people explain anarchy as essentially democracy,
just without a leader.

Well, have you ever had a day where you wake up and just
wish that someone else would do all the shit you have to
do today?
That's democracy. You get to pick someone else to do the
shit you can't be arsed doing. The mistake is when you
confuse this person as your leader instead of your
representative.

who was it who said that outrage and astonishment towards all metanarratives and ideologies was what underlay all his writing? it was baudrillard or one of those french types.


(edit: it was lyotard)

 

[Gambra]

who was it who said that outrage and astonishment towards all metanarratives and ideologies was what underlay all his writing? it was baudrillard or one of those french types.

Lyotard? I can't remember any books or anything..

 

[Gambra]

who was it who said that outrage and astonishment towards all metanarratives and ideologies was what underlay all his writing? it was baudrillard or one of those french types.


(edit: it was lyotard)

Beaten by the edit.

 

[Bold Lump]

Do any anarchist organisations define themselves by what they are for?
All I've ever heard of are the many institutions and injustices they are against.

Maybe not related at all but is there anyway that a widespread Socialist/Communist economy can exist without autoritarianism?

Do anarchists have a proposed system of economics at all?

Any organisation that defines themselves by what they oppose rather than what they support has no currency with me.

 

[oh shit]

This is another problem I have with anarchy. If you don't
stay in line (ie STAY ANARCHIST OR ELSE), that's it -
you're one sorry bunch of hungry troublemakers.

Imagine if you put yourself down on the census as an
anarchist. Would it be fair if the government took away
your access to social services and your right to vote? How
about access to subsidised services like the bus, or even
being allowed to walk or cycle on a road if you haven't
paid road tax?

If seperating yourself from and not contributing to this
society, which a lot of people have done, would mean that
you must forego the benefits of it, then there'd be a lot of
hungry UCD anarchists who aren't allowed back on campus.

Let's say some hypothetical person went nutso barney
and went on a hypothetical killing spree. Adults, kids,
cats, some sound person you know, Kevin Myers, all
dead. In this society she'd still be entitled to a roof over
her head, three square meals a day and access to
education. Yeh, she'll be locked up but her survival is
ensured by and entrusted to the state.

Of course, this is impossible in an anarchist state. In fact,
there's nothing stopping her from being murdered in
retaliation seeing as there's no 24 hour armed police
protection.

But what about lesser crimes? What about someone who
blew up an anarchist library, or a bunch of rebellious kids
spreading democratic propaganda, or a congregation
caught praying to Jesus. Does that mean they don't get
fed? Does that mean they are now shunned from the
community and must now fend for themselves Robinson
Crusoe style? Why does an anarchist utopia have such a
strict set of morals which must be obeyed while this 'one
way system' we live in now is a lot more forgiving?

Basically, no anarchist community can give me and
everyone else the freedom to do whatever the fuck we want
quite like the democratic community I live in right now.

This post is illogical. There is no such thing as 'an anarchist state'. The phrase 'anarchist state' is logically equivalent to 'a non-blue blue' which is certainly possible in Rothko paintings but not in any serious political-philosophical conversation.

The implication is that your critique falls apart even as you write it. The scenario you have described in which people who disobey some politically defined 'objective truth' are punished without democratic trial is not called 'anarchism', but 'stalinism', and it is the most murderous political system in modern history.

I'm sorry, but you score nil points
for a secondary school level critique of stalinism passed off as an argument against anarchism.

Basically, no anarchist community can give me and
everyone else the freedom to do whatever the fuck we want
quite like the democratic community I live in right now

the anarchist ideal is the democratic community.
our current political system is a biopolitical state with globalised financial capitalism (currently remodulating towards a neo-keynesian state-financial capitalism).

this is not democracy.

 

[the strange guy]

This post is illogical. There is no such thing as 'an anarchist state'. The phrase 'anarchist state' is logically equivalent to 'a non-blue blue' which is certainly possible in Rothko paintings but not in any serious political-philosophical conversation.

Arguing the finer points of political definition and
semantics is all well and good but surely you understood
what I meant? If Ireland or Britain undergo an anarchist
revolution then these islands are, as I understand it, in a
state of anarchy, hence anarchist states. Regardless of the
exact terminology, what I'm interested in is how both of
these anarchistic islands would interact and trade with
other countries which are governed by elected
representatives in the absence of currency. I'm confused
as to how, 'after the revolution', daily life could possible
resemble anything other than a third world disaster zone.

Our Western culture, our expectations and our quality of
life pretty much depend on the availability of metals,
plastics, glass, rubber, silicon and currently oil. None of
these basic components are available in quantities that
come close to sustaining the quality we currently enjoy of
basic building materials, information retrieval, industrial
manufacturing or farming enough food to feed a nation.
Are we wrong to expect these things? Is an unwilling
population readying themselves for unavoidable hardship
and possibly famine a prerequisite of revolution?

The implication is that your critique falls apart even as you write it. The scenario you have described in which people who disobey some politically defined 'objective truth' are punished without democratic trial is not called 'anarchism', but 'stalinism', and it is the most murderous political system in modern history.

I agree that punishing others for their political beliefs is
not an accepted part of anarchism. But the question I was
getting at was how a wider anarchist community can
sustain their, now functioning, ideology in the face of an
organised political opposition. Is a Roman Catholic
cathedral acceptable in an anarchist city? How about a
black market or money lenders? What about an open
meeting of people intending to recreate the old state by
force? After the blood, sweat and tears of overthrowing a
government and instating a constantly improving
anarchist utopia, are these anti-revolutionary activities
merely taboo or simply unacceptable? Are the participants
still able to avail of the benefits of an anarchist society
without contributing in the same way that social drop-outs
today can? Are these things preventable without a proto
anarcho-cheka? I know it's a lot of questions and maybe
I'm not referring to an accurate enough glossary on
anarchy but I think they're clear enough.

I'm sorry, but you score nil points
for a secondary school level critique of stalinism passed off as an argument against anarchism.

I guess I'll just have to live with with being an anarchist
failure, but I'll await your answers before handing in my
score sheet!

 

[kthozoid]

it might be that you are excessively skeptical concerning the potentials of an anarchist entity. regarding the necessity for supply and demand of essential basic raw materials required for the functioning of industry etc, it's quite probable that the prerequisite nature of these commodities would dictate the continuity of trade of some sort, regardless of whatever opposing ideologies are subset within it. to wit, a certain realpolitik would have to prevail for some time, somewhat akin to the NEP of the U.S.S.R in the 20's. the absence of hierarchical government does not immediately imply a breakdown of systems it has already established.

your references to the Cheka are pertinent at this point, being an indirect inheritor of the aegis of the Okhrana of Czarist times. however, the establishment of an anarchist society would aspire to rid itself of such authoritarian elements of control.

it would be rash to think that general infrastructure would automatically dissolve with the advent of an anarchist revolutionary system. very few elements of a post revolutionary society, reactionary or otherwise, could rationally align their interests with the dismemberment of the post-industrial systems in which we presently live.

additionally, the absence of compulsory governance need not directly imply a regressive societal state of primitivism or whatever. although it's hardly a shining example of anything positive, Somalia is an interesting example of somewhere getting it's funk on in one particular area, bereft of any sort of governance as it has been for some 25+ years now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm

(the security concerns of that country not being directly pertinent to the point i just made....)

 

[broken arm]

Somalia is an interesting example of somewhere getting it's funk on in one particular area, bereft of any sort of governance as it has been for some 25+ years now

i would pay to see you and your mates live in somalia for a year. it could be an anarchist reality t.v. show.

"would anarcho bob please come to the diary box without getting your puny irish ass shot"

 

[kthozoid]

i would pay to see you and your mates live in somalia for a year. it could be an anarchist reality t.v. show.

"would anarcho bob please come to the diary box without getting your puny irish ass shot"

sign me up. cheap AK47s, Blackhawks down, broadband interenet access. what's not to like?

 

[Gambra]

although it's hardly a shining example of anything positive, Somalia is an interesting example of somewhere getting it's funk on in one particular area, bereft of any sort of governance as it has been for some 25+ years now:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm

Seriously? Somalia? Just because it's listed on wikipedia as being being in a state of anarchy does not make it an anarchic state at all. Somalia is probably the worst country in the entire world right now. Most countries in Africa are staying the hell away from it thinking "Well at least we aren't as bad as Somalia". Nearly 2m people have died or fled the country and there's only about 8m left. The country has no infrastructure left to speak of and the only way people don't get kidnapped or shot every day is by joining or going going under the protection of heavily armed gangs.

Sounds like one heck of a Utopia to me

 

[kthozoid]

Seriously? Somalia? Just because it's listed on wikipedia as being being in a state of anarchy does not make it an anarchic state at all. Somalia is probably the worst country in the entire world right now. Most countries in Africa are staying the hell away from it thinking "Well at least we aren't as bad as Somalia". Nearly 2m people have died or fled the country and there's only about 8m left. The country has no infrastructure left to speak of and the only way people don't get kidnapped or shot every day is by joining or going going under the protection of heavily armed gangs.

Sounds like one heck of a Utopia to me

perhaps i haven't made myself sufficiently clear. or maybe you did not read my post. i was merely pointing out that the absence of government need not preclude the development of modern technologies. the point being that if it is possible in a basket case like Somalia, it is probably possible in more developed countries. i'm not sure how you mistook my post for an endorsement for Somalia as an anarchist Utopia.

 

[Gambra]

perhaps i haven't made myself sufficiently clear. or maybe you did not read my post. i was merely pointing out that the absence of government need not preclude the development of modern technologies. the point being that if it is possible in a basket case like Somalia, it is probably possible in more developed countries. i'm not sure how you mistook my post for an endorsement for Somalia as an anarchist Utopia.

But Somalia doesn't have any decent modern technology. They only thing working there is private wireless internet/mobiles. The actual infrastructure has been completely dismantled, how is that a good thing?

 

[the strange guy]

Putting Somalia's warlordism on a pedestal as an example of how
anarchy can 'work' for the general population is absolutely mental.
Forgetting the fact that the story is four years old, you can bet
when a telecoms revolution happens in a place where marauding
gangs rape and murder on a whim has nothing to do with a
flourishing anti-bureaucracy and more to do with survival.
I'd expect the same thing to happen during a zombie outbreak.
It's life or death in areas not governed by warlords and militia.
If you could explain how an anarchist Ireland could allow a
telecoms revolution in the absence of currency (dollars still exist
in Somalia) and how the rise of warlords could be completely
prevented without the use of surveillance or force I'd be a lot
more impressed.

 

[kthozoid]

we seem to be going round in circles here. i fail to see where exactly i said that the present situation in Somalia was ideologically motivated. much less linked to an anarchist platform.
to clarify:

Somalia = a thorough mess = bad.
dismantling of infrastructure = also bad.

technology in such a chaotic situation? = possible.
technology/infrastructure in a less chaotic situation? = more possible.