News Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[Art]

I'll try to address your major points

Those so-called "trade barriers" are the only thing between those people and total exploitation beyond repair. A totally free market will only better allow these exploitations to happen. Tell me Art, why is it, do you think, that when El Salvador was in such a dire strait of poverty they had a socialist revolution and the first thing they did was to put up trade barriers and kick out western corporations that were exploiting them? Why is it, do you think, that as soon as this happened the quality of life, hell the chance of surviving the week, rose dramatically. And why is it, do you think, that these people were so happy about it and cheering in the street. (No, it's not propoganda, these people couldn't afford food, what medium do you really think they'd have to be barraged with the level of propoganda required to do that?

What do you think, Art?

I think you completely misunderstand what trade barriers are used for and by whom. It is the 1st world countries who use trade barriers to protect segments of their economy from cheap imports from low cost suppliers. An example being Africa. The EU exports it's surplus food to Africa by subsidising it (a socialist policy not a capitalist one) thus undermining the farming sector in Africa and prevents Africa shipping food to it by imposing tariffs (again a socialist policy known as protectionism). IMO national trade barriers are only justified when an exporter is selling his product to another country at an artificially low price.

I quote myself:
The reason I put that in there is because I knew that line would be said by someone. It's the most common response to any unfairness pointed out in the system. The point is there is no where else to go. We're trapped here.

I wanted to be an anarchist. A true anarchist. But I've been reduced to being a political anarchist because I CAN'T AFFORD TO BE AN ANARCHIST IN THIS SOCIETY. There are people, off the coast of BC, living on islands in the middle of no where who raise their own sheep, make their own clothes, grow their own food. Totally self-sustainable. They've been there since the 50s-60s when that kind of thing was possible because that land didn't cost millions of dollars per sq meter. Now-a-days it's all owned by richies and celebrities who bring their big yachts and motorboats up there for summer vacations, cause huge noise pollution, causes enviromental problems, scares fish, ect. They disrupt their lives, make it incredibly hard to live like that. These people don't have any money to prosecute with, they don't want to, they just want to be left alone. THE SYSTEM DOESN'T ALLOW IT any more than the system allows a worker to choose it's employer. Employers don't go around looking for workers, if you need a job you run around town asking people, filtering through ads, blah blah blah. No one comes to you wanting to hire you, you go to them. No one competes for workers, that's bull****.

I would love nothing more than to live on my own island and be totally cut off from the capitalist world. The capitalist world doesn't allow it. You have to be a millionaires to be able to do that, and only people who play the game, and play it well, get to be millionaires.

The system is expansive, no one is allowed to live outside it without being harmed unless the people on which the system relies fight back.

Unless we have WW3 or something equally cataclysmic and the human race is reduced to a few thousand people there aren't enough islands to go around to make this a viable option for most folk. However there is still a hippy island off the coast of Ireland, purchased by John Lennon for the purpose you ascribe. It initially had a population of a few hundred but the last I heard a few years back all but 2 had decided to return to civilization. Perhaps that would suit you.

Personally I have no envy of the super rich whatsoever. I think often they are more to be pitied. There is a film where Danny DeVito plays a rich grasping businessman where somebody asks him why he is so ruthless when he's already rich. He replies "You don't get it, it's a game and whoever dies with the most wins" I think this epitomises the waste of a life spent chasing material gain.

There is no record in history of a socialist country ever coming to power and existing for any amount of time what so ever, without violent, aggressive intervention from capitalist countries. Russian expedition, Cuban Embargo, Brazilian Death Squads, Guatemalan bombing. None, ever. Socialism has forever been under attack since it's first conception from the dominant powers. And yet we criticize them for taking away individual rights. What democracy or capitalist country has not also taken away rights at times of war and distress? By comparison these socialist countries have allowed amazing amounts of rights to remain considering many in the past had spent their entire lives at war or under aggression be it economic, diplomatic or militaristic. How dare we critisize them, let alone from a North American continent that it it's self has never even been bombed let alone invaded or embargoed from anywhere, how dare we, from our positions of huge countries with limitless resources and who have always been banks of the world, How dare we critisize them who have done nothing more than try to make a better world for their citizens to earn our aggression under the guise of a "Communist Threat".

Personally I don't criticize any of them. I'm all in favour of folk trying different models and if they come across a better sustainable model than the one the west currently subscribes to, as I've already said I'd be amongst those to embrace it.

What did guatemala, the socialist republic of some thousands of people who's main export was banana's pose as a "threat" to us. Us, especially those americans who have had among the largest navy and air force in the world to protect them for centuries and hardly ever lost a war let alone been attacked them selves.

What indeed, I agree

Furthermore, why is it that socialist dictatorships have and have alone been targeted by foreign intervention. Why has Burma, the most oppressive regime in the world and the only (i think) country in the world where the internet is illegal to the majority. (Who here has ever met a burmian on the net?), Why? BECAUSE THEY ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO EXPLOIT THEIR POOR. Socialist countries don't recognize private ownership, let alone allow them to be owned by the imaginary entity that has so much power in our own world.

I don't think it is only socialists who have been attacked. Many countries in the world even today are fundamentally militaristic and will attack others whether they are left, right or centre. The reasons why are diverse. It may as in the case of Iraq be resource driven but it may also be for religion, to settle old scores or even simple racism.

There's nothing wrong with someone having more power than another, but why do we have to make it easier for the powerfull to remain powerfull and the unpowerfull to remain unpowerfull? There's a word for that, it's called a caste system. I'm thuroughly digusted by the "trickle down" theory that the poor get scrapes from the rich, so the best way to help them is to give the rich bigger plates. It's stupid, and descriminatory.

I agree, the trickle down theory is a weak justification for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor but again this is a fault of ideology not capitalism per se. If people elect themselves a government that actually cares about people such imbalances can be corrected through fiscal policy. The fact people often don't, I have already likened on another thread to 'turkeys voting for christmas'

There have been many other systems suggested, and tried in parts of the world, the problem is that people brand them all "Socialist" because ignorant westerners think that Capitalism is on one end of a scale and Communism on the other and anything that is similar with Marxism must be the same thing. Or at the least, still worse.

The republican and some democratic administrations in the US may view the world in such black and white terms but the vast majority of countries in the EU for example do not.

Because there is this 'blind faith' that Capitalism will work always and that no changes need to be made (Real changes, not addressing minor problems in a few regulations)

Capitalism as I've already said is a still evolving model. In fact that is one of it's key attributes. It will continue to change as the needs of the population change whereas many of the socialist models tried to date have been very inflexible.

Tell me art, what is wrong with Anarcho-syndicalism, or Green Anarchism (that's me)? What is so wrong about it that's preventing people from jumping all over it?

There are just so many problems when dealing with high density populations I wouldn't know where to begin.
However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

 

[Smurf]

Must resist urge to respond... late for class...

(you're right it's not just socialist countries, it's countries that try to develope economies independant from the US - and I meant American foreign intervention... and to a lesser extent other western nations - Hey I'd been typing fast all night, give me some slack)

 

[Smurf]

Wow short class. (I was 5 minutes late!). Okay, now 45 minutes till my next class.

I'll try to address your major pointsI think you completely misunderstand what trade barriers are used for and by whom. It is the 1st world countries who use trade barriers to protect segments of their economy from cheap imports from low cost suppliers.

Which is perfectly fine. Everyone has the right to refuse to buy from someone.

An example being Africa. The EU exports it's surplus food to Africa by subsidising it (a socialist policy not a capitalist one) thus undermining the farming sector in Africa and prevents Africa shipping food to it by imposing tariffs (again a socialist policy known as protectionism). IMO national trade barriers are only justified when an exporter is selling his product to another country at an artificially low price.

Exactly. Why arn't these african nations raisnig trade tariffs of their own then? A few reasons really, firstly because they're afraid that the US is going to bomb them. Or the leaders are afraid that the US is going to create political instability and oust them from office as they've done so many times in the past - my example being Ghana, where I lived for 3 years and saw it recovering from the last coup by brits and yanks.

This is the nature of the current system, let's call it capitalism, in the west. It's imperialist and bullying and will continue to try to keep the poor (3rd world) poorer. It's a system that helps the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor and has no ethical barriers at all, intranational and international.

Unless we have WW3 or something equally cataclysmic and the human race is reduced to a few thousand people there aren't enough islands to go around to make this a viable option for most folk.

The island is optional.

However there is still a hippy island off the coast of Ireland, purchased by John Lennon for the purpose you ascribe. It initially had a population of a few hundred but the last I heard a few years back all but 2 had decided to return to civilization. Perhaps that would suit you.

Havn't heard anything about it. Maybe they left because an irish company dropped a bunch of toxics in the area and killed all the wildlife. You really should research it before jumping to conclusions.

Personally I have no envy of the super rich whatsoever.

You're alone in that capacity then. "I want what he has" is a dominant theme in our society today.

I think often they are more to be pitied. There is a film where Danny DeVito plays a rich grasping businessman where somebody asks him why he is so ruthless when he's already rich. He replies "You don't get it, it's a game and whoever dies with the most wins" I think this epitomises the waste of a life spent chasing material gain.

Havn't seen it. Okay then, but I can think of lots of examples I like better than a hollywood chick flick.

Personally I don't criticize any of them. I'm all in favour of folk trying different models and if they come across a better sustainable model than the one the west currently subscribes to, as I've already said I'd be amongst those to embrace it.

And then you say:

What indeed, I agree

If you agree why arn't you willing to criticize them? Is killing millions of innocents for a few extra bucks justified in your mind? (that's not agreeing)

I don't think it is only socialists who have been attacked.

You're right. It's any economy that's tried to develop and independant economy from American corporatism.

Many countries in the world even today are fundamentally militaristic and will attack others whether they are left, right or centre. The reasons why are diverse. It may as in the case of Iraq be resource driven but it may also be for religion, to settle old scores or even simple racism.

I meant American foreign intervention. Sorry I was typing fast and forgot the extra gloss. Everything since WW2 has been for economic reasons.

I agree, the trickle down theory is a weak justification for allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor but again this is a fault of ideology not capitalism per se.

It is capitalist ideology. Why are you trying to separate all the weak points of capitalism from capitalism it's self? I think you're just attached to the idea of free trade because it's 'free' and you've been indoctrinated (not your fault) to believe everything connected with 'freedom' is good and just. What is this ideology, if not capitalism?

If people elect themselves a government that actually cares about people such imbalances can be corrected through fiscal policy.

Unfortunately because the system we have controls the media, and people end up not caring about that because they get distracted by the new sale at the brick or london drugs of whatever.

Capitalism as I've already said is a still evolving model. In fact that is one of it's key attributes. It will continue to change as the needs of the population change whereas many of the socialist models tried to date have been very inflexible.

Yeah.. because they're cut off from the rest of the world. If you're just a small country in south america and america bombs everyone you try to trade will you don't have a whole lot of options do you. Besides, how can you state that they've "shown" to be inflexible. What socialist economy has actually existed for a fraction of the time the one we have know has?

There are just so many problems when dealing with high density populations I wouldn't know where to begin.

Begin somewhere because so far you've just said "I believe!" "I believe!"

However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

That's not true... did you even read the links? How much research into anarchism have you done ape?

 

[Astronuc]

and who is going to develop this fusion technology? the French?

ITER is a multinational collaboration between all the countries involved in fusion research worldwide. It operates by consensus among the participants. The collaboration involves primarily scientists, who establish the requirements of the experiment and eventually will measure its success, and engineers, who find ways to produce these required conditions safely, reliably and as cheaply as possible, and who in its operation will also gain design information for future fusion power plants. The scientists and engineers are supported by a range of highly skilled staff, especially in the areas of information technology, computer-aided design, secretarial, clerical, and technical administration, and project and resource management.

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

http://www.iter.org/gifs2/atlas2.gif

 

[vanesch]

However to point out one obvious inconsistency if you are an adherent of Green Anarchism what are you doing on the internet. You are supposed to shun all technology.

(clubs are allowed for, I presume )

I've read up on Green Anarchism (and it makes me think of "Le noble sauvage" - Rousseau) ; however, clearly it isn't a stable system, as our current systems GREW OUT OF GREEN ANARCHISM. So how are green anarchists (living in small bands of hunters-gatherers) going to prevent others to get together, start doing agriculture, setting up civilisations, armies and empires and be reduced to a few drunk guys in a reserve, or being shot from a train ? Who's going to IMPOSE green anarchism ?

I agree that this was probably a great lifestyle (short but intense), but it's gone now.

 

[Smurf]

as our current systems GREW OUT OF GREEN ANARCHISM.

how did you arrive at that conclusion? (this coming from the guy who says we've always had capitalism!)

 

[Art]

Begin somewhere because so far you've just said "I believe!" "I believe!"

Smurf you are doing what you accuse the GOP supporters of doing, trying to paint everything either black or white. Personally I see shades of gray.

That's not true... did you even read the links? How much research into anarchism have you done ape?

Yes actually I did. The more pertinant question is did you? Here's a quote from a source you should approve of

All green anarchists question technology on some level. While there are those who still suggest the notion of "green" or "appropriate" technology and search for rationales to cling to forms of domestication, most reject technology completely. Technology is more than wires, silicon, plastic, and steel. It is a complex system involving division of labor, resource extraction, and exploitation for the benefit of those who implement its process. The interface with and result of technology is always an alienated, mediated, and distorted reality. Despite the claims of post-modern apologists and other technophiles, technology is not neutral.

http://www.greenanarchy.info/tech.php

It appears even in the green world there are shades of gray

 

[Astronuc]

Squandered Victory - by Larry Diamond - Missed Opportunity in Iraq

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Excellent point SOS.

And perhaps more poignant to this thread -

Amazon.com

In late 2003, Stanford University professor and democracy expert Larry Diamond was personally asked by his former colleague Condoleezza Rice to serve as an advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, a position he accepted with equal parts "hesitation and conviction." He opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, but "supported building the peace," and felt the U.S. had a moral imperative to reconstruct Iraq as a democratic and prosperous nation. Before going to Iraq he had serious doubts about whether the U.S. could actually do this--an opinion that was solidified after spending three months working with the CPA. Squandered Victory is his insider's examination of what went wrong in Iraq after the initial invasion. Diamond details a long list of preventable blunders and missed opportunities, from President Bush's decision to give the Pentagon the lead responsibility for the management of postwar Iraq to the CPA's inability to work with Iraqi leaders such as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Diamond expresses admiration for CPA Administrator L. Paul Bremer, whom he believes was sincere about wanting to bring democracy to Iraq, yet points out that he was wholly unprepared and unrealistic about the task, resulting in "one of the major overseas blunders in U.S. history." In his descriptions of confrontations with Bremer, Diamond shows him as unwilling to diverge from paths that were obviously failing.

As an academic with an expertise in democracy building, Diamond sometimes seems more comfortable with theories than practical solutions, but he did experience the process in Iraq from the inside and provides a useful background on the various ethnic and religious groups vying for power there. He claims that he remains hopeful, but his optimism lies more with the abilities of the Iraqi people than with the U.S. government, since the difficult process of democratization will likely take much more time and effort than the U.S. can afford to spend.

--Shawn Carkonen

From Publishers Weekly

When Diamond got a call from his former Stanford colleague Condoleezza Rice asking if he would go to Baghdad to advise Iraqi authorities on drafting and implementing a democratic constitution, the political scientist, who had "opposed going to war but supported building the peace," was able to overcome his concerns about the region's instability. What he saw in Iraq during the first four months of 2004, however, left him extremely pessimistic about the prospects of success (although he admits all is not necessarily lost). Diamond sees a refusal to deal honestly with deteriorating conditions, particularly the rise of violent insurgency, and characterizes it as one of America's worst blunders ever; indeed, he calls that refusal "criminal negligence." Diamond's mounting personal frustration becomes apparent especially in direct confrontations with then Ambassador Paul Bremer. Though much of the story is given over to wonkish details of power brokering among Iraq's various political, ethnic and religious factions, there are also vibrant particulars of life inside the American compound, where even going out for pizza could be a life-threatening event. Such eye-witness experience bolsters this vivid critique of the current administration's foreign policy cornerstone.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Lots of discussion on the net. And lots of criticsim from Bush/Rice supporters and neocons.

I had the opportunity to listen to Larry Diamond addressing the Commonwealth Club - Prospects for Democracy in Iraq - http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/05/05-06diamond-audio.html (Real Audio - ram format)

Diamond characterizes the US program to 'build' democracy in the US with "four damning words" - "arrogance, ignorance, isolation, and incompetence."

 

[Smurf]

Smurf you are doing what you accuse the GOP supporters of doing, trying to paint everything either black or white. Personally I see shades of gray.

I don't mean to. And I try to see in colors as well as shades of grey. (meaning, it's not a linear scale that everything is somewhere between two extremes)

Yes actually I did. The more pertinant question is did you? Here's a quote from a source you should approve of http://www.greenanarchy.info/tech.php

It appears even in the green world there are shades of gray

Okay. Interesting that a website called "Greenanarchy" would be saying that. Well I don't. And I still see no reason why I "should" either.

 

[vanesch]

how did you arrive at that conclusion? (this coming from the guy who says we've always had capitalism!)

From your own link on wiki:

Essentially, gatherer-hunters are perceived to be part of our anarchist ancestry since all humans practiced that mode of life for around two million years.

BTW, I didn't say that we ALWAYS had capitalism, we had a form of capitalism from the moment that we EXCHANGED stuff (without using clubs).

 

[vanesch]

Diamond characterizes the US program to 'build' democracy in the US with "four damning words" - "arrogance, ignorance, isolation, and incompetence."

Ok, because I've been saying that too since 2003, can I now get my professor seat in Stanford ?

 

[Smurf]

BTW, I didn't say that we ALWAYS had capitalism, we had a form of capitalism from the moment that we EXCHANGED stuff (without using clubs).

That's pretty thin vanesch, it does not say at all that we evolved out of Green Anarchism, that was your own interpretation based on your own bias attempt to discredit my argument (no? your not bias? tell me where you got it form then!)

 

[vanesch]

That's pretty thin vanesch, it does not say at all that we evolved out of Green Anarchism, that was your own interpretation based on your own bias attempt to discredit my argument (no? your not bias? tell me where you got it form then!)

I read (from your link) that bands of hunters-gatherers were the prototype of green anarchaic society. We all grew out of that. So I was simply questioning if this ideal of green anarchaic society is stable against the same changes that occurred when hunters-gatherers switched to agriculture (which, it is recognized, was A STEP BACKWARD for most people, who lost MORE than they gained).

I would also like to point out something about capitalism: it is the difference between the *ideology* which, indeed, originated with Adam Smith and is a BELIEF that everything is going for the best when the free market is applied unconstrained (and to which I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE - I do not believe that everything goes for the best if we do that) on one hand and the very FACT that if you give property rights to people and let then trade everything, unconstrained, and do not apply specific rules of the trade, that you INSTORE the system capitalism likes so much ; and that this factual situation is also commenly called "capitalism" ; it is *THIS* system which existed (almost) in ancient times: the unconstrained free market (except for some taxes, true, but those were not REGULATING taxes or taxes meant to be redistributed) and the respect of property (not wielding clubs).

 

[Lisa!]

Ha, I wanted to see if you were going to react, Lisa!
Great, you are my personal ant-alert

I think ants will hijack the threads of this forum in the future!

 

[Smurf]

I read (from your link) that bands of hunters-gatherers were the prototype of green anarchaic society. We all grew out of that. So I was simply questioning if this ideal of green anarchaic society is stable against the same changes that occurred when hunters-gatherers switched to agriculture (which, it is recognized, was A STEP BACKWARD for most people, who lost MORE than they gained).

No. You read that they were considered the ancestors of green anarchism. You filled in the rest yourself. Green Anarchism is not, I repeat, is not Primitivism.

But if you really want to research Anarcho-Primitivism (notice there's a different name for it, because it's a different ideology) you can see it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

 

[vanesch]

No. You read that they were considered the ancestors of green anarchism. You filled in the rest yourself. Green Anarchism is not, I repeat, is not Primitivism.

But if you really want to research Anarcho-Primitivism (notice there's a different name for it, because it's a different ideology) you can see it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Phoo, this is going to be a semantic battle in which I'm only moderately interested.

From your link about Green Anarchism:

Green anarchists can be described as anti-civilization anarchists and sometimes anarcho-primitivists, though not all green anarchists and anti-civilization anarchists are primitivists.

I get dizzy when I read such thing, I think it is kind of like the discussions in Christianism about whether God is Three in One, or is One with Three forms, which lead to the Schism between the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholics.

It doesn't change my point: anarchism is a kind of return to the bushes ( ) and independent of a judgement of value of that return, I ask you: WHAT IS GOING TO STOP CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FROM GETTING TOGETHER AGAIN AND BUILD UP A CIVILISATION ?
Given that anarchism (all flavors) denies any structure, there is no structure going to STOP those individuals from getting together again, as it happened in the plains of Mesopotamia some 10000 years ago.

So this looks to me like an intrinsic instability in any anarchist vision, no ?

Somehow it seems to me that the best practical way to IMPLEMENT anarchism now would be to provoque an almost total thermonuclear war, with the hope that some would survive and with the hope that their descendents would become so terribly mentally retarded that they won't get the idea of getting together and doing agriculture. And maybe the best way to get there quickly is to participate fully in a frenzic consumer-driven society
, and vote for fascistoid leaders.

 

[vanesch]

I think ants will hijack the threads of this forum in the future!

ALL ANTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE

 

[Astronuc]

Ants are very useful and helpful. I use them in my gardening.

They protect plants from some harmful insects and help break down logs from dead trees into compost.

I have lots of varieties of ants in my yard, and I had to relocate two ant nests which had developed in some old tree stumps.

 

[arildno]

Aunts are very useful and helpful. I use them in my gardening.

I couldn't agree more. Aunts rule!

 

[Lisa!]

ALL ANTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE

My prediction's come true. As you see ants already hijacked a thread!

Astronuc, arildno's changed your post in an enlightening day!

 

[Smurf]

It doesn't change my point: anarchism is a kind of return to the bushes ( )

Now you're just generalizing. There are many flavors of anarchism, only 1 of which (or some green anarchists too) condemns technology.

 

[Smurf]

Given that anarchism (all flavors) denies any structure, there is no structure going to STOP those individuals from getting together again, as it happened in the plains of Mesopotamia some 10000 years ago.

.. There's no response to that. Everything in your post, especially this statement spring from a complete misconception of what Anarchism is. I can only tell you to learn before speaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Society

There are practical applications of anarchism today, if you were correct in your implications this would not be so. Obviously they are sustainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Wiki is your friend.

 

[vanesch]

.. There's no response to that. Everything in your post, especially this statement spring from a complete misconception of what Anarchism is. I can only tell you to learn before speaking.

Well, I just read your links and respond to it as I see what's written...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Society

From that link:

Anarchists propose that with the destruction of the state, violence from statist forces will generally come from counter-revolutionaries, or those that want a return to hierarchal structures. Marxist-Leninists are critical of anarchists on this issue, and argue without a strong centralized group, or vanguard, a revolutionary society will not be able to defend itself. Although some anarchists are pacifists, many anarchists propose self-defense against counter-revolutionary forces through the construction of popular militias.

That's exactly my critique: if there's no central structure to ENFORCE this, how are you going to prevent certain groups from "going back to static organization" ? Your link suggests militia, but what stops one of these militia to attack the neighbouring militia ?
I mean, what's different with the situation at the start of the agricultural revolution ?

There are practical applications of anarchism today, if you were correct in your implications this would not be so. Obviously they are sustainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Wiki is your friend.

Again, from your link:

Critics, however, express doubts concerning the effectiveness of a voluntary militia against a ruthless modern military using weapons of mass destruction and hierarchical structure. Critics also argue that historical examples, like the Spanish Civil War, do not support the theory that anarchist communities can defend themselves.

Apparently the people who wrote these critics are as ignorant as I am about anarchism, because they see the same flaws ?

 

[Astronuc]

My prediction's come true. As you see ants already hijacked a thread!

With a little help from their friends - the antarchists or antanarchists or antarchistos.

I thought ants tended to be antianarchists anyway.

Astronuc, arildno's changed your post in an enlightening day!

I noticed. It's the thought that counts. Unfortunately, all of my aunts have slowed down and gardening would not appeal to them. So I have to rely on my 6-legged friends.

 

[Lisa!]

With a little help from their friends - the antarchists or antanarchists or antarchistos.

I thought ants tended to be antianarchists anyway.

I think ants really deserve to have their own threads. Humans can learn a lot from them.

So I have to rely on my 6-legged friends.

Interesting!

 

[Smurf]

Apparently the people who wrote these critics are as ignorant as I am about anarchism, because they see the same flaws ?

No. Those criticisms are about an anarchist society being under external attack, or internal attack from a dissenting group. It has nothing to do with the agricultural revolution or any lack of social structure.

 

[vanesch]

No. Those criticisms are about an anarchist society being under external attack, or internal attack from a dissenting group. It has nothing to do with the agricultural revolution or any lack of social structure.

But that's the point: how is an anarchist society going to stabilize itself against static development (from outside or from inside) ? The reason I brought up the agricultural revolution is that this was the reason for instoring state structures in the past, from which an elite got a (much) better life, and the average person got a worse life than under hunter-gatherers, and at the same time made the hunter-gatherer lifestyle less and less possible ; but which also induced a long term development from which we NOW take (some) advantage.
So how is such a development going to be stopped by the anarchic society of your preferred flavor, whatever that is ?

 

[vanesch]

I think ants really deserve to have their own threads. Humans can learn a lot from them.

I think ants are perfect communists within, and obey the law of the jungle on the outside of their colonies, as do all structures which have no superstructure.

 

[Smurf]

But that's the point: how is an anarchist society going to stabilize itself against static development (from outside or from inside) ?

I don't know. What are you asking? Tell you what, tell me what a democracy does to 'stabilize' it's self and I'll tell you what the Zapatistas or the Barcelona colony is doing differently in that respect.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know. What are you asking? Tell you what, tell me what a democracy does to 'stabilize' it's self and I'll tell you what the Zapatistas or the Barcelona colony is doing differently in that respect.

Well, a democracy first has a structure which is imposed by superior violence, namely its state, the army, the police and all that which protects it against small instabilities from within (as a relatively small group, say 1000-10000 armed men, you will have difficulties throwing over a mature democracy). It seeks alliances with other democracies through international agreements against external agressions. As long as its politicians can keep the majority of people relatively happy, a democracy is a relatively stable structure.