how many people find the concept of anarchism appealing but...
- Thread starter nightowl
- Start date
Sure, but Bonobos are pretty close as well and they're just randy as hell.
Basically though I think the whole analogy is bollocks, because we're fundamentally not like them at all - we have a symbolic order and a huge forebrain and like, computers and stuff. If you want to know if we have a choice as to whether to behave like them or not, just look around you - is the view mostly obscured by branches?
Basically though I think the whole analogy is bollocks, because we're fundamentally not like them at all - we have a symbolic order and a huge forebrain and like, computers and stuff. If you want to know if we have a choice as to whether to behave like them or not, just look around you - is the view mostly obscured by branches?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Belushi said:
Im not saying self interest is always a negative thing, indeed often it can be positive - it's more how it is used in relationships towards to other people and the effects it has on them. I wouldnt say Anarchism has to abandon all notions of self interest, just that the scales have to be re-balanced and we have to understand on a personal level where our current self interest is leading us all to. I wouldn't claim I know where this 'equilibrium' lies or that there is a perfect one, but id like to think everyone can see that self interest in our current political,social and economic system creates unnecessary hardships for many people and that this system will ultimately send humanity back from where it came.
Belushi said:
it was an analogy from further up the thread, nowt to do with me!
I just don't think that this kind of 'closest surviving relative' thing is meaningful, because the outcomes that you see now are the result of so many factors. Like the closest living relative to the elephant is the hyrax, but what do hyraxes tell you about elephants and their behaviour? Pretty much nothing as far as I'm aware.
The problem is that for selfish individualists thats completely irrelevant!
IME people will usually agree whenever you speak to them about mutualism, duty to others, shared responsibilities etc - threaten their standard of living though and all that goes out the window!
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Kid_Eternity said:
Well the pessimistic part of me would agree with you. Given the size of the system that governs us and the constraints that exist within it for positive change (in particularly a devolution of power from top to bottom) I can't help think otherwise, some of the time.
But then I think that's just negative thinking and no matter how small the chances of some sort of change are, they shouldn't be tossed away on a belief that it's not really worth trying. Afterall, we need a back up plan, right?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
Im sure some Anarchistic scholars will point to situations/places where it was beaten down by the state or by other states in order to maintain the status quo, but on a more general level I don't think people in society 'want' Anarchism right now, indeed most people are probably quite naive about its ideas and principles beyond a general understanding. I know I was before arriving on here - not that id claim to know massive amounts about it right now....
The Black Hand
Unclean
LLETSA said:
Fuck off letasa - neither has your moribund ideology...
Fruitloop said:
Well conditions were surely more favourable for all 'collectivist' ideologies before the advent of mass consumerism and its tying in of a large proportion of the working class to the capitalist system. Which had (in the long run) a considerable amount of success in diluting working class radicalism and reducing the ideologies linked to it to the status of marginal sects.
And why could you have said the same for capitalism during the middle ages?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Fruitloop said:
Last week, where were you?!
Barking_Mad said:
But surely the fact that it could so easily be beaten down by the state is prooof enough of its ineffectiveness.
As for people 'not being ready' for anarchism, isn't the test of a movement for change in whether it can speak to people in the here and now?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
As someone once said,
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
I didn't say "not being ready" for anarchism, I said they didn't 'want' it. Or perhaps I might go as far to say that they don't 'need' it. We have a system that provides material wants and needs and through a whole host of methods but one that is quite clearly unsustainable. Anarchism in my humble view should be doing more to engage with people (edit - on a larger scale) , it clearly has to relate more to their lives and from my observations their are plenty of opportunities to do so in the here and now. A brief example is the lack of turn out for local and government elections - theres a huge void to be filled with an alternative simply because man, many people don't believe in the current system.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
I didn't claim it has come.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
Well since you misquoted me the first time, I presumed you were directing the comment at me in some way. Apologies.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
2 questions:
1. Why would a feudal agricutural society be more likely to favour collectivist ideologies than any other
2. When do you think the era of mass consumerism started?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
LLETSA said:
Well that depends on how you define alternative. Certainly people aren't calling for the removal of democracy but people do feel like that their vote is useless, that politicians don't listen and that they are increasingly ineffective in their roles.
So there's clearly room for some grassroots politics on a non-governmental level, where people can be encouraged to engage in their society rather than passively observing it and putting a tick in a box every so often.
Clearly its not going to spring into life as a fully formed functioning role, but then nothing ever does.
kyser_soze said:
I wasn't talking about feudal society-I was talking about the heyday of the industrial system when workers were herded together in large enterprises, often close to where they lived. This fostered both a sense of community and a readiness to identify with each other as workers. As opposed to the fragmented working class communities and dispersed workplaces of today.
While consumerism as we'd recognise it today began in the middle of the nineteenth century, and grew continually from that moment on (mainly among the middle class), the kind of society in which a majority of the population was able to participate in it, to one degree or another, didn't come about until after WW2.
Similar threads
- Poll
