UnStabled Anarchy Versus Unstabled Civilized Society.

[Joker]

Upon hearing anarchism one will hear all the criticisms that anarchy is chaotic, unstabled, unrealistic and ruthless.

Yet when society hears about civilization filled with atom bombs, chemical warfare,constructed super diseases,weapons of mass destruction,terrorism, poverty, classism, slavery,religious fanaticism and thousands of years of mass warfare noone is ever brave enough to call it unstable,unrealistic, chaotic or ruthless in comparison.

That is a heresy…

The typical civilized response would be one of silence or harsh criticism to such a open remark upon a heavily criticized representation of civilization.

Things are progressing is the motto of civilization but as to where things are progressing to noone knows or dares to speak of it. Progressing to what? Silence clamors on.

To question the idealized verse of civilized progress is the highest heresy second to none.

Civilization after all in comparison to a state of anarchy isn’t all that unstabled, right?

Yet in every new generation revolving around so much morality, transhumanism, technology, politics and philosophy, isn’t ironic that we see new developments everyday in which we create new items through innovation in order to kill each other with amongst that which we call civilization or civilized society?

Isn’t ironic that amongst so much modern politics and market economies we are finding new ways to enslave or monopolize each other with?

Of course the typical mass populance nonetheless describes civilization as one of stability amongst all this.

With a technological mastermind known as the media broadcasting systemization which shapes and forms public opinion or consciousness, to point out civilization’s obvious unstableness is futile.

What do anarchists like myself know in comparison, anyhow?

[Joker]

Civilization and anarchy is the same. Glad to see that consensus by the lack of posts.

[Philihp]

Yes, it is two sides of the same coin. Being able to tell the difference is what make us alive. In time it’s the same but in space it’s different.

[Joker]

@Philihp

Yes, it is two sides of the same coin. Being able to tell the difference is what make us alive. In time it’s the same but in space it’s different.

The difference however is an illusion.

[Maytacera]

@Joker

Civilization and anarchy is the same. Glad to see that consensus by the lack of posts.

I disagree obviously. Anarchy and civilization would only work with certian conditions, and the conditions for anarchy to work are more difficult to achieve than those for civilation.

Going off MY ideal here, I see that for a civilation to work right, all that is needed is a moral majority (not “whatever the majority thinks is moral” type, the “Majority of people are moral” type.) for stuff to work out. Even if the government were corrupt, a moral citizen base would dethrone it and things would move on.

With anarchy, EVERYONE would have to be moral, as there is no government to remove wrong doers.

[Joker]

The meaning of this thread is my expression of showing civilization and anarchy as being equally chaotic in existence.

[Maytacera]

At the moment? In many cases they are equally unstable, though in different ways. When I say “Anarchy is unstable”, however, it’s more of a “Anarchy will always be unstable”. Civilization is not always going to be that way, but the circumstances have to be right.

[Joker]

@Maytacera

At the moment? In many cases they are equally unstable, though in different ways. When I say “Anarchy is unstable”, however, it’s more of a “Anarchy will always be unstable”. Civilization is not always going to be that way, but the circumstances have to be right.

Civilization is not always going to be that way,

Civilization since its very beginnings has been unstable and stagnate unto the present.

What makes you think anything will ever change?

[Wobbly]

I think, as is often the case, those who speak most adamantly against anarchy and for this society, are the one’s who benefit the most from it. It so happens, that the one’s who benefit most from it, are also the ones who exert the most control over it. The powerful, the well-known, ect exert such a strong influence over the dialog of anarchy, that an assault against there power is an assault against reason and life. There are two levels to this, those who want to maintain the general status quo, those in industrialized nations reeping the benefits of years of subjugation and exploitation. And the other level, the rich and powerful in industrialized nations who want to maintain everything exactly as it is. The latter tie there wealth and power to the former, and thus mobilize the former to maintain the latter. That is, arguments against the current state of affairs are seen as arguments against the general framework of the current state of affiars. Hence, “wealth should be more widely distributed among our society” is turned into “that is against the fundamental tenets of our society, and thus would destroy our society. You are unreasonable if you want to get rid of the benefits this society confers on you”. When in fact it would only get rid of the benefits conferred on the rich thus powerful, while enriching the rest of the society. Hence, the few dominate the dialog of the many.

Then, there are the select few in industrialized nations who understand the wicked secret behind it. It was built upon the backs of billions of people who suffer day in and day out, and can only continue to exist as long as these people continue to be exploited. The farmer in Senegal, the miner in South Africa, the peasant in Iran, the textile worker in China, all maintaining the standard of living of the industrialized North, while reaping the benefits of degradation and poverty. The anarchy of globalization came to fruitions in the stomach of 1 billion children. That, my friends, is the truth of Capitalism.

Then comes the hypocrisy, the claims to authority and an ordered society. Attacking thieves, and those who prey on the weak, while everything one owns and could own, thus one’s identity in our society, is the result of those exact things, but on a scale exponentially larger. One comes to attack one’s ownself and the most deeply ingrained and preciously held character traits our society can allow.

Ahh Capitalism, your bounty of slums and urban disease is much too endearing, I shall embrace you warmly as I purchase my fifth TV.

[apaosha]

The duty of peasants is to be exploited. That’s what they’re for. If they want otherwise then they’re not peasants but rebels. The successful rebel is then the beginnings of a new master …

OP:

Anarchy is unfeasible. The rabble will inevitably reform the State in some shape or form - it is its only manner of self-protection; through numbers.

What is required for the independent mind is the capacity to deal with this behaviour effectively.

[Wobbly]

@apaosha

The duty of peasants is to be exploited. That’s what they’re for. If they want otherwise then they’re not peasants but rebels. The successful rebel is then the beginnings of a new master …

I don’t see how economic dominance is equivalent to “mastership”, but then again I have never appreciated Capitalist reasoning, and I tend to stay away from Ayn rand. Afterall, what kind of “master” creates a system that turns there absolute dominance into absolute dependence. If only they had read Hegel’s “Master and Slave”.

Anyway, I have grown weary of realpolitik and the vicious circle that’s it’s proponents view as the only option. It had it’s try, and it turned out to be self defeating. Time for a new paradigm, perhaps we should ask the peasants. Maybe something along the lines of Libertarian socialism, oh shit, wrong group.

The rabble will inevitably reform the State in some shape or form - it is its only manner of self-protection; through numbers.

I wonder, is the rabble the wage-laborer that has learned how to survive, or the tycoon that has learned how to buy?

[Joker]

@Nihilistic

I think, as is often the case, those who speak most adamantly against anarchy and for this society, are the one’s who benefit the most from it. It so happens, that the one’s who benefit most from it, are also the ones who exert the most control over it. The powerful, the well-known, ect exert such a strong influence over the dialog of anarchy, that an assault against there power is an assault against reason and life. There are two levels to this, those who want to maintain the general status quo, those in industrialized nations reeping the benefits of years of subjugation and exploitation. And the other level, the rich and powerful in industrialized nations who want to maintain everything exactly as it is. The latter tie there wealth and power to the former, and thus mobilize the former to maintain the latter. That is, arguments against the current state of affairs are seen as arguments against the general framework of the current state of affiars. Hence, “wealth should be more widely distributed among our society” is turned into “that is against the fundamental tenets of our society, and thus would destroy our society. You are unreasonable if you want to get rid of the benefits this society confers on you”. When in fact it would only get rid of the benefits conferred on the rich thus powerful, while enriching the rest of the society. Hence, the few dominate the dialog of the many.

Then, there are the select few in industrialized nations who understand the wicked secret behind it. It was built upon the backs of billions of people who suffer day in and day out, and can only continue to exist as long as these people continue to be exploited. The farmer in Senegal, the miner in South Africa, the peasant in Iran, the textile worker in China, all maintaining the standard of living of the industrialized North, while reaping the benefits of degradation and poverty. The anarchy of globalization came to fruitions in the stomach of 1 billion children. That, my friends, is the truth of Capitalism.

Then comes the hypocrisy, the claims to authority and an ordered society. Attacking thieves, and those who prey on the weak, while everything one owns and could own, thus one’s identity in our society, is the result of those exact things, but on a scale exponentially larger. One comes to attack one’s ownself and the most deeply ingrained and preciously held character traits our society can allow.

Ahh Capitalism, your bounty of slums and urban disease is much too endearing, I shall embrace you warmly as I purchase my fifth TV.

I think, as is often the case, those who speak most adamantly against anarchy and for this society, are the one’s who benefit the most from it.

Pretty much.

It so happens, that the one’s who benefit most from it, are also the ones who exert the most control over it. The powerful, the well-known, ect exert such a strong influence over the dialog of anarchy, that an assault against there power is an assault against reason and life.

Against their reason and their very lives.

There are two levels to this, those who want to maintain the general status quo, those in industrialized nations reeping the benefits of years of subjugation and exploitation. And the other level, the rich and powerful in industrialized nations who want to maintain everything exactly as it is. The latter tie there wealth and power to the former, and thus mobilize the former to maintain the latter. That is, arguments against the current state of affairs are seen as arguments against the general framework of the current state of affiars. Hence, “wealth should be more widely distributed among our society” is turned into “that is against the fundamental tenets of our society, and thus would destroy our society. You are unreasonable if you want to get rid of the benefits this society confers on you”. When in fact it would only get rid of the benefits conferred on the rich thus powerful, while enriching the rest of the society. Hence, the few dominate the dialog of the many.

Nods

Then comes the hypocrisy, the claims to authority and an ordered society. Attacking thieves, and those who prey on the weak, while everything one owns and could own, thus one’s identity in our society, is the result of those exact things, but on a scale exponentially larger. One comes to attack one’s ownself and the most deeply ingrained and preciously held character traits our society can allow.

And this hypocrisy is a source of our instability.

Ahh Capitalism, your bounty of slums and urban disease is much too endearing, I shall embrace you warmly as I purchase my fifth TV.

Thus the media purchases our entire consciousness.

[Joker]

@apaosha

The duty of peasants is to be exploited. That’s what they’re for. If they want otherwise then they’re not peasants but rebels. The successful rebel is then the beginnings of a new master …

OP:

Anarchy is unfeasible. The rabble will inevitably reform the State in some shape or form - it is its only manner of self-protection; through numbers.

What is required for the independent mind is the capacity to deal with this behaviour effectively.

I understand that the rabble will eventually create a state all over again to protect their very weaknesses and dependencies.

What I am tring to elaborate in this thread is that a state society or indeed all of civilization itself thrives on instability and is equally instable to a existence of anarchy itself.

Civilization perpetuates a myth that it is more ordered and stable compared to ancient existences of anarchy yet to this it does everyone a great dishonesty as civilized order operates on a wide scale of hypocritical instability fashioned by it’s own making.