Jesus of Nazareth could also be considered anti-capitalist (remember the cleansing of the temple), but you misunderstand again: "Anarchists" were philosophers who brought forward the concept of anarchy as an answer to the question: "How (much better) would society work without the rule of authority?". The first person to call himself "anarchist" was actually the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
I think Cory Doctorow gave that whole concept a great update as open-source version-controlled mini-society without the rule of authority. Seriously, read "Walkaway".
I know, but the word Anarchy comes from two Greek words;
An ==> Without
Archy/Archon ==> Leaders
It's got nothing to do with socialism. In fact a pre-requisite for socialism is that "somebody decides" since it's built upon constructs such as tax, government (collecting tax), etc. In a pure anarchy you've got nobody with the authority to tell you what to do, hence you are free to accumulate as much of "whatever" as you wish, including gold and precious things.
There are ultra capitalists today whom proclaims to be Anarchists. Whether or not they're in opposition to Cory or not, I'll leave up to others to decide. However, Anarchy and Marxism is fundamentally incompatible, something Marx himself ensured by proposing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (or whatever he referred to it as). Anarchy in its pure form is about freedom from slavery, period!
Both Marxism and Fascism are slavery systems, since you are unfree in both systems to decide for yourself ...
Edit - Regarding Jesus being anti-capitalist. Yes, he chased the merchants, but he also said; "Give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor" (coins, money)
He (Jesus) held deep respect for private property, and at his core rejected all (most) notions of others having the right to decide on your behalf. The idea of "bending over only to God", something that's found in Islam and Judaism too, implies having no masters but God - At which point the existence of God becomes irrelevant, since even if God is a fairy tale figure, it still implies you do not bend over (worship, take orders) from other humans ...
Again, you completely misunderstood Marx: he found the world to be unfree - "dictatorship of the owners" is an observation and not his goal - and wanted to end the rule of the bourgeoisie by bringing about the rule of the working class. Marx never liked the term Marxism. He was a communist.
But in this regard, anarchy is rather an update to communism by replacing rules with common interest and sharing. The whole philosophy is incompatible with capitalism, as the latter imposes the rule of wealth.
People tend to forget that to a society, systems like democracy or capitalism are not the ends, but the means to manage conflicting interests and the fulfillment of needs.
Edit: Jesus as a historical person was not an anarchist. In any case, "Give unto Cesar" is not an embrace of capitalism, but merely a statement that Christianity should not conflict or interfere with the rule of power. This quote was written into the Bible by the council of Nicea and cannot be attributed to the historical person in any case.
Edit 2: this comic is a surprisingly good representation of anarchy.
Marx dictated the dictatorship of the proletariate. Not sure exactly where in his writing, but he clearly said that to prevent "falling back to old habits", the collective itself would manage the resources. It's basically just a question of ...
Do you want one leader (fascism)
Do you want a billion leaders (communism)
As to democracy, Churchill himself said it's a terrible for of governance. Democracy however, has never been tried at large scale for the record. Representative democracy is not democracy the way the Athenians intended for it to function.
The problem with coerced sharing (communism), is that it inevitably leads to a society where nobody does anything. When people grow their own potatoes, for themselves and their own family, and they get to keep everything they grow, people tend to work harder, assuming there's no "coerced sharing" of resources in the society.
I grew up in Norway (social democracy), and my partner grew up in USSR (Ukraine) - And I can pretty much guarantee you that we know a thing or two about "socialism" that you might not have experienced yet, and I will personally guarantee you that it's all rubbish. In Norway for instance, 33% of the work force is on well fare, and we've got 85% effective taxation levels, to pay for this. The only reason Norway is not a developing nation, on pair with India and Kongo, is because we've got oil, and we're strategically close to the enemy of our friend (Russia). If anyone had tried the Norwegian political model in Kongo for instance, it would have resulted in a famine and human disaster of Biblical proportions ... :/
I think you make a logical mistake here when you say that real democracy was never implemented at scale but at the same time assume that socialism or communism would have been implemented correctly by those countries dubbing themselves socialist or communist.
Edit: Also, there was an experiment for an unconditional basic income that showed people would indeed continue to work. Just the menial jobs would finally have to be paid fair wages for anybody to do them. The saying "nobody wants to work anymore" is as old as it is wrong.
Well, fundamentally you can break it down into two options.
I believe in freedom
I believe in tyranny
Socialism, representative democracy, fascism, communism, etc are only mutations of some sort of number 2. Anarchy (in its pure form) is number 1 ...
I see your point about how (in theory) we might never have tried "real communism" - However, everything that starts out with the sentence "you must" is a step in the wrong direction, regardless of the intentions of the ones giving the orders. Fundamentally it could be argued that Hitler just wanted to get rid of racism, by exterminating all humans not of aryan origin. It doesn't make him the good guy. I have one axiom which I try to follow.
Do not push your will unto others
Of course, as the CEO of a company this results in a dilemma for me, but I'm not too uncomfortable with it to be honest with you, since I'm paying people for their time, and it's all based upon voluntary commitment. Try not paying taxes to your government, proclaiming you don't want to be a member of the collective, and notice the difference in these two distinctly different ways of looking at life ... ;)
Facts are, pure capitalism is regardless of how you look at it, a much more pure free form of governance than everything else that's been tried ...
In capitalism, you are only as free as you can afford it - and it is controlled much more subtly than you'd think, not only by changing the amount of money in circulation.
I'm not entirely anti-capitalist, but I believe you need to keep capitalism in check lest it stops working due to extreme concentration of wealth.
Edit: That being said, it was you who brought up anarchy. I think no system whatsoever can fix the shortcomings of humans, their ignorance, malice and egotism. We have to better ourselves in order to become a better society. One way to do that is criticism as a way to learn and grow.
This is fundamentally "hidden tax" and has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with communism actually. Yet again, when the few (or many) controls the supply and flow of things, you have neither capitalism nor Anarchy ...
Central bank authorities are fundamentally incompatible with Anarchy and (pure) Capitalism ...
but I believe you need to keep capitalism in check lest it stops working due to extreme concentration of wealth
Some (common) goods needs to be controlled, to prevent some short term selfish group to empty the sea for fish, burn down all the forrest for profit, etc - But as long as no 3rd man is collateral damage, society has no right to control anything at all. Yet again ...
Do not push your will unto others
I feel a bit Alistair like here when I proclaim the following, but I assume you can see the difference between Crowley and me when I say the following ...
[Changing currency volume has] nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with communism actually
Every system based on currency requires taxes for its own upkeep, but taxes have a possible dual use: provide capital to keep the system running and impose a price on unwanted behavior. Increasing the volume of currency means that the central bank imposes a price on keeping money out of circulation; but they could also reduce the volume in order to stabilize the currency.
The problem here is that it is not only a hidden tax, but also a means to keep the value of the currency relatively stable, so it is ultimately a requirement for capitalism (in communism, you can just impose the value of your currency and thus have no need for this hidden tax).
But as long as no 3rd man is collateral damage, society has no right to control anything at all.
An amassment of wealth will always result in a distortion of the distribution of power. Therefore unchecked capitalism is not compatible with a democracy, be it representative or not.
Unfortunately, there is no way to let the government and the markets run in isolation. Thus, you need checks on both levels so that one doesn't influence the other too much.
Do not push your will unto others
Too much concentrated wealth means that your will is pushed unto others by the importance is has within the market, which is rated higher than the needs of the many who are less wealthy.
Again, read "Walkaway", it shows exactly what happens if the checks and balances fail and which way to take out of that dystopia.
Too much concentrated wealth means that your will is pushed unto others
Some of the most altruistic individuals I have ever met, also happens to be some of the richest individuals I have met - Albeit altruistic in a "different" way. The difference between a communist and an anarchist the way I see it, is that the anarchist believes in de-centralised systems, and the individual's empathy, and its role in lubricating society - While the communist believes everything needs to be applied through coercion and force. You can frame this any ways you like, but the facts are as follows ...
ALL tax is theft!
Humanity is a self regulating super organism, on pair with an ant hill or a bee hive. Allowing some (few) to mess with it, turn its knobs, to "optimise it" and create equality, is the "original sin" - Arguably, the belief that you are God ...
In the story of the original sin, there was only one entity that committed this sin, and I think we all know who it is ... :/
Even ignoring the religious and spiritual aspects of things, the belief in that one being, or a group of beings can somehow magically distribute the wealth for the common good of others, is at best delusional, at worst theft ...
So is property, if you look at it from an anarchist's point of view (again, see Pierre-Joseph Proudhon).
Humanity is a self regulating super organism
Humanity is amazingly bad at self-regulation. We bring about famine, droughts and climate change, thereby destroying the very biosphere that allows our survival. Markets are always optimizing for wealth and democracy is always optimizing for power rather than survival, happiness or even improvement as a species.
I do not believe in Gods or religion to be anything else than the shared delusional belief in one's own ignorance as deity/-ies. I also don't believe in markets or democracy or any other system to magically fix humans, as I already remarked. So you're attacking a strawman here.
Humanity is amazingly bad at self-regulation. We bring about famine, droughts and climate change, thereby destroying the very biosphere that allows our survival.
Respectfully, but the above is rubbish. Kingship and concentrations of power brings about the above, not humans as a super organism itself. I can mention dozens of examples in the 20th century alone, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc, etc, etc. Humans collectively, in their free form, have never brought about famine or any of the things you mention above ...
The "original sin" that the snake tempted us with in the garden was "you can become Gods". In such a manner, communism is nothing else besides a long chain of unbroken false promises, resulting in hell on earth, removing ourselves further and further away from paradise, to impose more suffering unto us collectively as a specie ... :/
Edit - Your lack of belief in God is the central issue here. True Anarchy is the very foundation of spirituality. And I don't mean the fake (anti-christ) type of spirituality you find in Christianity, or other centralised authorities, created to deprive the individual for all individual thought, and or property ... :/
But the main contribution to climate change was implemented long after Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
Also, you are entirely mistaken about "True Anarchy" (No true scotsman fallacy here, too). The original philosophers who called themselves anarchists were all atheists and rejected spirituality and religion as childish delusions.
I think your belief in God is the actual issue. Belief in a benevolent higher power invariably leads to irresponsible positions.
But the main contribution to climate change was implemented long after Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
Yes, and it was applied within a context of the national state, where some few had representative powers over the rest of us, inevitably resulting in temporary dictatorship-like governments, again resulting in super corrupt politicians, allowing for "whatever" to happen as long as they were personally fine themselves ...
The original philosophers who called themselves anarchists were all atheists and rejected spirituality and religion as childish delusions.
Yet again, an == without, archy/archon == leaders. The human brain is physically hardwired to having "a leader". Once you "see God", you're left with the only leader you'll ever need, and you will never again bow down in front of evil of temptations again, such as the lie (antropromorphized as "the snake") tempting you with "everything would be better if only YOU were in charge" ...
Edit - As to childish delusions such as Christianity, etc - Sure, I agree, it's basically rubbish from A to Z. However, ask yourself WHY it's rubbish. Everywhere there's rubbish, there's something to be hidden ...
These ancient stories about God and Angels are there for a purpose. They are our ancestors way of communicating to us, throughout the timeless abyss of the masterpiece of "the Creator" (whatever you want to call it) how to live our lives in Paradise ...
Everybody not taking these stories seriously, and/or not understanding them, are destined to live their lives in hell ... :/
Psst, I suffered a Temporal Lobe seizure in 2011 ... ;)
The human brain is physically hardwired to having "a leader"
That's an over-simplification of the fact that the human brain is hard-wired for hierarchical thinking. Also, that is no justification to assume an imaginary leader.
Psst, I suffered a Temporal Lobe seizure in 2011 ... ;)
Glad to hear you have recovered. I myself was frozen to near-death in 2006. Near-death experiences are not a proof for religion. It's just your brain providing whatever information it deems helpful in a very concentrated way. If you are religous, you'll probably have religious visions to help you accept your fate. If you aren't, like me, you may experience 30 minutes of documentations about freezing to death (and how to avoid actually dying) in a few milliseconds. Another reason to avoid religion, if you ask me.
You never really "recover" from a Temporal Lobe Seizure since it permanently changes your outlook on reality. Go to YouTube and search for "The God syndrome Ramachandran" if you want information about it. It's not a "near death" experience, quite the contrary ... :/
I myself was frozen to near-death in 2006
Happy to see you're still around :)
Another reason to avoid religion
You could not possibly list enough reasons for me to avoid religion. However, there's a very distinct line of difference between religions and spirituality, and/or belief in outer powers. Anyways, we're going sideways here.
The point is you've got two choices, regardless of how you look at it.
Believe in the lie that humans needs to be controlled (very, very, very bad things will happen to you if you follow this path)
Believe in that humans are autonomous beings, with intrinsic values held within, and that they can self manage (very, very, very good things will happen to you)
Number 2 is Anarchy, number 1 is anything but ...
Edit - I just realised, it's the same problem as we're discussing on my articles. Complexity versus simplicity really. Either you believe in that the world is complex, and needs complexity to manage it - Or you believe it's simple, and that little interfering is required ... :/
The point is you've got two choices, regardless of how you look at it.
False dichotomy here. You can also believe in free will and a limited ability to self-manage and that this free will needs to be partially controlled in order to improve society.
I knew you were going to claim false dichotomy, after having read your other (very good) article about debating and argumentation techniques - However, sometimes things are binary (pun!), and you really have only two choices ...
and that this free will needs to be partially controlled
OK, let's take that statement at face value. Who's to control it? You? Mao? Stalin? Hitler? See where I'm going with this ...? :/
Edit - Facts are, we have tried "controlling free will" in every possible permutation we can imagine over the millenniums, and it always leads to the same place ...
There are actual dichotomies and there are false dichotomies. Claiming that just because there are actual dichotomies this one is not false dichotomy is another fallacious argument.
Who's to control it?
Society. You need checks and balances, otherwise it will just be the dictatorship of those in power. For example, the rule of law ensures that you don't get the rule of the strongest, something that we had with those guys you mentioned (also fulfilling Godwin's law by the way).
Facts are
If you have to assert that something is a fact instead of simply factually stating it, in most cases you are wrong.
we have tried "controlling free will" in every possible permutation we can imagine over the millenniums
Attacking another strawman here: I already conceded that no system will make humans better. We have to improve ourselves. Systems can help to prevent degradations.
Also, we have tried a rather minor number of different systems, which is really far from every possible permutation. There may be systems we don't even know of that will be the norm in a few centuries. In any case, despite all odds being against it, the current systems are an actual improvement over the previous ones, unfortunately so much that we became complacent and stopped improving.
The stronger the system, the worse humanity have been. This is consistently experienced throughout human history, starting from the pure fascism of the Roman Empire, through Adolf Hitler and Il Duce, to Stalin. The less "system" the better we've been ...
Even anarchy is a system, but it gets its strength from the benevolence of its society, which is why it only works on theory.
The main reason capitalism is prevalent in modern society is that it doesn't require benevolence or altruism, but good old simple greed, which mankind provides nearly without limits – even far enough to destroy their own biosphere.
So, as with all philosophical utopias, the issue is the shortcomings of humans.
The main reason capitalism is prevalent in modern society is that it doesn't require benevolence or altruism, but good old simple greed, which mankind provides nearly without limits
I don't agree with you, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend you're right. So what you're proposing, through a strong or medium strong state is to put people in power, the same type of people who are driven by greed?
Capitalism at least is merit based. Politics and representative democracy again tends to always result in that the best psychopath wins. Psychopaths are good at hiding their true intentions, and great actors, since they're able to simulate the emotions their peers expects of a "good leader". They are also attracted to power concentrations - Resulting in that consistently the best psychopaths wins in a system of concentrated power.
the issue is the shortcomings of humans
And you want to give these same humans more power? Anarchy is about dissolving the very powers you are referring to yourself. Respectfully, but your entire argument is ipso facto an oxymoron (yup, I know debating techniques too ;)
No. You can also inherit and con others. I don't see a lot of merit in that.
Anarchy is about dissolving the very powers you are referring to yourself
Please, do both of us a favor and read up about the actual concept of anarchy instead of repeating the twisted straw man that its capitalistic adversaries put up instead.
Jesus of Nazareth could also be considered anti-capitalist (remember the cleansing of the temple), but you misunderstand again: "Anarchists" were philosophers who brought forward the concept of anarchy as an answer to the question: "How (much better) would society work without the rule of authority?". The first person to call himself "anarchist" was actually the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
I think Cory Doctorow gave that whole concept a great update as open-source version-controlled mini-society without the rule of authority. Seriously, read "Walkaway".
I know, but the word Anarchy comes from two Greek words;
It's got nothing to do with socialism. In fact a pre-requisite for socialism is that "somebody decides" since it's built upon constructs such as tax, government (collecting tax), etc. In a pure anarchy you've got nobody with the authority to tell you what to do, hence you are free to accumulate as much of "whatever" as you wish, including gold and precious things.
There are ultra capitalists today whom proclaims to be Anarchists. Whether or not they're in opposition to Cory or not, I'll leave up to others to decide. However, Anarchy and Marxism is fundamentally incompatible, something Marx himself ensured by proposing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (or whatever he referred to it as). Anarchy in its pure form is about freedom from slavery, period!
Both Marxism and Fascism are slavery systems, since you are unfree in both systems to decide for yourself ...
Edit - Regarding Jesus being anti-capitalist. Yes, he chased the merchants, but he also said; "Give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor" (coins, money)
He (Jesus) held deep respect for private property, and at his core rejected all (most) notions of others having the right to decide on your behalf. The idea of "bending over only to God", something that's found in Islam and Judaism too, implies having no masters but God - At which point the existence of God becomes irrelevant, since even if God is a fairy tale figure, it still implies you do not bend over (worship, take orders) from other humans ...
Again, you completely misunderstood Marx: he found the world to be unfree - "dictatorship of the owners" is an observation and not his goal - and wanted to end the rule of the bourgeoisie by bringing about the rule of the working class. Marx never liked the term Marxism. He was a communist.
But in this regard, anarchy is rather an update to communism by replacing rules with common interest and sharing. The whole philosophy is incompatible with capitalism, as the latter imposes the rule of wealth.
People tend to forget that to a society, systems like democracy or capitalism are not the ends, but the means to manage conflicting interests and the fulfillment of needs.
Edit: Jesus as a historical person was not an anarchist. In any case, "Give unto Cesar" is not an embrace of capitalism, but merely a statement that Christianity should not conflict or interfere with the rule of power. This quote was written into the Bible by the council of Nicea and cannot be attributed to the historical person in any case.
Edit 2: this comic is a surprisingly good representation of anarchy.
Marx dictated the dictatorship of the proletariate. Not sure exactly where in his writing, but he clearly said that to prevent "falling back to old habits", the collective itself would manage the resources. It's basically just a question of ...
As to democracy, Churchill himself said it's a terrible for of governance. Democracy however, has never been tried at large scale for the record. Representative democracy is not democracy the way the Athenians intended for it to function.
The problem with coerced sharing (communism), is that it inevitably leads to a society where nobody does anything. When people grow their own potatoes, for themselves and their own family, and they get to keep everything they grow, people tend to work harder, assuming there's no "coerced sharing" of resources in the society.
I grew up in Norway (social democracy), and my partner grew up in USSR (Ukraine) - And I can pretty much guarantee you that we know a thing or two about "socialism" that you might not have experienced yet, and I will personally guarantee you that it's all rubbish. In Norway for instance, 33% of the work force is on well fare, and we've got 85% effective taxation levels, to pay for this. The only reason Norway is not a developing nation, on pair with India and Kongo, is because we've got oil, and we're strategically close to the enemy of our friend (Russia). If anyone had tried the Norwegian political model in Kongo for instance, it would have resulted in a famine and human disaster of Biblical proportions ... :/
I think you make a logical mistake here when you say that real democracy was never implemented at scale but at the same time assume that socialism or communism would have been implemented correctly by those countries dubbing themselves socialist or communist.
Edit: Also, there was an experiment for an unconditional basic income that showed people would indeed continue to work. Just the menial jobs would finally have to be paid fair wages for anybody to do them. The saying "nobody wants to work anymore" is as old as it is wrong.
Well, fundamentally you can break it down into two options.
Socialism, representative democracy, fascism, communism, etc are only mutations of some sort of number 2. Anarchy (in its pure form) is number 1 ...
I see your point about how (in theory) we might never have tried "real communism" - However, everything that starts out with the sentence "you must" is a step in the wrong direction, regardless of the intentions of the ones giving the orders. Fundamentally it could be argued that Hitler just wanted to get rid of racism, by exterminating all humans not of aryan origin. It doesn't make him the good guy. I have one axiom which I try to follow.
Of course, as the CEO of a company this results in a dilemma for me, but I'm not too uncomfortable with it to be honest with you, since I'm paying people for their time, and it's all based upon voluntary commitment. Try not paying taxes to your government, proclaiming you don't want to be a member of the collective, and notice the difference in these two distinctly different ways of looking at life ... ;)
Facts are, pure capitalism is regardless of how you look at it, a much more pure free form of governance than everything else that's been tried ...
In capitalism, you are only as free as you can afford it - and it is controlled much more subtly than you'd think, not only by changing the amount of money in circulation.
I'm not entirely anti-capitalist, but I believe you need to keep capitalism in check lest it stops working due to extreme concentration of wealth.
Edit: That being said, it was you who brought up anarchy. I think no system whatsoever can fix the shortcomings of humans, their ignorance, malice and egotism. We have to better ourselves in order to become a better society. One way to do that is criticism as a way to learn and grow.
This is fundamentally "hidden tax" and has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with communism actually. Yet again, when the few (or many) controls the supply and flow of things, you have neither capitalism nor Anarchy ...
Central bank authorities are fundamentally incompatible with Anarchy and (pure) Capitalism ...
Some (common) goods needs to be controlled, to prevent some short term selfish group to empty the sea for fish, burn down all the forrest for profit, etc - But as long as no 3rd man is collateral damage, society has no right to control anything at all. Yet again ...
I feel a bit Alistair like here when I proclaim the following, but I assume you can see the difference between Crowley and me when I say the following ...
Every system based on currency requires taxes for its own upkeep, but taxes have a possible dual use: provide capital to keep the system running and impose a price on unwanted behavior. Increasing the volume of currency means that the central bank imposes a price on keeping money out of circulation; but they could also reduce the volume in order to stabilize the currency.
The problem here is that it is not only a hidden tax, but also a means to keep the value of the currency relatively stable, so it is ultimately a requirement for capitalism (in communism, you can just impose the value of your currency and thus have no need for this hidden tax).
An amassment of wealth will always result in a distortion of the distribution of power. Therefore unchecked capitalism is not compatible with a democracy, be it representative or not.
Unfortunately, there is no way to let the government and the markets run in isolation. Thus, you need checks on both levels so that one doesn't influence the other too much.
Too much concentrated wealth means that your will is pushed unto others by the importance is has within the market, which is rated higher than the needs of the many who are less wealthy.
Again, read "Walkaway", it shows exactly what happens if the checks and balances fail and which way to take out of that dystopia.
Some of the most altruistic individuals I have ever met, also happens to be some of the richest individuals I have met - Albeit altruistic in a "different" way. The difference between a communist and an anarchist the way I see it, is that the anarchist believes in de-centralised systems, and the individual's empathy, and its role in lubricating society - While the communist believes everything needs to be applied through coercion and force. You can frame this any ways you like, but the facts are as follows ...
Humanity is a self regulating super organism, on pair with an ant hill or a bee hive. Allowing some (few) to mess with it, turn its knobs, to "optimise it" and create equality, is the "original sin" - Arguably, the belief that you are God ...
In the story of the original sin, there was only one entity that committed this sin, and I think we all know who it is ... :/
Even ignoring the religious and spiritual aspects of things, the belief in that one being, or a group of beings can somehow magically distribute the wealth for the common good of others, is at best delusional, at worst theft ...
So is property, if you look at it from an anarchist's point of view (again, see Pierre-Joseph Proudhon).
Humanity is amazingly bad at self-regulation. We bring about famine, droughts and climate change, thereby destroying the very biosphere that allows our survival. Markets are always optimizing for wealth and democracy is always optimizing for power rather than survival, happiness or even improvement as a species.
I do not believe in Gods or religion to be anything else than the shared delusional belief in one's own ignorance as deity/-ies. I also don't believe in markets or democracy or any other system to magically fix humans, as I already remarked. So you're attacking a strawman here.
Respectfully, but the above is rubbish. Kingship and concentrations of power brings about the above, not humans as a super organism itself. I can mention dozens of examples in the 20th century alone, such as Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc, etc, etc. Humans collectively, in their free form, have never brought about famine or any of the things you mention above ...
The "original sin" that the snake tempted us with in the garden was "you can become Gods". In such a manner, communism is nothing else besides a long chain of unbroken false promises, resulting in hell on earth, removing ourselves further and further away from paradise, to impose more suffering unto us collectively as a specie ... :/
Edit - Your lack of belief in God is the central issue here. True Anarchy is the very foundation of spirituality. And I don't mean the fake (anti-christ) type of spirituality you find in Christianity, or other centralised authorities, created to deprive the individual for all individual thought, and or property ... :/
But the main contribution to climate change was implemented long after Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
Also, you are entirely mistaken about "True Anarchy" (No true scotsman fallacy here, too). The original philosophers who called themselves anarchists were all atheists and rejected spirituality and religion as childish delusions.
I think your belief in God is the actual issue. Belief in a benevolent higher power invariably leads to irresponsible positions.
Yes, and it was applied within a context of the national state, where some few had representative powers over the rest of us, inevitably resulting in temporary dictatorship-like governments, again resulting in super corrupt politicians, allowing for "whatever" to happen as long as they were personally fine themselves ...
Yet again, an == without, archy/archon == leaders. The human brain is physically hardwired to having "a leader". Once you "see God", you're left with the only leader you'll ever need, and you will never again bow down in front of evil of temptations again, such as the lie (antropromorphized as "the snake") tempting you with "everything would be better if only YOU were in charge" ...
Edit - As to childish delusions such as Christianity, etc - Sure, I agree, it's basically rubbish from A to Z. However, ask yourself WHY it's rubbish. Everywhere there's rubbish, there's something to be hidden ...
These ancient stories about God and Angels are there for a purpose. They are our ancestors way of communicating to us, throughout the timeless abyss of the masterpiece of "the Creator" (whatever you want to call it) how to live our lives in Paradise ...
Everybody not taking these stories seriously, and/or not understanding them, are destined to live their lives in hell ... :/
Psst, I suffered a Temporal Lobe seizure in 2011 ... ;)
That's an over-simplification of the fact that the human brain is hard-wired for hierarchical thinking. Also, that is no justification to assume an imaginary leader.
Glad to hear you have recovered. I myself was frozen to near-death in 2006. Near-death experiences are not a proof for religion. It's just your brain providing whatever information it deems helpful in a very concentrated way. If you are religous, you'll probably have religious visions to help you accept your fate. If you aren't, like me, you may experience 30 minutes of documentations about freezing to death (and how to avoid actually dying) in a few milliseconds. Another reason to avoid religion, if you ask me.
You never really "recover" from a Temporal Lobe Seizure since it permanently changes your outlook on reality. Go to YouTube and search for "The God syndrome Ramachandran" if you want information about it. It's not a "near death" experience, quite the contrary ... :/
Happy to see you're still around :)
You could not possibly list enough reasons for me to avoid religion. However, there's a very distinct line of difference between religions and spirituality, and/or belief in outer powers. Anyways, we're going sideways here.
The point is you've got two choices, regardless of how you look at it.
Number 2 is Anarchy, number 1 is anything but ...
Edit - I just realised, it's the same problem as we're discussing on my articles. Complexity versus simplicity really. Either you believe in that the world is complex, and needs complexity to manage it - Or you believe it's simple, and that little interfering is required ... :/
I'm all for simple :)
False dichotomy here. You can also believe in free will and a limited ability to self-manage and that this free will needs to be partially controlled in order to improve society.
I knew you were going to claim false dichotomy, after having read your other (very good) article about debating and argumentation techniques - However, sometimes things are binary (pun!), and you really have only two choices ...
OK, let's take that statement at face value. Who's to control it? You? Mao? Stalin? Hitler? See where I'm going with this ...? :/
Edit - Facts are, we have tried "controlling free will" in every possible permutation we can imagine over the millenniums, and it always leads to the same place ...
There are actual dichotomies and there are false dichotomies. Claiming that just because there are actual dichotomies this one is not false dichotomy is another fallacious argument.
Society. You need checks and balances, otherwise it will just be the dictatorship of those in power. For example, the rule of law ensures that you don't get the rule of the strongest, something that we had with those guys you mentioned (also fulfilling Godwin's law by the way).
If you have to assert that something is a fact instead of simply factually stating it, in most cases you are wrong.
Attacking another strawman here: I already conceded that no system will make humans better. We have to improve ourselves. Systems can help to prevent degradations.
Also, we have tried a rather minor number of different systems, which is really far from every possible permutation. There may be systems we don't even know of that will be the norm in a few centuries. In any case, despite all odds being against it, the current systems are an actual improvement over the previous ones, unfortunately so much that we became complacent and stopped improving.
The stronger the system, the worse humanity have been. This is consistently experienced throughout human history, starting from the pure fascism of the Roman Empire, through Adolf Hitler and Il Duce, to Stalin. The less "system" the better we've been ...
Ergo; No "system" no problem - AKA: Anarchy ...
Even anarchy is a system, but it gets its strength from the benevolence of its society, which is why it only works on theory.
The main reason capitalism is prevalent in modern society is that it doesn't require benevolence or altruism, but good old simple greed, which mankind provides nearly without limits – even far enough to destroy their own biosphere.
So, as with all philosophical utopias, the issue is the shortcomings of humans.
I don't agree with you, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend you're right. So what you're proposing, through a strong or medium strong state is to put people in power, the same type of people who are driven by greed?
Capitalism at least is merit based. Politics and representative democracy again tends to always result in that the best psychopath wins. Psychopaths are good at hiding their true intentions, and great actors, since they're able to simulate the emotions their peers expects of a "good leader". They are also attracted to power concentrations - Resulting in that consistently the best psychopaths wins in a system of concentrated power.
And you want to give these same humans more power? Anarchy is about dissolving the very powers you are referring to yourself. Respectfully, but your entire argument is ipso facto an oxymoron (yup, I know debating techniques too ;)
No. You can also inherit and con others. I don't see a lot of merit in that.
Please, do both of us a favor and read up about the actual concept of anarchy instead of repeating the twisted straw man that its capitalistic adversaries put up instead.
Yet again, Anarchy implies "without leaders", it's not a political system, it's the abolishment of politics ...
Who says you need leaders for a system?