HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Anyone here, deep in thei...

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:40 PM

 

Anyone here, deep in their heart, an Anarchist?

I don't mean necessarily politically, but one who holds deep feelings of anti-authority.

One who believes authority and respect should be earned and not simply given

One who detests authority of all forms, and sees it as the ultimate corrupter?

One who feels that more work gets done in a communal fashion, than in a hierarchical one...

Because that's me

85 replies, 10373 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anyone here, deep in their heart, an Anarchist? (Original post)
Taverner Jan 2012 OP
hobbit709 Jan 2012 #1
Mnemosyne Jan 2012 #2
digonswine Jan 2012 #3
RKP5637 Jan 2012 #7
digonswine Jan 2012 #15
RKP5637 Jan 2012 #30
digonswine Jan 2012 #55
Taverner Jan 2012 #8
backscatter712 Jan 2012 #68
villager Jan 2012 #4
dipsydoodle Jan 2012 #5
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #6
RKP5637 Jan 2012 #9
oldhippie Jan 2012 #19
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #36
joshcryer Jan 2012 #80
NightWatcher Jan 2012 #10
Dawson Leery Jan 2012 #11
notadmblnd Jan 2012 #12
Taverner Jan 2012 #13
RKP5637 Jan 2012 #31
RevStPatrick Jan 2012 #14
Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #16
obliviously Jan 2012 #17
salib Jan 2012 #18
joshcryer Jan 2012 #81
white_wolf Jan 2012 #83
joshcryer Jan 2012 #84
knowbody0 Jan 2012 #20
deutsey Jan 2012 #21
Dragonbreathp9d Jan 2012 #22
Taverner Jan 2012 #28
bhikkhu Jan 2012 #23
Fuzz Jan 2012 #24
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #25
WonderGrunion Jan 2012 #26
DeadEyeDyck Jan 2012 #27
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2012 #29
ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #32
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #33
EFerrari Jan 2012 #34
Taverner Jan 2012 #37
G_j Jan 2012 #57
Tikki Jan 2012 #35
Nye Bevan Jan 2012 #38
NashvilleLefty Jan 2012 #39
Taverner Jan 2012 #41
Canuckistanian Jan 2012 #40
marasinghe Jan 2012 #42
Taverner Jan 2012 #44
graywarrior Jan 2012 #43
Mudoria Jan 2012 #45
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #46
Taverner Jan 2012 #47
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #48
Taverner Jan 2012 #49
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #50
TBF Jan 2012 #51
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #54
TBF Jan 2012 #72
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #75
TBF Jan 2012 #52
AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #53
TBF Jan 2012 #73
AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #85
Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #56
roguevalley Jan 2012 #58
bemildred Jan 2012 #59
agent46 Jan 2012 #60
ellisonz Jan 2012 #61
pinboy3niner Jan 2012 #62
ellisonz Jan 2012 #63
white_wolf Jan 2012 #74
joshcryer Jan 2012 #76
Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #64
TransitJohn Jan 2012 #65
Sirveri Jan 2012 #66
backscatter712 Jan 2012 #67
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #69
Festivito Jan 2012 #70
joshcryer Jan 2012 #79
Solly Mack Jan 2012 #71
dembotoz Jan 2012 #77
varelse Jan 2012 #78
MilesColtrane Jan 2012 #82

Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:42 PM

1. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:45 PM

2. Present. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:45 PM

3. Anti-authority as a reflex is no good-

but a healthy skepticism of those in authority, and the ability to question the same, and the expectation that those in it will feel they are beholden to those they represent--is only as it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to digonswine (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:56 PM

7. Yep, this is the way I see it too. The problem is, too many politicans anymore IMO

see themselves as in a special class wherein the opinion of and serving their constituents is of no importance ... and often they get this free pass because I think too many citizens are in a rut when it comes to voting for who is really the best.

The other major difficulty is money, sadly, our system is often based on who has the most money, and some candidates spend their own money for elections. That, does not serve the best interests of the constituents.

The US now has about 50% of the population living in poverty or on the border of poverty. To me, there is no way that millionaire + politicians serve the best interests of the 99%, no way at all. True, some politicians are exceptional, but many are not ... and when one looks at the favorable rating for congress, it is most assuredly quite dismal at about 13% approval rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:38 PM

15. I don't know about that-

I suspect that there are many well-meaning thoughtful non-pricks that would like to serve. I know I would(introversion wangs that up a bit!) I am not sure that it is the corrupting power of power itself that trips up the good person. It is THE FUCKING SYSTEM!
Do you remember--probably from 1998 or so-when Fritz Hollings retired and admitted that most of an elected rep's time is spent in pimping for dollars? It is the system! The re-election campaigns begin upon arrival in office!
I think there are some good people with power.
I will say it again-and I know many agree--the BIGGEST FUCKING PROBLEM with the system is the financing!! Done-no more.
Luckily-money buys access to the courts, so the biggest assholes have the most access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to digonswine (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:27 PM

30. You are quite right!!! The way the system works most people get F'ed over by

the system. And lots of people will never stand a chance to get ahead the way it's working now. And what systems were in place to help those trying to get ahead TPTB keep taking away. Speaking of assholes, I sure hope Walker in WI gets recalled. That, is one prick that deserves it. Last I heard, they now have enough signatures to put his recall vote on a ballet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:30 PM

55. By the way-

yes-Walker will face a challenge--BUT-there is no strong Dem to take him on. I fear this will be for naught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to digonswine (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:00 PM

8. Power corrputs. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Yes, I know the true quote is "tends to corrupt," but so far we're batting 10 for 10, it having corrupted EVERY SINGLE PERSON who attained it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:19 AM

68. Power corrupts, absolute power is kind of neat! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:49 PM

4. Yup...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:50 PM

5. I am partly

Got notoriously low level of compliance which fortunately gets overidden by intelligence at times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 05:54 PM

6. It depends on the authority.

Very few people are suitable to be in positions of authority. It takes a special kind of person who can be trusted with that kind of responsibility. Ony very wise people should to be in such positions. Some Indian Chiefs eg, were suitable judging by their writings. I can't think of many leaders who are particularly wise. So, I guess I am willing to respect people in authority if they earn it.

You only have to look at internet forums when people are given a little authority and how some of them react to it. Good leaders generally don't enjoy their roles, because they care too much about people and understand that their decisions will impact others so they carry a great weight because of that understanding. A majority however, don't think that deeply and just act out of expedience, or 'according to the rules' never wavering from the rule book, regardless of whether the rules are always applicable to every situation.

Don't know if I'm an anarchist or not, but I'm not wild about the system we currently live under.

I'd like to know more about it I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:02 PM

9. Just to make a short statment, the current system we live

under is pretty F'ed up IMO, and this is often because of the people in office, and that's because money is soooo embedded into our political system. Politicians serve the interests of major contributors and lobbyists, and that to me does not make for a good system representing ALL of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:21 PM

19. Wow! That's two things you have said today that ......

 

.... I totally agree with. That doesn't happen very often with anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:48 PM

36. Lol, sorry!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:30 PM

80. Internet forums are intrinsically authoritarian, there is a central server...

...the posting methods are centralized. Even with a revolutionary Jury System you are moderating based upon a minority opinion, and there exist no sort of direct democracy to facilitate such discussion (indeed, speech should not be moderated, in principle).

If you want a more anti-authoritarian messaging system, go to USENET.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:08 PM

10. They say we (Anarchists) can't rule ourselves, but they let us vote for our rulers

I, like most everyone, have my own best interest at heart. So why would I vote for a person who is only looking out for themselves anywhoo?

I'll have a fun year convincing my family that they shouldn't vote for Mitt who's worth about half a billion bucks.

My anarchist view in summation. Why should I pick you to rule over me? I'm the only one looking out for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:11 PM

11. Authority certainly must be hard earned and never given.

&feature=player_embedded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:17 PM

12. No. But I have always felt obligated to question authority

does that make any sense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:18 PM

13. Totally nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:30 PM

31. Yes, it does! Authority should always be questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:33 PM

14. Not just deep in my heart...

 

I wear it on my sleeve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:44 PM

16. Over here!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:08 PM

17. Yes it's true.

I have always felt I am the Antichrist, since childhood I have wanted to overthrow the religious economic structure of the world and be your leader!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:12 PM

18. Definitely

However, a seductive aspect of Libertarianism is the claim that it is quite nearly anarchistic, and so I always approach such discussions very cautiously.

It is quite important to note that most civil liberties in modern society (the civil rights legislation in the 60's is a good example here) have been ENFORCED. Those whom it was forced upon certainly did not respect the law nor those who created it. They wanted Jim Crow to continue.

Sound familiar? Remind you of some comments by Rand and Ron Paul? Comments which disgusted most here on DU?

Just as "States' Rights" was just a cover for maintaining slavery and then Jim Crow, so is the claim of Libertarianism simply a cover for might make right and no equality in fact. One must recognize that it is community, not just the individual, that has value in human society. No one is an island.

Yes, I have a strongly anarchistic streak. However, I recognize how easily those "tendencies" can be co-opted by very dark personalities and objectives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salib (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:37 PM

81. Libertarianism is a much younger concept, it was invented because the capitalists...

...saw what a force the anti-authoritarians were back in the 70s. Go back, Cato Institute, Center for Libertarian Studies, Libertarian Party. It's not that anarchism is "easily coopted." It's more that there was a concerted effort to coopt it. Billions of dollars have been spent over the decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:00 PM

83. In fact the term "libertarain" was coined by an anarchist writer in the late 1800's.

Though, if you ever bring up this fact to modern day libertarians they freak out and deny it. What I find very ironic is the fact that so many are inspired by Ayn Rand and yet she stated in an interview that she pretty much hated libertarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:04 PM

84. Yeah, "libertarian" was originally a socialist term. George Orwell would be proud...

...of how well Libertarians (big L) have utilized double-speak to the point where even DU is infiltrated with such absurd concepts hiding under a veil of progressivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:41 PM

20. yep

and I raised my kids to question authority as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:43 PM

21. I am n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:51 PM

22. Only in a Graeber-esque way

I'm quite socialist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonbreathp9d (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:06 PM

28. Me too

 

I believe in Social Anarchy, Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc whatever you want to call it

Hard to explain, but it takes from both Bakunin and Marx, Euegene Debs and Emma Goldman...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:53 PM

23. Its either a delicate balance or a hopeless muddle...

in that authority is necessary in organized society, but not to a point that it stifles individuality. And that individuality and free will is necessary, but not to the point that it harms society...and so forth. If there were a simple solution, the society that settled on it would prosper beyond all others, grow at the expense of the rest, and soon we would all be there...but there is no simple solution. Its probably easier to get things wrong than to get things right, and every new season we start all over again, forgetting the lesson of seasons past.

Anarchy is one response to an excess of authority, but without that excess there is no use for anarchy itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:56 PM

24. No, but I may be the anti-christ.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:59 PM

25. As a Tourette, I believe in Freedom of thought and perspectives.;..

allowing faster and better solutions

this authority thing is another matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:59 PM

26. I believe in antidisestablishmentarianism. Our ability to set up societal structures

is what makes our species better than all others on the planet. It's also the longest recognized word in the English language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 07:59 PM

27. The problem with anarchy is that someone always comes along and takes it away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:10 PM

29. I am no doubt an anarchist, but that means I don't attach power to origins

 

Power is the constitutive responsibility of the people (for lack of a better term). I would no more recognize the US Constitution than I would "God" as a basis of power and legitimacy, to the extent that it is made to function as some kind of holy origin. The people make and remake the human, inhuman, and ecological order, all the time. Constituted power (dead power) is the enemy, whether it is made up of the Holy Writ of the Bible or the Holy Writ of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:32 PM

32. Authority is something we project onto others.

It is not a real thing. A police officer has no more authority than anyone else. It is strictly imaginary, unless we define it as violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:41 PM

33. Yes. "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:42 PM

34. No, deep down inside, I'm a dog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:53 PM

37. Dogs don't have to be "Animal Farm" dogs...

 

They can be free dogs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:40 PM

57. watch out for pigs on the wing..

another dog here..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:47 PM

35. When I see, hear or read anything anarchical...

I feel energized.


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:57 PM

38. No. I think we need laws to protect the vulnerable (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:04 PM

39. NO. Not just no, but Hell, No!

Anarchy ultimately results in the Reign of the Bully.

I agree that authority and respect should be earned and not given, but too many people mistake fear for respect. And in an Anarchist society the best way to gain authority is through fear and intimidation. Which many mistake for "respect".

Mankind began with an Anarchist society. There is a reason that we rejected it. There is a reason we developed laws. Because Anarchy doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

41. Anarchism is not Anarchy...

 

There is a difference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:15 PM

40. I'm a laissez-faire Anarchist

I want to change the world by letting it self-destruct by itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

42. if i say 'yes', will i still be an anarchist?



on a slightly different note, i would think that every form of authority - from autocracy through to supposed anarchy - must always be questioned; & discarded when it does not meet one's personal standards of logic & ethics.

there's a discourse (the Kalama Sutta) attributed to the Buddha, along the following lines:

'.... Don't let youself be led by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through a preponderance of views, by probability, or even by the teachings of a person accepted to be a good teacher by common consensus.

When you know for yourself, by practical experience, that certain qualities - are skillful; are blameless; are praised by the wise; and, when adopted & carried out, lead to the welfare & happiness of all living things only then should you accept & practice those qualities, for yourself ....'.

what he was basically saying was: always question authority.

my ideas on authority follow those same lines; which might in itself, be a contradiction in terms; but works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marasinghe (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

44. "i would think that every form of authority - from autocracy through to supposed anarchy...

 

"... must always be questioned; & discarded when it does not meet one's personal standards of logic & ethics. "


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:27 PM

43. Been accused here of being an anarchist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:35 PM

45. nope

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:38 PM

46. I think you are describing 2 very different things.

To demonstrate this ... below, I've re-ordered the three statements you made.

"One who feels that more work gets done in a communal fashion, than in a hierarchical one"
"One who believes authority and respect should be earned and not simply given"
"One who detests authority of all forms, and sees it as the ultimate corrupter"

Read them in this order.

Notice that the 2nd and the 3rd are now in conflict.

The 2nd describes when authority is OK ... the 3rd says authority is to be "Detested in all forms"

How do you reconcile that?

I'll try ...

Communal structures are often preferable, because they focus on consensus. Which is good (Your #1 above).

Where communal structures FAIL is when consensus can not be reached. If there are no existing leaders, leaders WILL emerge ... and they will rally support, and many will give them respect, and decide that those leaders have earned authority (your #2).

Those who disagreed with those emerging leaders will be unhappy about that, and they will fight back, using your #3 item above. Basically saying, "if I am not the leader, then there should not be one".


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:43 PM

47. You Are Right - HOWEVER....

 

2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive

Give me a night - - I'm too inebriated to handle this discussion at this time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #47)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:47 PM

48. LOL ... I love your honesty!!!!

I'm not loaded yet ... but I am enjoying some wine at the moment.

So ... Sleep well ... I'll check in over the week-end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

49. Night away from co-parent tonight

 

She comes back tomorrow, which is awesome, but life is good without the watchers....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:51 PM

50. I'm dying now!!!

Some of us parents should never be left at home alone!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:56 PM

51. "Where communal structures

FAIL is when consensus can not be reached. If there are no existing leaders, leaders WILL emerge ... and they will rally support, and many will give them respect, and decide that those leaders have earned authority"

Which takes us back to the Paris Commune - a really good try. The failure happened because they didn't defend against outside aggressors. How do you do that without becoming too authoritarian? That remains the big question. It seems that Occupy is trying to answer that. We will see how they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:17 PM

54. My comment had nothing to do with "outside aggressors"

The point is, once you have a group of a fair size (even with no "outside aggressors" you WILL have disagreement.

Once you get about 10 people together, you will have competition for leadership positions in that group. This is a well understood dynamic in social Psych dynamics.

If you get 10 people together and try to order PIZZA, leaders will emerge. You do not need "outsiders" to make this happen.

It just happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 05:24 PM

72. I understand what you are saying and disagree with that concept -

in capitalism we are trained to look for "leaders" and to consider certain behaviors "leadership". I think if we had a different economic system we might see and teach other behaviors, and might well define them differently. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 06:26 PM

75. My point is that the emergence of leaders transcends capitalism.

The earliest humans did not have capitalism, and yet they had leaders.

As soon as you have TWO people, in certain situations one of them will be the leader. That individual will propose a common action, and then those two individuals will move forward.

Add a third person, and the dynamic becomes more complicated. You can see this with kids who are simply trying to decide which game to play next.

Add a forth, and the dynamic becomes more complex.

And so on.

And when you talk about "leadership behaviors", the reality is that a person who proposes outcomes that "the group" sees as positive most of the time ... those people become leaders.

There is a tremendous among of research in Social Psych on group dynamics and leadership. Most of it has nothing to do with capitalism.

Much of it looks at how a group can have multiple leaders, one who is action oriented, one who is socially oriented. The first tries to maximize some narrow group objective (order the pizza), the other focuses on the social cohesion (making sure that everyone will get a few slices that they will like).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:57 PM

52. Pretty close ...

Not that I necessarily always detest authority, but absolutely believe it should be relentlessly questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:01 PM

53. My 15-year-old brother is........

 

IMHO, though, it's liable to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 05:26 PM

73. Red-baiting,

is alive and well I see. You are insinuating that anarchist thought is juvenile. I beg to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #73)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:41 PM

85. No, not quite.

 

The thing is, though, all I'm saying is that he's likely going thru a phase, as many teens do. I know I had my share of that as well.

That said, anarchist thought is pretty interesting sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:39 PM

56. "One who detests authority of all forms"

 

This allows a person to do whatever they want: rape, murder, steal with no repercussions as long as they can defend themselves from the individuals who oppose them.

That is not good for society by any means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:59 PM

58. stupid authority bugs me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:52 AM

59. "Patriotism is voluntary."

"It is a feeling of loyalty and allegiance that is the result of knowledge and belief. No law will make a citizen a patriot."

- Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, upon squelching a state bill that would have required every child to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:47 AM

60. Checking in n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 03:59 AM

61. Where is joshcryer? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:08 AM

62. Josh is an Antichrist?

Wait...what? Well, that's very different.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:32 AM

63. Sometimes I'm not so sure...



If Josh is on the left of the right?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #63)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 05:30 PM

74. Good to know I'm not the only one he confuses.

I think he is he on the left and his writings against Ron Paul's libertarianism are very good, but some of his other posts, especially his strong support for democrats, makes me wonder. Simply because I can't imagine an anarchist being anything more than a lukewarm supporter of either of our two political parties, both of which are rather statistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:15 PM

76. That's due to pragmatism and politics.

Technically anarchists are anti-political. For an anarchist to be political they must chose a party. Choosing the lesser of evils (that have a chance of actually being elected) is a nobrainer.

I support the Democrats because generally speaking the largest criticism of the Democrats comes from the authoritarian left whom I have as much disdain for as Libertarians (large L). The anti-authoritarian left is anti-political, their criticisms are largely missing, because politics does not concern them. Hell, they only come out once every 4 years to express distaste in the parties (at the DNC and RNC conventions; last DNC we were called agent infiltrators!).

As far as active party support is concerned, though, it's non-existent. I'm an independent. The only time I ever actively campaigned was for Dean in 2003, and I didn't vote again until 2008 (I lived in a Southern State, my vote had no impact on Kerry).

Despite being an anarchist I do enjoy, quite a lot, politics, and political rhetoric. It's fun, it's exciting. People may be confused when I "come out in support of Obama" but "show disdain for Chavez" and such, making it seem as if I'm some sort of DLC Democrat or Blue Dog. Yet no one has ever seen that my support for Obama only goes so far as support him as a person and as a political persona, and not his actual policies, which are still miles better than any Republican could offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:35 AM

64. Is it anarchist to believe authority and respect should be earned and not simply given?

Or would anarchism be believing authority does not exist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 05:48 AM

65. Yep.

Anarcho-syndicalist, checking in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:05 AM

66. authority yes, respect no.

I hate the concept that people need to earn my respect. I give everyone the same baseline level of respect, if they don't return it or demand that I 'earn' it from them, I remove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:19 AM

67. Yep. It's time our government learn that its authority needs to be earned, not extorted. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:07 AM

69. Who died and made YOU speaker for anarchists?!!11!

Kidding. I just had to wave an "anarchy flag" for a minute.

I'm probably not much of an anarchist. Like you, I think authority and respect need to be earned, so that's more of a meritocratic view.

Many times I detest authority. When I was a manager, a leader at work, hell, i even detested myself. It was bad enough that I dropped out of management and went back to just working.

So, having some experience being a manager, I try to sway those in leadership roles, cooperate where it makes sense, and sympathize with the emptiness of that job. Personally, I like it here at the bottom of the totem pole.

Yes, work can get done communally. But even then, someone with experience, knowledge of the particular task, will step up and lead. Otherwise, we can spin our wheels communally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:10 PM

70. I think everyone is, until they get sick.

, or realize that they can get sick.

An anarchist ideologue would ignore the clear, albeit un-self-proclaimed, authority of a good post for being pro-authority.

46 did a good job.

So, how goes the anarchism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:26 PM

79. That introduces a discussion on anarchism and specialization.

Most sickness is dealt with by preventative medicine, other ailments that either happen due to a failure of preventative health care, or due to uncontrollable causes, would not necessarily indicate an authoritarian relationship. I like fixing computers. I can fix yours if you needed it, and I would not hold that over you for monetary recompense, because it is a task that you may not be able to do but I would.

Capitalists, however, would find such behavior inherently stupid. Randian's would say that selfishness is better and that indeed I should make you pay me to fix your computer.

So you can imagine people who have acquired the skill of medicine using that skill to help you, as an equal human being, rather than viewing you strictly from a service point of view, and trying to milk as much money from you as possible (we already know a good deal of medical care costs comes from unneeded services).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

71. Authority and I have been on the 'outs' for years.

Authority claims I have a problem with authority and I maintain authority is the problem.

I tell it all the time, 'I'm just not that into you'.

Naturally, authority is quick to point out why it thinks I'm wrong. (as its very existence depends on everyone thinking it is right)

Authority is just too damn needy. A black hole of incessant demands for validation. 'Love me. Respect me. Do as I say' it whines.

Who needs that shit?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:20 PM

77. not quite ready to come out of that particular closet

but i feel the urge......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:24 PM

78. I'm with you

I have no problem recognizing and accepting leadership, but I have no respect for authority. I tolerate it only because I prefer to choose my battles rather than spend every second of my life fighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:56 PM

82. I am willing to be led when it is clear to me that the person doing the leading is...

more knowledgable, or more experienced, or quicker-witted than me.

However, I see no reason to defer to someone simply because they are older, they hold a degree, they won the most votes in a contest, or they have a uniform on.

If I accept someone's judgement, it doesn't automatically follow that they cannot fail, make a stupid decision next time, or be corrupted.

So, you have to watch their ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread