PDA

View Full Version : World News Anarchy and Governmental power-relationships in society



Pages : [1] 2

Coyote
01-09--2006, 05:28 PM
if everybody starts saying oh yeah the police are all bad, then they're going to have no control whatsoever... but perhaps you think lawlessness and anarchy is better?

Actually, I do. Catch is, it wouldnt stay as anarchy as some new loon would declare themselves in charge and start bullying folks around :rolleyes:

weecab
01-09--2006, 05:31 PM
Actually, I do. Catch is, it wouldnt stay as anarchy as some new loon would declare themselves in charge and start bullying folks around :rolleyes:

Anarchy, I don't get it....I have had this conversation many times, and I just see it as a flawed state....feel free to educate me...;)

Atomik
01-09--2006, 05:52 PM
Actually, I do. Catch is, it wouldnt stay as anarchy as some new loon would declare themselves in charge and start bullying folks around :rolleyes:That's a very simplistic notion. Power isn't taken - power is given. Loons don't seize power - people give it to them. We - as a species - are complicit in our own oppression. Collectively, we want to be led.

Coyote
01-09--2006, 06:25 PM
That's a very simplistic notion. Power isn't taken - power is given. Loons don't seize power - people give it to them.

Sometimes it is indeed that way (in a political environment for example) but a lot of the time its nothing like that. Being more organised and regulated gives dramatically more power (which is why Rome often defeated the "celts"....the roman war 'machine' (key term that) was far more powerful because the particpants gave up their humanity for power (they sold their soul for it).


We - as a species - are complicit in our own oppression.

You cannot BE complicit in your own oppression - if you are complicit, you agree with it and thus it isnt oppression.


Collectively, we want to be led.

Speak for yourself :harhar:

Ok I agree that most folks DO want to be led (Hmmm a Swarzenegger quote springs to mind!!!! :eek: ) because they have been bred to be domesticated.....but not all folks; but some of us have too little power to fight the rulers without becoming LIKE the rulers themselves....but then that would never be the answer to oppression (the answer is instead, stealth).....


Anarchy, I don't get it....I have had this conversation many times, and I just see it as a flawed state....feel free to educate me...images/smilies/wink.gif

Erm, what dont ya get Claire? What problems do you see with it?

weecab
01-09--2006, 06:31 PM
Erm, what dont ya get Claire? What problems do you see with it?

I just don't see how it works and still becomes an anorchy state, surely if we all get to do exactly what we want to do, then it will turn out to be chaos, cause there are a lot of nutters out there, and if there is then instruction to live and let live, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, surely that defeats the act of anarchy itself.....I just don't get it

Atomik
01-09--2006, 06:37 PM
Sometimes it is indeed that way (in a political environment for example) but a lot of the time its nothing like that. Being more organised and regulated gives dramatically more power (which is why Rome often defeated the "celts"....the roman war 'machine' (key term that) was far more powerful because the particpants gave up their humanity for power (they sold their soul for it).Yes, but people still want to be ruled. The celts had hierarchies as well, ya know.


You cannot BE complicit in your own oppression - if you are complicit, you agree with it and thus it isnt oppression.Without wanting to get drawn into yet another debate over semantics, of course you can be complicit in your own oppression! You simply need to buy into the concept without really understanding the price - which is what I'd argue humanity has done for thousands of years!


Ok I agree that most folks DO want to be led (Hmmm a Swarzenegger quote springs to mind!!!! :eek: ) because they have been bred to be domesticated.....but not all folks; but some of us have too little power to fight the rulers without becoming LIKE the rulers themselves....but then that would never be the answer to oppression (the answer is instead, stealth).....I'd argue it's in our nature. Not saying we shouldn't try and change that, but it has to be a fundamental part of us or we wouldn't have evolved such social structures in the first place.

Coyote
01-09--2006, 06:40 PM
I just don't see how it works and still becomes an anorchy state, surely if we all get to do exactly what we want to do, then it will turn out to be chaos, cause there are a lot of nutters out there, and if there is then instruction to live and let live, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, surely that defeats the act of anarchy itself.....I just don't get it

On nutters:

Those at the top of a ladder in a hierarchical society are by nature the most ruthless and powerful people (and democracy is no defence against this, as most voters are brainless, souless sheep) - so in every heirarchy ever invented, the "nutters" rise to the top!

Further, when you organise you gain phenomonally more power than if you act as individuals....thus those nutters now have immeasurably more power at their behest than they ever had before folks got organised (thats a hypothetical "before" not a historical one Dok :harhar: ).

Anarchy is not utter chaos in the sense of void and without form or madness. Its the absense of a power elite.

Atomik
01-09--2006, 06:45 PM
Anarchy is not utter chaos in the sense of void and without form or madness. Its the absense of a power elite.Problem is, I've never seen anyone organise so much as a commune without hierarchy and leadership. Sad, but true.

Coyote
01-09--2006, 06:55 PM
Problem is, I've never seen anyone organise so much as a commune without hierarchy and leadership. Sad, but true.

Well no, you wouldnt. The only way you can organise without a heirarchy and leadership is spontaneously, moment by moment, and a commune (or any stable society) cannot exist like that.

I'd liken it to the way handfastings and marriage were compared a while back.

Some folks handfast "for as long as the love is there" - which is akin to anarchy. Marriage however imposes a set of conditions that say you will stay together regardless of your own feelings in the matter (thus you end up with a great many loveless marriages) in order to achieve an impersonal plan (a stable marriage) where you give up some of your "self" in order to gain security - marriage recognises a power elite which organises.

Atomik
01-09--2006, 06:56 PM
Well no, you wouldnt. The only way you can organise without a heirarchy and leadership is spontaneously, moment by moment, and a commune (or any stable society) cannot exist like that.So you're saying that it's an essentially idealistic concept that can't work in the real world?

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:01 PM
So you're saying that it's an essentially idealistic concept that can't work in the real world?
Not at all.

It wont work as the dominant social pattern so long as there are people in the world who will make "creating security" their highest priority (and thus its an unworkable ideal in that sense) but thats a different matter....

It is perfectly workable as a method of social interaction (the handfasting example being a good, erm, example :) ).

Atomik
01-09--2006, 07:20 PM
It is perfectly workable as a method of social interaction (the handfasting example being a good, erm, example :) ).OK, so let me rephrase... as a model for political and social change, you're saying it's idealistic and unworkable? But that it can function on the micro level?

velvet
01-09--2006, 07:21 PM
Without joining the mudwrestling here... in the end it boils down to your basic view of the human race. A friend of mine (consolidated) is a (syndico) anarchist.. I'm a semi-communitarist.. our ideal state is basically the same but the way we want to get there is totally dependant on our views of humans as a species. I personally don't think humans should be left without some kind of guidance and like Atomik says I even think their basic form of society is one with hierarchy.. she however feels like each individual can be selfgoverning enough to do without hierarchy. In short: she trusts others more with completely autonomy than I ever would.

With that 'anarchism' is a very widely used term.. differing from headlines in the media as "total anarchy as Manchester United looses again! 12 wounded" to Chomsky's views on the matter (anarchy, not footy).


My biggest problem with anarchy is that I don't think it'll be good for the weaker in society, since nothing is arranged for them by default.. they are dependant on the goodness of the stronger and again, I'm pessimistic about that. Humans with in an anarchist society... hm.. mostly harmless? Doubt it.

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:24 PM
Yes, but people still want to be ruled. The celts had hierarchies as well, ya know.

Yup, but nothing like the organisation and hierarchy Rome had - it stands as a good example :)


Without wanting to get drawn into yet another debate over semantics, of course you can be complicit in your own oppression! You simply need to buy into the concept without really understanding the price - which is what I'd argue humanity has done for thousands of years!

Yes you can be complicit...if its political; but as soon as it becomes physical (and even before that in some of the psychological stuff) you dont have to be complicit. If someone threatens your kids with homelessness its not that you are complicit that you give into their threats. And thats before we even get to people using raw physical power (such as guns).

And you cant really say they are complicit if they have been conned into believing something by someone far "smarter" than they..... Is an old lady who is conned into trusting a "gas man" at the door complicit in their subsequent robbery?


I'd argue it's in our nature. Not saying we shouldn't try and change that, but it has to be a fundamental part of us or we wouldn't have evolved such social structures in the first place.

I would agree with you about a LOT of folks; but then I think the human race has been selectively bred for domestication (dummed down and made docile for the purposes of increased productivity) for 1000s of years (No NOT by aliens :rolleyes:;) )....

Atomik
01-09--2006, 07:25 PM
.. she however feels like each individual can be selfgoverning enough to do without hierarchy.The key word here is 'can'. I'd certainly agree that this is the case, but the problem is that most people are nowhere near an evolutionary point where they're ready to handle such responsibility. In theory, if we were all emotionally mature adults, we could negotiate and compromise our way through any difficulty and avoid fucking other people over. In the real world? Sure, give it a few thousand years, and just maybe. However, that still leaves the problem of how you handle any form of industrial/technological society without central government or bureaucratic structures.....

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:25 PM
OK, so let me rephrase... as a model for political and social change, you're saying it's idealistic and unworkable? But that it can function on the micro level?

Yes :)

Atomik
01-09--2006, 07:28 PM
Yup, but nothing like the organisation and hierarchy Rome had - it stands as a good example :)No, I disagree. My point was that people want to be led. The example that you hold up - the celts - still had leaders.


Yes you can be complicit...if its political; but as soon as it becomes physical (and even before that in some of the psychological stuff) you dont have to be complicit. If someone threatens your kids with homelessness its not that you are complicit that you give into their threats. And thats before we even get to people using raw physical power (such as guns).But I was talking about the political and not physical.....


And you cant really say they are complicit if they have been conned into believing something by someone far "smarter" than they..... Is an old lady who is conned into trusting a "gas man" at the door complicit in their subsequent robbery?I don't think it's that simple though. I think people con themselves. You seem to pass over all personal responsibility and blame the bogeyman of the state for all our woes. The state came into being because people let it.


I would agree with you about a LOT of folks; but then I think the human race has been selectively bred for domestication (dummed down and made docile for the purposes of increased productivity) for 1000s of years (No NOT by aliens :rolleyes:;) )....Lizard lounge. :D

Atomik
01-09--2006, 07:28 PM
Yes :)Hey! We agree!

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:31 PM
However, that still leaves the problem of how you handle any form of industrial/technological society without central government or bureaucratic structures.....

You couldnt - such is the nature of modern society that a large number of people need to be highly regulated to maintain it.....you would basically be looking at something akin to 1700s colonial america as an example of the level of tech and medicine available (albeit with some things we have since learned but which are not dependent upon high tech).

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:31 PM
Hey! We agree!

:faint: :D

Call Guiness ;)

Atomik
01-09--2006, 07:31 PM
You couldnt - such is the nature of modern society that a large number of people need to be highly regulated to maintain it.....you would basically be looking at something akin to 1700s colonial america as an example of the level of tech and medicine available (albeit with some things we have since learned but which are not dependent upon high tech).That would be my view too.

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:38 PM
No, I disagree. My point was that people want to be led. The example that you hold up - the celts - still had leaders.

Not in battle they didnt and that was the example I was giving :)


But I was talking about the political and not physical.....

I don't think it's that simple though. I think people con themselves. You seem to pass over all personal responsibility and blame the bogeyman of the state for all our woes. The state came into being because people let it.

Oh no, I agree there. Most folks agree to be cattle, and be treated like cattle, because they like what they get in return.......that's their nature.....but I think they have been selectively bred to be like that....


Lizard lounge. :D

I said NOT aliens :rolleyes: :harhar:

velvet
01-09--2006, 07:48 PM
(shouldn't this thread be in philosophy instead of world affairs? :P)

PlutoPete
01-09--2006, 07:55 PM
Not in battle they didnt and that was the example I was giving :)

Who says the celts had no leaders in battle

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:56 PM
I personally don't think humans should be left without some kind of guidance and like Atomik says I even think their basic form of society is one with hierarchy.. she however feels like each individual can be selfgoverning enough to do without hierarchy. In short: she trusts others more with completely autonomy than I ever would.

Now I KNOW that most folks are semi-moronic fascists (yes I expect flak for that lol but it is my experience) and that nutters would rise to the top and then direct their new armies in wars of conquest.....so I dont think for a moment like your friend does.....but at the same time I have no desire to be an asset in such a society and a lot of folks feel that way; they want liberty before security (to borrow and bastardise a quote from Mr Jefferson I believe :) ).


With that 'anarchism' is a very widely used term.. differing from headlines in the media as "total anarchy as Manchester United looses again! 12 wounded" to Chomsky's views on the matter (anarchy, not footy).

TPTB have for a very long time tried to spin anarchism in a bad light - most of societies greats myth (thinking here of Grendel or the Marduk/Tiamat story, for example) have been written to decribe those who dont follow the status quo as some kind of monsters.

With Grendel, for example, the mead hall of Heorot represents orderly society and "mans" dominion beating the "hostile" world into shape, whilst Grendel lives in the heath....a "chaotic" and "wild" place outside of the order of Heorot. He's a challenge to their empire, a wild thing of a wild place that is not under their control. So he's a monster (you have to bear in mind its the dwellers in the mead hall who wrote the story, not the dwellers in the marshes and heaths :) ).

Similarly today we find our shapers, our story tellers and those who would shape us and the rest of the world, telling us stories that claim a connection between "outside of the order of TPTB" and violent thugs....teaching folks "look, this is what will happen if you cast aside our order. Be good, be safe, do as you are told".


My biggest problem with anarchy is that I don't think it'll be good for the weaker in society, since nothing is arranged for them by default.. they are dependant on the goodness of the stronger and again, I'm pessimistic about that.

They are more at the whim of the strong in an ordered society, because and ordered society is more controlled and that controll comes largely from the top - and who rises to the top more often than not? The ruthless, ambitious, nutters!

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:57 PM
(shouldn't this thread be in philosophy instead of world affairs? :P)

Gods no! It would never see light of day again :harhar:

Coyote
01-09--2006, 07:58 PM
Who says the celts had no leaders in battle

Celts fought as individuals in warfare (I'm thinking of a good example in the battle of watling street). They charged in largely regardless of danger and hack as beserkers or semi-beserkers, relying more on anger than tactics (which is why Boudicca lost).

velvet
01-09--2006, 08:20 PM
TPTB have for a very long time tried to spin anarchism in a bad light
I'm not trying to spin anarchism in a bad light.. when I read 'chomsky on anarchism' I truely find a lot of things very interesting and usefull.. however.. I'm just afraid that it's a great theory and nothing more, just like how communism has great aspects in theory but just doesn't seem to work in practice.

Basically.. no politicalview will be perfect and the problem is that discussing it in theory is just that.. theory. There is hardly a way to know for sure what it will be like in a real life situation.. and even if there is a way to fully test that it is still impossible to compare that community within that politicalsystem to a community in the exact same circumstances but with a different politicalsystem.

Narrowboat Sion
01-09--2006, 10:01 PM
Celts fought as individuals in warfare (I'm thinking of a good example in the battle of watling street). They charged in largely regardless of danger and hack as beserkers or semi-beserkers, relying more on anger than tactics (which is why Boudicca lost).

Of course the Celts had leaders - Vercingetorix at the battle of Alesia and Caractacus who lead the British resistance against the Roman invasion from 43 C.E. for several years until he was betrayed to the Romans by the Queen of the Brigantes tribe being just 2 famous examples - but I presume you're talking more about lower level 'unit' leaders - in Celtic warfare a lot of emphasis was put on individual skill and bravery as you suggest, but the front ranks of the Celtic armies were often made up of the nobles and such like who had armour and better weapons than the majority of the warriors who would have a helmet and shield at best for protection and probably spear as a weapon in the days when an iron sword was a rare and expensive status symbol - maybe the equilavent of a modern 4x4.

In the earlier days of Celt v Roman battles, the Celts often came out on top - a Celtic army sacked Rome about 480 B.C.E. - that being considered the darkest day in Roman history for almost the next 1000 yrs - and Roman historians record that when their armies met the Celts in battle for the very first time, the Romans were so scared they pissed their pants and all ran away before a single blow was struck - or words to that effect.

Anyway, I think I'm digressing from the subject of the thread...:whistle: - but yes, I'ld like to see an anarchist society work in practise and be a part of it.

Narrowboat Sion
01-09--2006, 10:17 PM
Actually, I do. Catch is, it wouldnt stay as anarchy as some new loon would declare themselves in charge and start bullying folks around :rolleyes:

That seems to have been what happened in Catalonia and Barcelona in specific during the Spanish civil war where Anarchists had a big following and where everyone was apparently more or less equal for the first few months after the civil war broke out. Only for the communists (Stalinists) to seize power and put down and arrest their perceived enemies within the other sections of the Republican movement opposed to Franco's fascists - such as the Trotskyists (especially) and the Anarchists. Read George Orwell's 'Homage to Catalonia' for a basic account of the events - he was there at the time and fighting against Franco's forces as part of the POUM - the Trotskyist militia. Or watch Ken Loach's film 'Land and Freedom' which is obviously very much based on Orwell's book.

Atomik
01-09--2006, 11:43 PM
I'll be back when I'm not pissed. :D

Atomik
02-09--2006, 10:55 AM
TPTB have for a very long time tried to spin anarchism in a bad lightSeriously mate, I think you spend too much time trying to blame "them" for stuff. I think anarchists have done more than TPTB to cast themselves in a bad light! I remember hanging with a bunch of anarchos back in my youth. It's scary just how accurate the Life of Brian was on that front!

Vaga
02-09--2006, 11:06 AM
There's no government like no government

Coyote
02-09--2006, 11:13 AM
Seriously mate, I think you spend too much time trying to blame "them" for stuff. I think anarchists have done more than TPTB to cast themselves in a bad light! I remember hanging with a bunch of anarchos back in my youth. It's scary just how accurate the Life of Brian was on that front!
Well, that kind of depends on whether the typical "anarchist" is actually promoting Anarchy or are just:
* whining
* finding a label for being a violent twat
* thinking its a cool label and trying to draw on the cache without actually being it (hmmmm where have I seen that before :whistle:)

Real Anarchists(tm) dont sit around discussing what to blow up or how to bring about anarchy - they live it on the micro level. Trying to impose it on a macro level isnt anarchy as they are setting themselves up to BE a power elite! Most anarchists I've met are nothing of the sort; they range from nobheads who think its a licence to be loud and obnoxious....to political aggitators who want to "bring down the govt" (but who would, if they did succeed, simply become the new tyrant :rolleyes: ).

Atomik
02-09--2006, 11:17 AM
Real Anarchists(tm)Sigh. Are they like real Wiccans by any chance? :wall:

Coyote
02-09--2006, 11:20 AM
Sigh. Are they like real Wiccans by any chance? :wall:

Well if the word actually MEANS something, then yes. Its a lunatic idea that everyone gets to re-define words for their own preference; how the fuck are we supposed to communicate if we do that?! :frust:

velvet
02-09--2006, 11:24 AM
Well, that kind of depends on whether the typical "anarchist" is actually promoting Anarchy or are just:
* whining
* finding a label for being a violent twat
* thinking its a cool label and trying to draw on the cache without actually being it (hmmmm where have I seen that before :whistle:)

Real Anarchists(tm) ...

That's what I meant earlier on by mentioning that anarchism means so many things today.. and indeed for some punks (no pun intended.. ok a little) it just means an excuse to bash the government without having any idea about the actual elaborate theory of anarchism.. let alone the individual responsibility that comes along with it.

Atomik
02-09--2006, 11:25 AM
Well if the word actually MEANS something, then yes. Its a lunatic idea that everyone gets to re-define words for their own preference; how the fuck are we supposed to communicate if we do that?! :frust:Yeah, but in this instance, you're defining anarchists to suit your own political preference!

But anyway... without getting drawn into semantics again.... let me rephrase my original comment to avoid your pedantry. :rolleyes:

Those identifying themselves as anarchists have done more hard to the image of anarchy/anarchism than TPTB.

Coyote
02-09--2006, 11:31 AM
Yeah, but in this instance, you're defining anarchists to suit your own political preference!

Nope, I'm actually engaging in a level of debate lost on most so called anarchist who dont actually, in their behaviour, represent what the damn word means. Its not "just semantics" but that is an easy cop out criticism that is intellectually lazy :harhar:


But anyway... without getting drawn into semantics again.... let me rephrase my original comment to avoid your pedantry. :rolleyes:

Those identifying themselves as anarchists have done more harm to the image of anarchy/anarchism than TPTB.

I disagree. TPTB (in the from of the media as well as the education establishments) have at the very least magnified the behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic) of:
* a few self-identified "anarchists" who saw it as a licence for nob-head behaviour
* a very few political agitators back in the early 1900s
to brainwash folks into thinking that this is what it means to question hierarchical order. Building monsters is what TPTB have always done.

velvet
02-09--2006, 11:31 AM
Those identifying themselves as anarchists have done more hard to the image of anarchy/anarchism than TPTB.

but that's a bit of a hollow remark ain't it? The terrorists who identify themselves with the islam are giving the religion a bad name as well.. so are the biblethumping born again scary ass christians.. or the fluffy wicca bunnies.. or the stoned no good hypocritical hippies.. and so on. In every scene you'll find people who are giving the whole scene a bad name.

However.. it gets annoying and narrowminded when the general public and/or the media starts to identify the whole scene from just those few fuckwits. Compare it to the guys wearing Lonsdale.. not every Lonsdale wearer is a rightwing racist, yet the media often uses the term 'Lonsdale' to generalises them.. and that was a black boxers brand for crying out loud!

If anything the 'blame' is on the ignorance of the general public who doesn't want to look beyond the extremes and look at the actual facts and theory.

Coyote
02-09--2006, 11:33 AM
That's what I meant earlier on by mentioning that anarchism means so many things today.. and indeed for some punks (no pun intended.. ok a little) it just means an excuse to bash the government without having any idea about the actual elaborate theory of anarchism.. let alone the individual responsibility that comes along with it.

Sadly, indeed this is indeed the basis for most folks understanding :(

velvet
02-09--2006, 11:38 AM
Sadly, indeed this is indeed the basis for most folks understanding :(

yup and what's worse is that you can't even start a normal discussion about it because most already made up their minds. Same with communitarism.. as soon as I drop the word people mostly yell "communism doesn't work!!"... well I'm not talking about communism am I! :mad:

Hehe.. but yeah.. that's 'the people' for ya. Think Hitler actually wrote a pretty sharp piece on how to manipulate the general public by their ignorance in Mein Kampf. Think he has proven himself right by leading a whole nation into a horrible war. If you can manipulate the general public you have the best advantage to winning the battle.

Another example... so many people think Cuba=bad --> Cuba=communist. Without even wanting to stop one moment and think if there might be some good points in Cuban politics as well! Let alone with comparing it to their own system in an unbiased way..

Atomik
02-09--2006, 11:45 AM
but that's a bit of a hollow remark ain't it?No really, seeing as these guys represent the majority of people who identify themselves as anarchists, IMHO.

Atomik
02-09--2006, 11:48 AM
Nope, I'm actually engaging in a level of debate lost on most so called anarchist who dont actually, in their behaviour, represent what the damn word means. Its not "just semantics" but that is an easy cop out criticism that is intellectually lazy :harhar:Yes, it's lazy. I'm was discussing whether TPTB were responsible for giving anarchism a bad name or not. If you want to spin it out into a wider discussion, then I'm sorry, but I don't have the time for that at the mo.


I disagree. TPTB (in the from of the media as well as the education establishments) have at the very least magnified the behaviour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic) of:
* a few self-identified "anarchists" who saw it as a licence for nob-head behaviour
* a very few political agitators back in the early 1900s
to brainwash folks into thinking that this is what it means to question hierarchical order. Building monsters is what TPTB have always done.I don't disagree. However, those identifying themselves as anarchists... and I'm including anarcho syndicalists and class war in this statement... have done far more damage than TPTB.

velvet
02-09--2006, 11:50 AM
No really, seeing as these guys represent the majority of people who identify themselves as anarchists, IMHO.

isn't it a journalists job to find good spokesmen when they are searching for 'an anarchist'? No.. they just take the one screaming loudest.. instead of looking for someone who actually know what they are talking about. At most, they could portray both to make the difference in the scene a bit more clear.

In general tho, I find that the media just takes the easy way out and doesn't bother with giving some theoretical background.. so the general public doesn't see anymore then "anarchists set car on fire" or whatever.

Atomik
02-09--2006, 11:53 AM
isn't it a journalists job to find good spokesmen when they are searching for 'an anarchist'? No.. they just take the one screaming loudest.. instead of looking for someone who actually know what they are talking about. At most, they could portray both to make the difference in the scene a bit more clear.Yeah, I agree. But the media will distort anything if they think it makes a better story. And to be fair, most 'anarchists' are of the violent/idiot variety in the UK these days.

Coyote
02-09--2006, 11:57 AM
I don't disagree. However, those identifying themselves as anarchists... and I'm including anarcho syndicalists and class war in this statement... have done far more damage than TPTB.

How could they (those identifying themselves as anarchists...including anarcho syndicalists and class war) damage the wider image of Anarchism without the aid of TPTB (Media, Govt) transmitting and magnifying their acts? A few do the shite, TPTB then magnifies and communicates this and so sets the seeds for future nob-hood-dome. :rolleyes:


isn't it a journalists job to find good spokesmen when they are searching for 'an anarchist'? No.. they just take the one screaming loudest.. instead of looking for someone who actually know what they are talking about. At most, they could portray both to make the difference in the scene a bit more clear.

You'd think so wouldnt ya :( unfortunately the journalists job is to further:
* the ammount of copy sold (thus going for sensationalist stories over accuracy and fairness)
* the political bias of the owners of the newspaper


In general tho, I find that the media just takes the easy way out and doesn't bother with giving some theoretical background.. so the general public doesn't see anymore then "anarchists set car on fire" or whatever.

To be fair, I'm not sure most folks could understand the basis of anarchism (or communitarianism) so the journalists are selling to their intellectual level....but then it wont change so long as they continue to aim so low :rolleyes:

Atomik
02-09--2006, 12:01 PM
How could they (those identifying themselves as anarchists...including anarcho syndicalists and class war) damage the wider image of Anarchism without the aid of TPTB (Media, Govt) transmitting and magnifying their acts?That's a bit of a strange argument! So it's not the fault of the people perpetrating the acts - it's the fault of the media for reporting them? That's ridiculous!


A few do the shite, TPTB then magnifies and communicates this and so sets the seeds for future nob-hood-dome. :rolleyes:It ain't "a few" in my experience. It's "most".

Coyote
02-09--2006, 12:09 PM
That's a bit of a strange argument! So it's not the fault of the people perpetrating the acts - it's the fault of the media for reporting them? That's ridiculous!
:rolleyes:

No, the original perpatrators are responsible for their acts, but TPTB are responsible for propagating those acts in the wider world by broadly presenting such as an image of what disagreement with govt looks like....


It ain't "a few" in my experience. It's "most".
The question is, have those "most" come about because of TPTBs spreading of the action actions of the "few"...?

Atomik
02-09--2006, 12:13 PM
No, the original perpatrators are responsible for their acts, but TPTB are responsible for propagating those acts in the wider world by broadly presenting such as an image of what disagreement with govt looks like....I'd agree with that, but that doesn't make TPTB 'responsible' for the negative image of anarchism. The idiots are still responsible, but TPTB encourage that perception and perpetuate it. Think we can agree on that?


The question is, have those "most" come about because of TPTBs spreading of the action actions of the "few"...?Well all the anarchists I've known were pretty far from the media stereotype of the day. They were still idiots though. Well OK, idiots might be a bit harsh... but they were still in favour of violent confrontation and closer to communists than what you or I might think of as 'true' anarchists.

Coyote
02-09--2006, 12:16 PM
I'd agree with that, but that doesn't make TPTB 'responsible' for the negative image of anarchism. The idiots are still responsible, but TPTB encourage that perception and perpetuate it. Think we can agree on that?

I dont know.....yes the original nob-heads are responsible for their acts, but the media and govt are the ones who propagate the image as well as make a point (by poor use of language) to make that an archetype for disagreement with TPTB themselves. The wider image is the resposibility of the communicator as without their power the image would not have spread.

Atomik
02-09--2006, 12:21 PM
I dont know.....yes the original nob-heads are responsible for their acts, but the media and govt are the ones who propagate the image as well as make a point (by poor use of language) to make that an archetype for disagreement with TPTB themselves. The wider image is the resposibility of the communicator as without their power the image would not have spread.But if the media didn't exist and the image spread through word of mouth, would you say it was the fault of people for talking about it? Or you could equally argue that it's the responsibility of people for being fooled by the image!

Coyote
02-09--2006, 12:24 PM
But if the media didn't exist and the image spread through word of mouth, would you say it was the fault of people for talking about it? Or you could equally argue that it's the responsibility of people for being fooled by the image!
To clarify, I mean the magnitude of the image, how wide spread and "unassailable" it is, is the responsibility of TPTB. That it is spread at all is a shared responsibility.....that it is magnified is the responsibility of the TPTB.

Word of mouth would not really "bring it to the world"

Atomik
02-09--2006, 12:28 PM
To clarify, I mean the magnitude of the image, how wide spread and "unassailable" it is, is the responsibility of TPTB. That it is spread at all is a shared responsibility.....that it is magnified is the responsibility of the TPTB.:wall:

Well I agree with that!!!

Narrowboat Sion
02-09--2006, 05:43 PM
Well all the anarchists I've known were pretty far from the media stereotype of the day. They were still idiots though. Well OK, idiots might be a bit harsh... but they were still in favour of violent confrontation and closer to communists than what you or I might think of as 'true' anarchists.

I consider myself an anarchist - or more accurately a 'green anarchist' - but I never really used to take the old 'Green Anarchist' mag very seriously - unlike the establishment. I believe in change thro' non-violent means tho', and certainly don't consider my political outlook communist in any sense - communism still has a hierarchy with all the corruption that goes with that. I've pretty much only carried out direct action and the like with people who were largely apolitical tho' so have no real knowledge myself of what many anarchists are like when they are in larger groups. It only takes a few hotheads tho' to inflame things, but that can potentially happen when you get any groups of people together - footie fans, anti-capitalists, hen parties, even the police when they are policing a demonstration or whatever.

Atomik
02-09--2006, 05:48 PM
I consider myself an anarchist - or more accurately a 'green anarchist' - but I never really used to take the old 'Green Anarchist' mag very seriously - unlike the establishment. I believe in change thro' non-violent means tho', and certainly don't consider my political outlook communist in any sense - communism still has a hierarchy with all the corruption that goes with that. Pretty much the same as me then :D


It only takes a few hotheads tho' to inflame things, but that can potentially happen when you get any groups of people together - footie fans, anti-capitalists, hen parties, even the police when they are policing a demonstration or whatever.Not sure of your point here?

Narrowboat Sion
02-09--2006, 06:21 PM
Not sure of your point here?

Just that when you get a group of anarchists together, they don't have a monopoly on causing trouble which the media and tptb will report in a bad light. You only have to look at the miners strike in '84-'85 and the way they were portrayed by the media supportive of Maggie Thatcher - even tho' in many cases it might have been the police which started the confrontations at the picket lines.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in this country at least, anarchists tend to only appear in larger numbers when there is something bigger going on, say the G8 protests in Scotland, anti-capitalist day of actions in the city and that kind of thing. Although most people attending will be non-violent, you'll have a small hard-core element, maybe anarchists, maybe not, who'll escalate things or won't be hesitant about throwing missiles at the police or whatever. The media, and police, then tend to put the emphasis of the days events onto that small section of the people who were there and use that as justification for over-policing that and/or future events and discrediting the movement as a whole. It's like saying all footie fans are violent hooligans, or all men and women out on stag/hen parties are drunken morons who'll end the night off by getting involved in a fight or whatever. It's just that the media and tptb will portray any group they don't like or are scared off in a negative way regardless of the fact that only a small section of the group might be 'idiots'. I don't like being tarred with the brush of 'violent' or whatever just because I consider myself an anarchist as do people who are prepared to use violence.

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear still, I don't always manage to put things across very well this way as opposed to RL. :(

weecab
02-09--2006, 06:25 PM
I have read this thread 3 times now and I am no further forward.....I am not a stupid person, but this all seems very undifined and completely impractical...almost idealistic.....sorry guys.xx

Coyote
02-09--2006, 06:30 PM
I have read this thread 3 times now and I am no further forward.....I am not a stupid person, but this all seems very undifined and completely impractical...almost idealistic.....sorry guys.xx

Is there anything in particular you are finding hard to grasp hun (apart from soap in the bath :whistle: )

Atomik
02-09--2006, 06:48 PM
Just that when you get a group of anarchists together, they don't have a monopoly on causing trouble which the media and tptb will report in a bad light. You only have to look at the miners strike in '84-'85 and the way they were portrayed by the media supportive of Maggie Thatcher - even tho' in many cases it might have been the police which started the confrontations at the picket lines.Totally agree.


Correct me if I am wrong, but in this country at least, anarchists tend to only appear in larger numbers when there is something bigger going on, say the G8 protests in Scotland, anti-capitalist day of actions in the city and that kind of thing. Although most people attending will be non-violent, you'll have a small hard-core element, maybe anarchists, maybe not, who'll escalate things or won't be hesitant about throwing missiles at the police or whatever. The media, and police, then tend to put the emphasis of the days events onto that small section of the people who were there and use that as justification for over-policing that and/or future events and discrediting the movement as a whole. It's like saying all footie fans are violent hooligans, or all men and women out on stag/hen parties are drunken morons who'll end the night off by getting involved in a fight or whatever. It's just that the media and tptb will portray any group they don't like or are scared off in a negative way regardless of the fact that only a small section of the group might be 'idiots'. I don't like being tarred with the brush of 'violent' or whatever just because I consider myself an anarchist as do people who are prepared to use violence.Yeah, me too. Unfortunately that isn't my experience of most anarchists. And that's personal, not from the media.


I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear still, I don't always manage to put things across very well this way as opposed to RL. :(That's coz typing is a shit compromise compared to conversation. :D