Turn on thread page Beta

D&D PTP&P's "Ask An Anarchist" Thread watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    i'm not sure if i'm interpreting this right, but are you assuming that anarchy would be gripping the society as a whole?
    i think with the idea of the ubermensch, it's only certain individuals who have embraced anarchic principles, which would mean that the society, or "herd", as a whole isn't actually empowered and mobilised (indicated by Nietzsche's description of them as the herd )
    this would mean fascism would be coming from without, as it is one individual (or possibly a few) who have claimed moral superiority through their actual lack of morals

    do tell me if i'm spouting complete rubbish, i'm just testing the water here
    I see what you're saying but to me, if anarchy isn't true for everybody, then it isn't anarchy. What I think Nietzsche is trying to say is that you must make anarchy from yourself (although I'm sure someone else could correct me on this) and so it's not a concerted effort to achieve a 'state' of anarchy.

    Still, in my head, if that's the case, it's just living by yourself. A personal anarchy. If, on the other hand, you use your 'superiority' against others, you lean more to dictatorship and fascism than anything like absolute populism or anarchy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I see what you're saying but to me, if anarchy isn't true for everybody, then it isn't anarchy. What I think Nietzsche is trying to say is that you must make anarchy from yourself (although I'm sure someone else could correct me on this) and so it's not a concerted effort to achieve a 'state' of anarchy.

    Still, in my head, if that's the case, it's just living by yourself. A personal anarchy. If, on the other hand, you use your 'superiority' against others, you lean more to dictatorship and fascism than anything like absolute populism or anarchy.
    Oh, I see fair enough.

    But yeah, i think a personal anarchy, since it enables a person to be completely and utterly selfish without any fear of repercussions (including religious ones) would likely lead to dictatorship, since without the benefits of living as a society, someone's main aim would be power?
    I'm not sure what Hitler's motivations actually factually were, but I can see why this would influence him, especially if he was in favour of a secular state
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    ha, cheers
    but no, trust, my entire knowledge of/interest in this topic stems from a one page extract of "thus spake zarathustra", the rest is history

    hmm, i might read up on game theory in relation to this - the idea that people cooperate and are compassionate because it's in their interest
    surely this effect would be overcome if it was only one person dominating? i.e. the ubermensch
    but like i said, i'm not sure whether fully-fledged fascist rule would be the result of the ubermensch, or just somebody smugly going about achieving their own ends
    Fair enough.

    You shouldn't take that 'it's in their interest' argument too literally by the way; because 'in their interest' can mean a lot of things in real terms. So I'd imagine it would be very difficult to construct a game based on that premise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Fair enough.

    You shouldn't take that 'it's in their interest' argument too literally by the way; because 'in their interest' can mean a lot of things in real terms. So I'd imagine it would be very difficult to construct a game based on that premise.
    Indeed, even I adopt that argument - it would be in the interest of the individual to co-operate with free associations voluntarily so that everyone may further their own economic and social goals via a solid system of mutual aid (help you to help me and so forth). But them I am no collectivist just as I do not proclaim to be an individualist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Fair enough.

    You shouldn't take that 'it's in their interest' argument too literally by the way; because 'in their interest' can mean a lot of things in real terms. So I'd imagine it would be very difficult to construct a game based on that premise.
    well yeah, i suppose i imagined it to be political freedom/available resources, but there are so many things
    although i suppose that for such a large and complex society to work as it does now, there much be some common fundamental aims?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    Oh, I see fair enough.

    But yeah, i think a personal anarchy, since it enables a person to be completely and utterly selfish without any fear of repercussions (including religious ones) would likely lead to dictatorship, since without the benefits of living as a society, someone's main aim would be power?
    I'm not sure what Hitler's motivations actually factually were, but I can see why this would influence him, especially if he was in favour of a secular state
    Well, thing is, you can't survive without a society. Whether you're an individualist or a syndicalist, there's no shying away from it. There's a very bleak or limited existence awaiting you if you do decide to live sustainably and by yourself. Power struggles only work from within the society you function from so if there's already anarchy, that doesn't work. And too much statism, i.e. fascism or great government control, leads to uprisings (Russia, 1917, Italy, 1945). Your aim might be power (although I'd dispute that) but you won't be able to execute it unless everyone wants it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Well, thing is, you can't survive without a society. Whether you're an individualist or a syndicalist, there's no shying away from it. There's a very bleak or limited existence awaiting you if you do decide to live sustainably and by yourself. Power struggles only work from within the society you function from so if there's already anarchy, that doesn't work. And too much statism, i.e. fascism or great government control, leads to uprisings (Russia, 1917, Italy, 1945). Your aim might be power (although I'd dispute that) but you won't be able to execute it unless everyone wants it.
    Hmm, that's true.
    What would you make of nazi germany (sorry i keep coming back to this example), where a small group of people in their own personal anarchy managed to impose their unconventional values on everyone else
    in this case, would you say that anarchy is widespread, or that it's merely politics and flashy selling
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Indeed, even I adopt that argument - it would be in the interest of the individual to co-operate with free associations voluntarily so that everyone may further their own economic and social goals via a solid system of mutual aid (help you to help me and so forth). But them I am no collectivist just as I do not proclaim to be an individualist.
    What ARE you?! :zomg:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    well yeah, i suppose i imagined it to be political freedom/available resources, but there are so many things
    although i suppose that for such a large and complex society to work as it does now, there much be some common fundamental aims?
    Well, that's certainly an argument. But that all depends on whether or not you consider society to be a single entity or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    Hmm, that's true.
    What would you make of nazi germany (sorry i keep coming back to this example), where a small group of people in their own personal anarchy managed to impose their unconventional values on everyone else
    in this case, would you say that anarchy is widespread, or that it's merely politics and flashy selling
    Don't worry about referring to one example. It's a good one to use for what you're trying to say.

    In the case you're talking about, I'd call that a government within a tyranny. Two unnecessary evils in one spot is unappealing to me so if they're imposing it on everyone else, that's bad. However, if these people all share the same values and they work their own way, I see nothing wrong with that personally and believe that would be an example of anarchy (not very widespread though, admittedly).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theths)
    well yeah, i suppose i imagined it to be political freedom/available resources, but there are so many things
    although i suppose that for such a large and complex society to work as it does now, there much be some common fundamental aims?
    How do you mean work?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    What ARE you?! :zomg:
    Neither. Both principles ironically lend themselves to each other quite easily; the idea that man should give himself up for the greater good or that the individual is ultimately held back by society and must strive to reach the top of the hierarchy will both result in a fundamentally authoritarian and sick regime. Society cannot grow without the individual and the individual cannot grow with out society. Lol. I suppose my idea would be that solidarity should be there for those who wish to pursue that path; without the necessary extraneous material circumstances, liberty cannot be maximised (in the positive sense) and without self-management, liberty cannot be maximised (in the negative sense). The two go hand in hand rather nicely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Neither. Both principles ironically lend themselves to each other quite easily; the idea that man should give himself up for the greater good or that the individual is ultimately held back by society and must strive to reach the top of the hierarchy will both result in a fundamentally authoritarian and sick regime. Society cannot grow without the individual and the individual cannot grow with out society. Lol. I suppose my idea would be that solidarity should be there for those who wish to pursue that path; without the necessary extraneous material circumstances, liberty cannot be maximised (in the positive sense) and without self-management, liberty cannot be maximised (in the negative sense). The two go hand in hand rather nicely.
    I suppose I agree with you on this. Whilst I think society is the best way to organise a lifestyle, it's virtually meaningless if there are no individuals within this society and therefore people should be allowed to act how they wish so long as it doesn't directly impinge on someone else's actions. As you say, the two go hand in hand rather nicely.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    A thread to discuss anarchism and ask brief questions with respect to it; Please take any longer discussions to a new thread, or any discussions which develop but are unrelated to the purposes of this thread.

    Get posting, and enjoy!

    With thanks to Magnum Opus for thread content and title.

    Useful links:

    Please note anyone reading this post that due to the vast nature of anarchy and its ideology, it has been suggested by AnarchistNutter to divide the following links into their respective trains of thought. For that reason, we have thus far sections on general anarchist ideals, individualist anarchism as a whole (within this, anarcho-capitalism) and the means by which to achieve social anarchy. Please feel free to post links at any time for this OP.


    General:


    Criticisms of capitalism:

    Individualist anarchism:


    Anarcho-capitalism:
    Diagrams:

    Original post with added detail is here

    Revolutionary tactics for social anarchism:

    The bell-curve on here is a good diagram for the front page and this video series on Austrian economics would go well under the "anarcho-capitalist" section.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    The bell-curve on here is a good diagram for the front page...
    Hmm... I don't know that I agree with that curve but then it was never easy to describe the entire political spectrum on a graph alone. Nevertheless, I prefer the political compass.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Hmm... I don't know that I agree with that curve but then it was never easy to describe the entire political spectrum on a graph alone. Nevertheless, I prefer the political compass.
    Oh I prefer the compass too. I think the curve is easier for people more accustomed to the left-right spectrum though. It's very simplistic but it makes more sense than most.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    The bell-curve on here is a good diagram for the front page and this video series on Austrian economics would go well under the "anarcho-capitalist" section.
    Thanks for both of those links. I've stuck them both up on the OP as well as the Political Compass with a caption under each for clarity. Hope you think that's appropriate but feel free to post once more for any further suggestions and links.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    That Bell-curve thing is ridiculous. Any attempt to reduce the whole of political philosophy or political actors to two axes on a graph is a dumb idea.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Hey, I decided to make a big post because I have been asked this before. [snip]
    This, however, assumes that everyone would pay for cover by a PPA. What if the offending party was not represented by a PPA?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    That Bell-curve thing is ridiculous. Any attempt to reduce the whole of political philosophy or political actors to two axes on a graph is a dumb idea.
    What would you suggest (if any diagrammatic form at all) instead?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.