Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Then tell me what path you would have people take to make "conditions change"? What "conditions" need to change?

Well, people would have to realize that nations and citizenship are fictional. That would be one major necessray change. They would also have to realize freedom and opportunity do not inherently come from mindlessly carrying out orders. How to make them realize this? Encouraging them to use logic, I would suppose. Nothing I've said above is particularly crazy.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Well, people would have to realize that nations and citizenship are fictional. That would be one major necessray change. They would also have to realize freedom and opportunity do not inherently come from mindlessly carrying out orders. How to make them realize this? Encouraging them to use logic, I would suppose. Nothing I've said above is particularly crazy. Grandpa h.

Nations and citizenship are not fictional, they are real and functioning aspects of most people's lives. Try convincing people that they are not optimal solutions and you may begin to make a bit of a dent in the attitudes you are attempting to change. But even with granting you that concession, nothing that you have said to me has made me believe that the systemic solution you offer as an alternative presents a more optimal solution to the problems you are attempting to solve. And, yes, I do support a certain amount of state power, which means I support the corollary concept of individuals vested with a certain amount of authority or coersive power, yet I have never once in my life mindlessly carried out an order. Those who mindlessly carry out orders will do so in a democratic system, a communist system, a school system, an office setting, or in a world where no one has any power except the power they can personally muster. It is because those type of people exist and will always exist that your solution is so prone to failure.

If I live in Aranchismville and every fair minded individual has sworn a binding oath that they will never, ever support a system that allows someone to be appointed Chief of Police or President, you have effectively eliminated state authority. And if every drone who likes to follow orders knows that there will be no force in opposition to Joseph Hitler (who has become their leader), what stops Joseph Hitler from doing as he damn well pleases? Nothing, that is what. Because if the 2000 fair-minded citizens must agree beforehand on every course of action to take to oppose Joseph Hitler and his 200 dronish henchmen, the fairminded citizens will be forced to opperate as an uncoordinated, ineffectual mob and be easily out-manuvered by Mr. Hitler and fail to stop every escalation of his brutal methodology.

Now, if you agree that at certain times, the anarchist - everyone must have a say, no person can be made to accept anything he does not concur in- systems are inefficient and unable to effectively counter Joseph Hitler, and that you need to vest someone with authority over certain situations and at certain times, then you have just conceeded that a certain amount of state power is, in fact, necessary and you are now on my team.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Nations and citizenship are not fictional, they are real and functioning aspects of most people's lives. Try convincing people that they are not optimal solutions and you may begin to make a bit of a dent in the attitudes you are attempting to change.

Actually, they are fictional. They exist only in belief. They will get blood from time to time, but it's an ideological bloodfeast. Many are prepared to put "the truth" on
their sleeves, whether it be God or State. When they're not convincing anyone through indoctrination and propaganda, they're doing it with bullets and bombs.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, they are fictional. They exist only in belief. They will get blood from time to time, but it's an ideological bloodfeast. Many are prepared to put "the truth" on their sleeves, whether it be God or State. When they're not convincing anyone through indoctrination and propaganda, they're doing it with bullets and bombs. Grandpa h.

Darth Vader is fictional. The government from the movie Soylent Green is fictional. The countries in 1984 are fictional. France exists, Iraq exists, Russia exists, as do their leaders and their governments. Now you are retreating into rhetorical defenses. Maybe you should attempt to defend the actaullity of your position, as I could make the more reasoned argument that anrachism is fictional. Notice I did not do that? What I have said is that it is not functional, not that it is only in your imagination.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Darth Vader is fictional. The government from the movie Soylent Green is fictional.

When Darth Vader said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing," it's not totally unlike the criticisms I face for condemning state tyranny.

What governments do is indeed real, but people can do real things for essentially fictitious reasons.
The only things making governments real are the people's faith in them, coupled with punishment and reward. Other than that, they simply don't exist. The soil of the earth wasn't created attached to these abstract governments called "governments," and policies can be based on strange perceptions of reality, on what could be sensibly called fiction.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa When Darth Vader said, "I find your lack of faith disturbing," it's not totally unlike the criticisms I face for condemning state tyranny. What governments do is indeed real, but people can do real things for essentially fictitious reasons. The only things making governments real are the people's faith in them, coupled with punishment and reward. Other than that, they simply don't exist. The soil of the earth wasn't created attached to these abstract governments called "governments," and policies can be based on strange perceptions of reality, on what could be sensibly called fiction. Grandpa h.

You do not face citicisms for condeming state tyranny, you face criticisms for advocating an unworkable solution to the problem that you criticize. I condemn state tyranny. But there are separate words for authority and tyranny because they are not the same thing. All ducks are birds (this equals the concept of tyranny), but all birds are not ducks (this equals the concept of authority). Just because tyranny relies on authority, it does not follow that all authority equals tyranny. This is the main failure of your reasoning.

And just because people can do things for "ficticious" reasons (faulty would be the more accurate term) does not mean that they ARE doing these things for faulty or ficticious reasons. Many of us have explained, over and over again, why all authority is not bad, why authority has many good and useful purposes that are not harmful and are, in fact, extremely beneficial. You are criticised for offering a bad solution, not for recognizing an actual problem.

As to the contention that the only thing that makes government real is people's faith or belief, well...the only thing that makes Volconvo real is the fact that people are willing to use it. The same can be said for telephones, or cars or just about anything else that came into being because of man's intellect. What would be your point? We have fashioned the tools, they are real.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You do not face citicisms for condeming state tyranny, you face criticisms for advocating an unworkable solution to the problem that you criticize. I condemn state tyranny.

I in fact face criticism for criticizing state tyranny. And basic anarchist principles do provide a way to solve a problem.

Obviously, all you traffic in is gossip and hearsay; you have no awareness of the history of anarchism or its actual accomplishments. Anarchists deserve considerable credit for abolishing child labor and the 8-hour workday, for example. And anarchist principles can be certainly seen in tendencies to abolish things like chattel slavery, in workers who organize, in secular humanism, etc. Of course, the state does indeed have an agenda of crushing what could be called "anarchist" impulses, which is why disloyalty to it is supposedly a great moral crime.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa I in fact face criticism for criticizing state tyranny. And basic anarchist principles do provide a way to solve a problem. Obviously, all you traffic in is gossip and hearsay; you have no awareness of the history of anarchism or its actual accomplishments. Anarchists deserve considerable credit for abolishing child labor and the 8-hour workday, for example. And anarchist principles can be certainly seen in tendencies to abolish things like chattel slavery, in workers who organize, in secular humanism, etc. Of course, the state does indeed have an agenda of crushing what could be called "anarchist" impulses, which is why disloyalty to it is supposedly a great moral crime. Grandpa h.

I do not traffic in gossip and hearsay and I have plenty of awareness of the history of anarchism. The truth of the matter is that the abolition of child labor and the creation of the 8 hour work day were not accomplishments of anarchists alone, they came about because of a general populist movement that took it's cues from many segments of the population. You may as well claim anarchists caused the fall of communism. The truth is that general dissatifaction among the majority of Americans made these changes happen. Get off of your high horse.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I do not traffic in gossip and hearsay and I have plenty of awareness of the history of anarchism.

It doesn't seem that way, given your previous posts.

Quote by: lsbskins1 The truth of the matter is that the abolition of child labor and the creation of the 8 hour work day were not accomplishments of anarchists alone, they came about because of a general populist movement that took it's cues from many segments of the population.

I didn't say self-professed anarchists are solely responsible, but many of them were active in those movements. However, the bigger point is that such changes were in the spirit of anarchism, and obviously so. They weren't merely a matter of public policy, but of activism and coming forward with strong objections to the status quo. Of course, anarchists don't think the 8-hour workday is good enough. They object to fascism in the workplace generaly, and don't aim to treat people like mere disposable machines.
They also realize that economic tyranny most often occurs with government backing (the IWW certainly found that out) and that talk of a "free market" is mostly just talk. Capitalism is ultimately not a means to freedom, but of making people subordinate -- much to the benefit of elite classes of rulers. And there's nothing highly "theoretical" here. This is in fact how it happens.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa It doesn't seem that way, given your previous posts. I didn't say self-professed anarchists are solely responsible, but many of them were active in those movements. However, the bigger point is that such changes were in the spirit of anarchism, and obviously so. They weren't merely a matter of public policy, but of activism and coming forward with strong objections to the status quo. Of course, anarchists don't think the 8-hour workday is good enough. They object to fascism in the workplace generaly, and don't aim to treat people like mere disposable machines. They also realize that economic tyranny most often occurs with government backing (the IWW certainly found that out) and that talk of a "free market" is mostly just talk. Capitalism is ultimately not a means to freedom, but of making people subordinate -- much to the benefit of elite classes of rulers. And there's nothing highly "theoretical" here. This is in fact how it happens. Grandpa h.

But those changes were achieved through the power of the people to vote for representatives who would vote for coercive, state-power reliant, enforceble law. The good did not come from your prefered system, it came from mine. And capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. It has as it's purpose maximizing economic output, not maximizing political freedom. A capitalist economic system, coupled with the political ideals of the democratic assurance of voice in determining the rules that govern what is acceptable practice in the economic sphere, is what I advocate. I do not support the idea of unbridled Capitolism. I would say that the mistake that most lazie-faire capitolists make is in failing to recognize that there is a difference between markets that are governed by rules from a dictatorial government entity that need not be responsive to the will of the people and a government that is reponsive to that will and is only acting as a more efficient means of the consumers to dictate market action. But that is probably a different topic for a different thread.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But those changes were achieved through the power of the people to vote for representatives who would vote for coercive, state-power reliant, enforceble law. The good did not come from your prefered system, it came from mine.

..by the power of the people who challenged the status quo at the time. Attributing these great changes simply to politicians or any one group means turning reality upside down. The political structure is what maintained the tyranny to begin with. The people either rebelled against it or chose to maintain iit n a "reformed" state. Those were the options during these changes. Either way, many social changes are anarchist in spirit, even if the overall system retains authoritiarian characteristics.

As Michael Albert explained:

Most broadly an anarchist seeks out and identifies structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination throughout life, and tries to challenge them as conditions and the pursuit of justice permit. Anarchists work to eliminate subordination. They focus on political power, economic power, power relations among men and women, power between parents and children, power among cultural communities, power over future generations via effects on the environment, and much else as well. Of course anarchists challenge the state and the corporate rulers of the domestic and international economy, but they also challenge every other instance and manifestation of illegitimate authority.

In other words, in order to apply anarchist logic we don't need to have a near perfect embodiment of an anarchist society, nor do we need to say we're perfect representatives of anarchism. Yes, distinctions can be made here and there, and arguably should be -- but that's more a matter of hair-splitting, argumentative logic than practical reality.

Practical logics suggests, for example, that one form of tyranny and deception may lead to another. Here's a good example from a few years back:

...the major private generating companies (including also Duke Power, Dynergy, Mirant, Reliant, and AES) were running about 12,000 megawatts of thermal power plants at only half of capacity in order to drive up the prices by a factor of 10 or more. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) imposed price controls in July 2001, those plants returned to producing at over 90% of capacity, and the prices collapsed back to normal levels. In May 2002, memoranda from the Stoel Rives law firm in Portland revealed that Enron had deliberately engaged in deceptive and probably illegal manipulation of West Coast energy markets. These schemes had names such as "Fat Boy", "Death Star", and "Ricochet".

Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush? (ATC Privatization) - rec.aviation.piloting | Google Groups

The point here is not whether these practices were "criminal" or not, but what caused them? Authoritarianism! In this case, we had private authorities wrangling with state authorities over resources that both wished to control and be fed from. The answer to such problems? Get rid of both elite groups! Let the public decide what to do with reosurces, not some elite body.
Capitalism actually restricts people's abilities to do this, for they MUST PAY in order to have access to capitalist events and activities. Essentially, they are feudalistic overlords to whom we must pay tribute.
And they breathe down people's necks consistently, nagging and nagging: "Gimme money! Gimme money!"

However, in a freer society, if you want to do something you can generally organize toward that end without financial or social restraints. Hence, we even have the term "free" when things are free. And, if you uphold basic cooperative principles, you'll encourage other interested parties to involve their efforts and input. It's not hard to understand. While capitalists would be counting dollars and trying to cut corners and make room for overhead, an anarchist society could already be doing the next big thing -- thanks to the sheer volume of ideas within the interlocking cooperatives. I know this example gets used a lot, but anarchist Spain showed this assessment to be rather accurate, depsite thsoe who would dismiss it in knee-jerk reaction or say, "but that's just one example" -- as if the common nature of authority makes it more legitimate.

YouTube - History of Spanish Anarchism p.1

The more active participants you have in society, the more likely advancement seems. Our current society renders people anti-social. It exaggerates our more parasitic features, placing profits before people. As I often say, there is no reasonable way to defend this system, so many just try to invert reality, making it seem like I'm somehow the one coercing people and like capitalism is inherently legitimate and even "liberatory." But there's nothing liberatory about being under a general economic yoke; being lied to, ripped off and exploited by some ruling class and their underlings. Another theory is that I'm just "jealous," or some such nonsense, but that argument falls on its own sword as far as I'm concerned.

While I'm on teh subject of misconceptions, you make a fundamental mistake in saying economics and politics are separate. They are not. Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions.

My view: We should not be compelled to do things by capitalists who, in reality, utilize law in order to prop up their enterprises. I say this because I don't live in a total fantasy world where capitalism means nothing but a smiley face and a "how do you do?" I think no sane person is going to say, "I want to pay rent," or, "I want to feel like a robot in my workplace," or, "I want money to rule my life and to be a puppet of the system." But a lot of people are severely deluded by this system's ideology and reality. It's entrapment, and it needs to be be abolished for something more reasonable and egalitarian. We don't need elite groups dominating resources and divvying them out to us so long as we serve them and kiss their feet.

To keep us sucking up to them, capitalist propaganda makes economic life sound like a Disney cartoon or something -- everything's happy, happy, happy! And, in their imaginary world, skeptics such as myself would be depicted as the wicked villains, complete with dark clouds trailing us. I'm always criticized for pointing out "the dark side" and seeming like a pessimist.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Here we are back to this again. We have officially entered the world of circular argument.

You say, "If we all try really hard, we can levitate the Pentagon and make evil war go away." I say, "Levitating the Pentagon will not make war go away." You say, "War is too evil, how can you say war is not evil." I say, "I did not say war is not evil, I said we can't levitate the Pentagon, and even if we could, it would not make war end." You say, "Quit attacking me for wanting to end war." I say, "That is not what I am doing, I am simply telling you your solution will not work. I suggest that you realize war will probably never go away and that you concentrate your energies on making it as rare as is humanly possible and my opinion of the best way to do this is to do everything in your power to make sure greed is checked and world resources are more equally distributed." You say, "Quit supporting war! Join me and those who are trying to levitate the Pentagon, so that we can end war!" I say, "Crap, here we are, back at levitating the Pentagon again."

You are wearing me out, and that is very hard to do.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Here we are back to this again. We have officially entered the world of circular argument.

You're the one engaging in circular arguments -- and simplistic ones at that. The only point you make is that "anarchism cannot work." I just provided you with a decent link on how its principles have been applied, and I made perfectly reasonable arguments on how the basic principles can be applied in contemporary settings -- an argument you instantly dismiss. Anyone could point out innumerable concrete reasons why authoritarian is very, very destructive, but you'd simply dismiss them, claiming these were just special cases due to "corruption" or such overly simplistic excuses. Then you ramble on, making it sound like I'm talking about "Levitating the Pentagon" or some such nonsense. How can I respond to such a person?

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

I have done more than say "It can not work." I have supplied repeated reasons why it does not and can not work, chief among them the fact that you say yourself (over and over) that anarchy does not work because people will not adopt it and I point out the fact that that is because they do not want it. They view it as ineffective. They view it as ineffective because time and time again it has proven itself to be ineffective. I have said that, and that is a valid argument against it, and you just say, "But if they wanted it, it would work." They don't, they won't, they never will, because everytime it has been tried on any level, it fails. Failure of ability to implement is a valid reason to reject. Here are 3 reasons in can and will fail:

1) It fails in part because people naturally seek leaders. The leaders they will find will naturally seek power. Anarchy can not combat, nor stop this. That is a REASON anarchy fails. You do not refute this reason, you circle around it.

2) It fails in part because tecnology has moved beyond it's capabilities. For anarchy to work at all, it requires small groups that can deal effectively with small issues. It requires a level of concensus that can not be achieved among large groups. New York City could not pave a road on an anarchist system because you couldn't get everyone Uptown to agree to pave Wall Street's roads before their's and someone has to go first. Another REASON anarchism fails. You do not refute it, you circle around it.

3) It fails in part because you can't tell the whole truth of what it would really take to make it work: social retrogression and a large measure of human depopulation. You can't get most people to accept a solution that would require most of them to die to achieve. That is another REASON it fails. You do not refute this, you circle around it.

So, explain to me again how no one has given you any rational reasons behind why anarchism won't work. There are more, but this proves that 3 have been stated. But you know, not only have you never addressed the negating facts, you have also provided no long term functioning examples of what you claim is better. You give no positive re-enforcement to your position. So, you do not refute nor do you prove. What do you have? A failing argument. That is why you can not "respond" to me.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I have done more than say "It can not work."

Not a lot more, that's for sure. All you've done is just repeat the same myths and distortions over and over.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I have supplied repeated reasons why it does not and can not work, chief among them the fact that you say yourself (over and over) that anarchy does not work because people will not adopt it and I point out the fact that that is because they do not want it.

Ah, but here you twist words around. It is indeed true that anarchism does not work if people aren't anarchists. It doens't mean they cannot become anarchic in spirit, though.
Why don't people want it now (a rather unfair generalization, actually -- plenty of people like anarchist principles, they just object to the word "anarchism")? It's mostly because they're indoctrinated with authoritarian values which tend to be hazardous to mental health.
An anarchist view: Just because something's legal to the letter of the law, it doesn't mean it's right.
That's reasonable.
The authoritarian view: Obey.
Which is more dangerous to mental development?

Furthermore, anarchism is not like a pet that people can "adopt." In an authoritarian world, it is something they must struggle against tyranny to achieve. That's what freedom tends to entail. In my view, it also requires a society where people aren't afraid to think and express ideas freely. The powers that be don't like that, so our "education" system largely keeps certain elementary truths outside the dialgue. Most are brainwashed to be ignorant followers, to carry out orders without question (as in the military), to worship money and flags, to regard politicians as legitimate, to be selfish, to be hateful toward outsiders (unless, of course, an authority figure tells us differently, in which case we are supposed to agree). That's why authority wins, why we end up so deluded as to fight in the interests of greedy power elites and/or in the name of "God."

As for your enumerated points, none are particularly reasonable. There is no indication whatsoever that anarchist principles cannot be applied in an advanced technological setting, or that anarchism can only be applied in sparsely populated areas. The more the merrier, and certain technology might make anarchism easier (provided the technology is not being monopolized). Anarchist portions of Spain lasted and thrived as long as it did precisely because it had substantial enough numbers and industrial capacity. If they would have had more supporters, the anarchists might have succeeded even more. But one thing is clear when examining that example: As they retained greater control over their own lives, the Spanish anarchists actually did bring about innovations. Production did not cease, but actually increased. There was greater social solidarity, and education, healthcare, etc. was opened much wider to the people. They also combatted fascism. Go ahead and watch the Youtube film I provided you with a few posts back. Upon seeing it, I'm sure you would be less quick to dismiss anarchism as something that "does not and cannot work."
Anarchist ideas have also been applied in the factory recuperation movement in Argentina in recent years. Go ahead and look into that as well. Argentinians have done that out of necessity as much as anything else, revealing the practical nature of anarchist principles.

But here's something else:
It is interesting how the state can be a virtual killing machine, yet no one is supposed to say, "It does not and cannot work." Why is that? Well, as stated above, people are highly indoctrinated with authoritarian values. The state and authority in general becomes like a religion, and veering away from it in thought and action is a form of heresy. One supposedly must be crazy to realize that authority creates the vast majority of the world's ills -- even if this is illustrated in page after page in human history. Propaganda and brainwashing works.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

So, anyone who does not agree with you is simply the victim of brainwashing and propaganda? That sounds familiar...ummm, where have I heard that kind of logic before? Let me see? Oh, yes...that was why the Leninists needed the dictatorship, why the Maoists needed the cultural revolution thingy and why the Khmer Rouge needed the killing fields. All that capitalist propaganda and brainwashing. Not because their ideas weren't good, but because others were too stupid to see how they were being misled. Let me join right up with you then. When do we get to start shooting people?

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, anyone who does not agree with you is simply the victim of brainwashing and propaganda? That sounds familiar...

What you went on to say sounds familiar. I don't recall saying a single thing favoring Leninists, Maoists or the Khmer Rouge -- who were not anarchists. Those groups only prove the danger of authoritarian brainwashing. I should also mention that those deluded groups weren't the only ones out shooting people.
On that note, there is much propaganda
warfare and disinformation out there. I'm not going to pretend that's not significant in shaping public opinion.

However, as far as I'm concerned, brainwashing does not belong to an anarchist society.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa What you went on to say sounds familiar. I don't recall saying a single thing favoring Leninists, Maoists or the Khmer Rouge -- who were not anarchists. Those groups only prove the danger of authoritarian brainwashing. I should also mention that those deluded groups weren't the only ones out shooting people. On that note, there is much propaganda warfare and disinformation out there. I'm not going to pretend that's not significant in shaping public opinion. However, as far as I'm concerned, brainwashing does not belong to an anarchist society. Grandpa h.

As far as Lenin was concerned, he was fighting brainwashing. As far as Mao was concerned, he was fighting brainwashing. As far as Pol Pot was concerned, he was fighting brainwashing. That is my point entirely. They did not feel they were doing the brainwashing and did not feel brainwashing had any place in a communist system. So, saying "as far as you are concerned" means nothing. I'm saying that absolutest solutions like communism and anarchy lead to these kind of abuses. When your worldview tells you that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or brainwashed, you are a short step from forced "re-education". It may not be what the ideal seeks or originally intended, but it is an outcome that is just as "inevitable" as "authoritarian violence".

You seem to constantly misunderstand my beliefs. I lean towards the Hindu/Buddhist idea that there are "many paths to God". One should take truth where one finds truth. Just because I reject the totality of Anarchist principle does not mean I reject every idea whithin the "canon". You imply that because I do not believe that an Anarchist system would work, then I reject the idea that people should be allowed any freedom at all. You imply that because I do not believe that wages equal slavery, then I believe that people must be slaves to their wages. None of these things are an accurate representation of how I think. But, because you are absolutist in worldview, you will probably just continue to insist that I am evil and support evil, which brings us back to the OP. That is why you come across as a Conspiracy Theorist.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 As far as Lenin was concerned, he was fighting brainwashing. As far as Mao was concerned, he was fighting brainwashing.

So, because I'm "fighting brainwashing" it somehow equates me with Lenin and Mao? I'm just trying to understand your point here.

Grandpa h.