The Anarchism Thread; or, "Catch this (Red?) flower!"

Seth Kanahoe wrote:



It's always convenient to describe your political ideology in terms of what wonderful results you expect it to produce. From an operational viewpoint, it is very clear that free enterprise Capitalism has come closest to achieving the above political objective of any of the systems we've seen in the last several hundred years.

In RL, the Internet is probably the closest analog to a structure which has no governing body. Certainly no one coerces you to connect to the Internet, and there is virtually no oversight as to what is posted where, or what use people make of the medium.

The result of this lack of "government" is a medium rife with spam, worms, viruses, phishing and many other unsavoury practices. This is yet another facet of Gresham's Law, the financial observation that bad money drives out good.

That is why you cannot have a society without some form of government, and to be effective government must have coercive powers, and preferably a monopoly on those coercive powers. If the government had no ability to apply a coercive sanction when a law is broken, there would quickly be a situation where significant numbers of people paid no attention to the laws. That would be followed by greater and greater reliance on individual coercive action (got a good supply of guns and ammunition?) and inevitable chaos.

In SL, if you wanted to approximate anarchy, you would have an environment with NO TOS. Any activity would be allowed, including vandalism, cheating, revealing personal information, intimidation, etc. How much fun would that environment be? How long before anyone with constructive ideas left, and only the griefers remained?

Sorry, Seth, describing a Utopia and claiming that is what Anarchy would produce is not at all convincing. In SL, we see a model of how a minimalist governmental structure can work. However, even that example is limited since all that you place at risk is your time and whatever financial sum you freely chose to spend in the game.

Sorry, Ferren, you misunderstood. As I have repeated now in these forums for perhaps a dozen times, I am not an anarchist. I was trying to describe what anarchy is. Many people believe anarchy is akin to chaos, or the total absence of rule and order. Not true, as I and others have argued.

I did make the statement that while I did not believe that anarchy - accurately defined - could work under current RL conditions, it might have a better chance of existing in SL. But that's hardly a ringing endorsement of anarchism as a utopian solution to the world's ills, RL or SL.

As for your criticism of anarchy, I'm afraid it's based on the same tired misconceptions that others have asserted in this forum. Misconceptions that a number of people, myself included, have pointed out. Again - anarchy is not a society "without some form of government." Goverment in an anarchist political culture would not lack "coercive sanctions." Anarchy would not lead to "inevitable chaos" because an anarchist political culture is based on the rule of law and has defined enforcement mechanisms and a system of justice.

And for those who might read this and immediately jump to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me say two things:

One, read about anarchism. Read the anarchists themselves, and see what they say.

And two, just because I suggested that reading about anarchism is the best way to know something about anarchism, doesn't mean I'm an anarchist.

Coo ya?

I'm going to start out immediately by apologizing for what I am sure will bring attacks on my intellect and education.

Seth, I'm a political science major (I know, I know, one of those opinion filled college students), and I actually had to take a class titled "Utopia" The class was basically the examination of the elements required to acheive what would be called a "utopian society". During the course of this class, the what ifs of each type of government there is out there were examined, including anarchy. I had to read several passages by anarchists, and in doing so I realized that I had been operating under a misconception of what anarchy truly was.

I'm not an anarchist, but as I read more, I understand more, so I guess I can see and support your point of view at its core, even if you do sound a little pompous and use big words.

Realistically, I don't think that anarchy would work in either SL or RL, but I did want you to know that I, unlike the majority agree with you to a certain point. But then again, I don't know how much you value the college student's point of view.

Ugh, too much college. Yeesh, get a job. Get a haircut, too. Hey, here's $10...

Honestly, while you may not *be* an anarchist if you portray anarchism in a positive light, you are *going soft on* anarchism and that puts you in their camp, intellectually, and politically. It's being a fellow-traveler. Going soft on, and celebrating anarchism, is a manifestation of some sort of leftist sectarian belief system -- it's just a question of Seth coming clean on what it is. He may continue to play around with his name-dropping and sectarian maneuverings but it doesn't prettify things.

Whatever somebody reads in college about how "anarchism got a bad name" needs to keep reading *after* college and read some of the more grown-up books with real-life accounts and analysis in them, oh, I dunno, books like "The Gulag Archipelago".

What's troubling about the fetishizing or prettifying of these pernicious ideologies is their dressing up then to take them online. If we're going to call government "coercive" by nature, as Ferren has done, well, then all manner of sectarian, utopian, dangerous, and just plain idiotic ideologies and bound-up belief systems come in the door.

I guess you've never had to spend even a day in a country with a government that really was coercive, a Russia, a China, a Nigeria, to get the difference about governments that aren't that way by nature, giving the lie to the misportrayal of government in that fashion.

You've obviously never had to deal with non-state actors, be they terrorists or criminals, who take over states, through corruption, through war, through sectarian, violent movements, and yes, through anarchy. Anarchy is totalitarianism's best friend.

We don't have anarchy in SL. We aren't getting it any time soon. And when the SL technology is "freed" to the "open source" I think we need to exercise some grave caution that open-sourcing won't=closed society, i.e. the proliferation of all sorts of totalitarian ideologies in new clothing.

A government need not be coercive. It can be protective. That the US government is coervice when it does heinous things like invade Iraq doesn't subtract from its basic working philosophy and reality of being "by and for the people" (trying living in a situation where that isn't the case to get a briefing on that if you're having troubles.)

When the "federal government" of SL operates, it is generally not to be coercive. It is not god-mode Linden Lords force-porting us all over and force-feeding us rules and lessons and good behaviour. It's Lindens behaving as kind of guardians or custodians or gardners of the space, making sure that the few who *do* use coercion -- griefers, shooting off weapons, haters, shooting of their mouths, etc. -- do not create un-freedom for others.

The coercion that happens in SL is mainly from minorities of players who inflict griefing, hate, sexism, sexual harassment, weapons, lagging, etc.

Coercion generally doesn't emanate from LL, although there are some policies it has which one may disagree with, ie the whole M and PG thing.

SL is also subject to certain "laws of nature" like RL. Its "laws of nature" consist of things like prim limits.

By giving government a bad name, a handful of anarchists or those celebrating anarchism from some leftwing sectarian agenda can ensure that players don't develop minimal protections, available even from the LL "federal government," and then they can insert themselves as guiders, and "advance guard" and all the rest, like the Bolsheviks.

No thanks.

Emma Goldman is not my role model for SL or any life. Whatever achievements she represents, whatever the value of dissent, her sectarian ideology, like that of other later Bolsheviks, is about "end justifies the means". That's what's wrong with such ideologies, and why they can't have a place here -- they mean unfreedom.

Seth Kanahoe wrote:



I was trying to put the comments in a way that would not make the presumption you were supporting anarchy - I have gone on the assumption you have thrown out the comments, in a somewhat provocative way, to get a good discussion going.

But the key point remains: I greatly discount any writings focused on how wonderful the results of some proposed political system will be. I fundamentally believe that human nature drives political systems; not that political systems drive human nature. The propagandists assume the latter - if you come up with the right political system, all those unfortunate and negative human characteristics will disappear. Instead, I am looking for descriptions that are based on how a system will deal with and surmount greed, venality, criminality and plain nastiness. Those characteristics will always be with us.


Prokovfy Neva wrote:



"Coercive" is used in the sense of a system which will apply sanctions, including force, for failure to comply with laws. The U.S. government clearly falls under that category - just try not paying your taxes or importing prohibited substances for an example of how coercive the government can be.

However, the word you were probably looking for is "repressive". A repressive government is one which bends the laws to get its way, which uses excessive or extra-legal force to impose its will, and which is not subject to control by the majority of citizens. All governments are coercive, but not all are repressive.

Does that clarify the issue for you?

What big words did I use? "Coo ya"? It's Jamaican rasta for "look, yes?" Another way to put it is "Ya sight me, mon?"

You say I'm pompous and use big words? Aw, what can I say? Why, only this:

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahato, Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart

So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters
So all right no contest we'll order lobster
For we know we need each other so we better call the calling off off
Yes, Let's call the whole thing off....

I don't know why you're apologizing to me for being a political science major or having a college education. I happen to like political science majors, college students, and college graduates. I would never apologize for my own education, nor my own RL work in my discipline. Anti-intellectualism is rampant in these forums, and certain people may find pride in the arrogance of their ignorance, but it doesn't mean that other people should shut up, hide, or apologize.

So keep your sword sharp, go forth and crush your enemies, drive them before you, and listen the sweet lamentation of their women, yes?

And I'd like to point out that anyone who can put Louis Armstrong together with Conan the Barbarian and Bob Marley in the same post deserves to be a little pompous from time to time.

I know I didn't read the whole thread *peeks around* but I just wanted to mention about anarchism, there is an historical cultural litterary reference to one that was a utopia, and the reason why it worked in the novel was because of General Semantics, one of the brainier classes you didn't take in college, actually I bet at least someone on this thread knows what I mean.

The World of Null-A (and it's sequal)
by A. E. Van Vogt

*paints fingernails* ok, discuss amongst yourselves...

Good enough for me, Ferren. I'd only make the point that political systems are like "technology" to influence human nature - or ideas, emotions, ritual, behavior, and even memory. So political systems try to drive human nature because that's their purpose. It's a synergistic relationship - human characteristics define political systems and political systems attempt to redefine or maintain acceptable human characteristics.

Doesn't often work too well.

and


Uncle Joe Stalin, justifying the pogrom against Russian, German, and Polish intellectuals, Jews, counterrevolutionaries, and western revanchists before the Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935:

"Comrades, I speak to you honestly: While you may not be a fascist, or corporatist, or counterrevolutionary anarchist, if you speak positively about some of their ideas and accomplishments, you are [/I]doing them a service.[/I] And that means you have befriended our enemies, politically, intellectually, socially. And that, comrades, is a crime you cannot justify."[/I]

Prokofy,

I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful
Like a rainbow....

Of course we're perfectly justified in discussing any sort of system that might work to promote order and profit in SL, or in deciding that no system is needed at all. To constantly bring down derision on the heads of those who do - terrorist, leftist, French, and "college students" - as you call them, is the telling characteristic of a person who sees the world monochromatically, perhaps in vivid shades of red....

There are many kinds of bigots.

Uncle Joe Stalin, justifying the pogrom against Russian, German, and Polish intellectuals, Jews, counterrevolutionaries, and western revanchists before the Seventh Congress of the Communist International in 1935:

"Comrades, I speak to you honestly: While you may not be a fascist, or corporatist, or counterrevolutionary anarchist, if you speak positively about some of their ideas and accomplishments, you are doing them a service. And that means you have befriended our enemies, politically, intellectually, socially. And that, comrades, is a crime you cannot justify."

Prokofy,

I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful
Like a rainbow....

Of course we're perfectly justified in discussing any sort of system that might work to promote order and profit in SL, or in deciding that no system is needed at all. To constantly bring down derision on the heads of those who do - terrorist, leftist, French, and "college students" - as you call them, is the telling characteristic of a person who sees the world monochromatically, perhaps in vivid shades of red....

There are many kinds of bigots.

I wasn't apologizing to you, I was apologizing to hopefully head off the mean people on these forums. I love being a political science major and i love discussing politics, both RL and SL. I'm just kinda timid. Haven't gotten my sea legs.

I called you pompous b/c there seems to be a little bit of animosity towards your provactive opinions. Especially when you supposedly promote anarchism in SL. But I didn't really mean it. Or maybe I did...

And I hate lobster. and Scallops for that matter. Love potatoes though.

Thanks for the encouragement though, I really don't know how to handle myself on these forums. So thanks for being nice to me.