In addition to the stolen merchandise, they are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the building from looters. My understanding is this wasn't a great area to begin with. I'm sure it is being discussed.
One small quibble, that isn't anarchy. A settler subsistence farming on land he cleared himself is anarchy.
This is a large, coordinated group of people with leadership and direction seizing the property of others for "redistribution" because they believe all property belongs to the collective. This is communism.
Anarchy is extreme individualism. An individual may do terrible things under anarchy, but a large coordinated group of people doing terrible things together requires extreme collectivism which is the literal opposite of anarchy.
What do you perceive to be the difference? In absence of government the only restrictions on the behavior of the individual are physical limitations and their own personal sense of morality.
As more and more external restrictions are placed on the individual for the alleged good of the collective, we move down the spectrum from individualism to collectivism.
To govern oneself is individualism. Anarchy is the extreme where there is no choice but to govern oneself.
My point is that they're not self governing. They are being governed. This is coordinated collectivism in action. This is what large scale communism looks like every time it erupts. This is what "law" looks like under extreme collectivism - What the collective wants, it takes, and what it can't take it destroys. This isn't just a riot, it's an attempted revolution. I'm not making that up, they're chanting slogans and carrying signs that say as much.
To call this anarchy makes two huge mistakes. Firstly, you imply that they aren't being directed and coordinating their actions. It's a variant of the "lone wolf" argument that fails to address the full scope of the threat.
Secondly, the concept that anarchy automatically equals chaos is borne of the lie that only powerful government can restrict the actions of the individual and keep the collective safe. It implies that individuals NEED government to keep us from acting like animals.
When government is allowed to present itself as the sole enforcer of morality, then government gets to decide what is or isn't moral. More specifically, whichever oligarchy of individuals is currently ascendant gets to decide what is or isn't moral according to their own desires.
This is why communist governments always seek to control or destroy religions early in the process. Religions are competition for the right to define desirable or undesirable actions as moral or immoral.
We agree on more things than my contribution to the discussion will imply...
Where I have trouble seeing things the way you've stated them is in the assertion that this is what organized collectivism looks like. Is a sheep following orders and organization when they follow the herd? I'd say they are just following... If they were showing more organized, then yeah
While it does seem accurate to say that this is exactly what communist uprisings look like, I think it also seems accurate to say that a communist uprising rides on the coattails of anarchical revolt, which is what this is. In other words, the uprising is the part where anarchy plays a temporary role.
Maybe you can improve my understanding on this. I'd like to think of Anarchy as a solvent ideology, but I haven't arrived at that logical conclusion yet for myself. I think in the most high trust of societies I can see it... but in a society where everyone feels opposed to each other, I see chaos, violence, crime as the inevitable end result.
EDIT: This is really long, so I understand if you don't feel like reading it all, but I think it's good. Either way, thanks for the conversation.
I risk falling into semantics here, but I think the distinction is in the motives. An anarchist would have an ultimate goal of no government at all, while a communist is working towards replacing a current government with a different one. A true anarchist doesn't want to govern others any more than they want to be governed by others. Though I totally agree that communist revolutionaries use claims of anarchy to foment revolution.
A sheep following the herd, may believe that the whole herd as a collective is choosing its direction, but in reality the entire herd is being led by the decisions of a select few. That few may just be the most ambitious sheep, a loving shepherd, or a pack of wolves, but in any case being led implies leadership. Though in the case of communist revolution, perhaps the best metaphor is the slaughterhouse and the Judas goat. The sheep in the back of the line truly believe they're just following the other sheep, but that doesn't change the reality of who's controlling their destiny.
I guess my ultimate point is that the violent, opportunist thugs on the ground may think of themselves as anarchist, but only because they've been lied to by the people leading them. The people fomenting chaos fully intend to rule when the smoke clears. Rioters are the ultimate "useful idiots" who would end up against the wall should the revolution actually succeed.
I think you hit on the key point with the phrase "a society that feels opposed to each other". If an individual is ruled by their emotions, then anyone who can manipulate the individual's emotions rules the individual. So who is making them feel opposed to each other and how? It is a strong sense of membership to a collective that allows these individuals to be so easily manipulated. The inciting lie in this instance is not that a policeman killed an individual, but that The Police Collective attacked the Black People Collective at the behest of the White People Collective.
A real anarchist wouldn't think of themselves as a member of a group, because group implies government. Of course, that's ALWAYS the big lie of collectivism. They SAY "the people" this and "the community" that as though it's different from government, but invariably, in practice it's just another oligarchy of a privileged few who get to decide what is or isn't "for the people". Ultimately, the collective exists as a mask to hide a government from the governed which is why they love to call themselves anarchists even while they attempt to implement the most brutal of totalitarian regimes.
As for the solvency of real anarchy, my first comment is basically it. The isolated subsistence farmer tending land he cleared himself like the early settlers of the west. No practical interactions with external government at all. Totally self -directing and self-reliant. Also, totally bearing the full brunt of any consequences for individual failures and at the mercy of luck good or bad.
The fatal flaw in anarchy is that it doesn't scale up. The more people involved, the more anarchy must change into some form of government in order to arbitrate the inevitable disagreements. That doesn't mean that it has to devolve into chaos and brutal totalitarianism though. In the case of the old west, it often evolved into rugged individualism with minimal government to arbitrate disagreements, small police forces that only got involved in the most serious matters, and a strong focus on individual liberty and property rights.
Of course that was largely a population of people that shared similar Christian morals to start with. So whether anarchy leads to rampant chaotic immorality is determined by what kind of morality the individuals have in the first place, but the same is true of any government. A federalist republic is just as susceptible to moral decay as anarchy is, which is what we're all witnessing all too often these days.
Huh... I have top comment on that post.
EDIT - My comment for those who can't be bothered checking.
"Remember that Project Veritas video where the Bernie Sanders campaign manager said - "if Bernie wasn't picked at the convention the city would burn"
Well guess what happened."
I remember. Is there a link?
This should do it
Thank you!
this is so not an organic riot, this whole thing screams soros.
So this is the utopia these commies go on and on about, looks kinda shitty to me
This is also the "America as we know it" we are supposedly trying to save...
Target should close this store permanently.
In addition to the stolen merchandise, they are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to the building from looters. My understanding is this wasn't a great area to begin with. I'm sure it is being discussed.
Rioter: "Uhm excusse me ... is that organic, non-gmo, fair trade, conflict-free Kale salad?"
Nothing says "Justice" like a free 55" tv from Target.
Great plan until a few days until the food runs out and then they’ll beg for help from the police and government authorities they despise so much.
Those masks coming in handy now.
How Robin Hood of them. 🙄
One small quibble, that isn't anarchy. A settler subsistence farming on land he cleared himself is anarchy.
This is a large, coordinated group of people with leadership and direction seizing the property of others for "redistribution" because they believe all property belongs to the collective. This is communism.
Anarchy is extreme individualism. An individual may do terrible things under anarchy, but a large coordinated group of people doing terrible things together requires extreme collectivism which is the literal opposite of anarchy.
What do you perceive to be the difference? In absence of government the only restrictions on the behavior of the individual are physical limitations and their own personal sense of morality.
As more and more external restrictions are placed on the individual for the alleged good of the collective, we move down the spectrum from individualism to collectivism.
To govern oneself is individualism. Anarchy is the extreme where there is no choice but to govern oneself.
Looks to me like rioting and looting is their idea of appropriate self governance.
My point is that they're not self governing. They are being governed. This is coordinated collectivism in action. This is what large scale communism looks like every time it erupts. This is what "law" looks like under extreme collectivism - What the collective wants, it takes, and what it can't take it destroys. This isn't just a riot, it's an attempted revolution. I'm not making that up, they're chanting slogans and carrying signs that say as much.
To call this anarchy makes two huge mistakes. Firstly, you imply that they aren't being directed and coordinating their actions. It's a variant of the "lone wolf" argument that fails to address the full scope of the threat.
Secondly, the concept that anarchy automatically equals chaos is borne of the lie that only powerful government can restrict the actions of the individual and keep the collective safe. It implies that individuals NEED government to keep us from acting like animals.
When government is allowed to present itself as the sole enforcer of morality, then government gets to decide what is or isn't moral. More specifically, whichever oligarchy of individuals is currently ascendant gets to decide what is or isn't moral according to their own desires.
This is why communist governments always seek to control or destroy religions early in the process. Religions are competition for the right to define desirable or undesirable actions as moral or immoral.
We agree on more things than my contribution to the discussion will imply...
Where I have trouble seeing things the way you've stated them is in the assertion that this is what organized collectivism looks like. Is a sheep following orders and organization when they follow the herd? I'd say they are just following... If they were showing more organized, then yeah
While it does seem accurate to say that this is exactly what communist uprisings look like, I think it also seems accurate to say that a communist uprising rides on the coattails of anarchical revolt, which is what this is. In other words, the uprising is the part where anarchy plays a temporary role.
Maybe you can improve my understanding on this. I'd like to think of Anarchy as a solvent ideology, but I haven't arrived at that logical conclusion yet for myself. I think in the most high trust of societies I can see it... but in a society where everyone feels opposed to each other, I see chaos, violence, crime as the inevitable end result.
EDIT: This is really long, so I understand if you don't feel like reading it all, but I think it's good. Either way, thanks for the conversation.
I risk falling into semantics here, but I think the distinction is in the motives. An anarchist would have an ultimate goal of no government at all, while a communist is working towards replacing a current government with a different one. A true anarchist doesn't want to govern others any more than they want to be governed by others. Though I totally agree that communist revolutionaries use claims of anarchy to foment revolution.
A sheep following the herd, may believe that the whole herd as a collective is choosing its direction, but in reality the entire herd is being led by the decisions of a select few. That few may just be the most ambitious sheep, a loving shepherd, or a pack of wolves, but in any case being led implies leadership. Though in the case of communist revolution, perhaps the best metaphor is the slaughterhouse and the Judas goat. The sheep in the back of the line truly believe they're just following the other sheep, but that doesn't change the reality of who's controlling their destiny.
I guess my ultimate point is that the violent, opportunist thugs on the ground may think of themselves as anarchist, but only because they've been lied to by the people leading them. The people fomenting chaos fully intend to rule when the smoke clears. Rioters are the ultimate "useful idiots" who would end up against the wall should the revolution actually succeed.
I think you hit on the key point with the phrase "a society that feels opposed to each other". If an individual is ruled by their emotions, then anyone who can manipulate the individual's emotions rules the individual. So who is making them feel opposed to each other and how? It is a strong sense of membership to a collective that allows these individuals to be so easily manipulated. The inciting lie in this instance is not that a policeman killed an individual, but that The Police Collective attacked the Black People Collective at the behest of the White People Collective.
A real anarchist wouldn't think of themselves as a member of a group, because group implies government. Of course, that's ALWAYS the big lie of collectivism. They SAY "the people" this and "the community" that as though it's different from government, but invariably, in practice it's just another oligarchy of a privileged few who get to decide what is or isn't "for the people". Ultimately, the collective exists as a mask to hide a government from the governed which is why they love to call themselves anarchists even while they attempt to implement the most brutal of totalitarian regimes.
As for the solvency of real anarchy, my first comment is basically it. The isolated subsistence farmer tending land he cleared himself like the early settlers of the west. No practical interactions with external government at all. Totally self -directing and self-reliant. Also, totally bearing the full brunt of any consequences for individual failures and at the mercy of luck good or bad.
The fatal flaw in anarchy is that it doesn't scale up. The more people involved, the more anarchy must change into some form of government in order to arbitrate the inevitable disagreements. That doesn't mean that it has to devolve into chaos and brutal totalitarianism though. In the case of the old west, it often evolved into rugged individualism with minimal government to arbitrate disagreements, small police forces that only got involved in the most serious matters, and a strong focus on individual liberty and property rights.
Of course that was largely a population of people that shared similar Christian morals to start with. So whether anarchy leads to rampant chaotic immorality is determined by what kind of morality the individuals have in the first place, but the same is true of any government. A federalist republic is just as susceptible to moral decay as anarchy is, which is what we're all witnessing all too often these days.
Interesting thoughts. Thanks that did help - you addressed everything I was questioning.