WWW.UNCOUTH.NET



	home - forums - merchandise - submit - about - credits - register

life

"Cooperation, not competition"
2/23/2004 - 14:02:33
By fritts

An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell them what to do. -A. Hennacy

Ammon Hennacy, a Catholic anarchist pacifist, said, “What good are laws? Good people don’t need ‘em and bad people don’t follow ‘em.”

Laws, in plain fact, create crime. Until something is illegal, it is not a criminal act. Politicians speak of stopping crime. There is a simple solution: Repeal all laws - there will be no crime.

In truth, laws are not meant to stop crime; but to regulate behavior. This in an impossible feat, as moral behavior cannot be legislated. It must come from a desire to work cooperatively with one another, instead of competitively, against or ‘for’.

Our society has been rooted in competition for thousands of years. The eventuality of this competitive ideology is greed, or the desire to hoard more resources than one needs. Greed has in turn, led to immeasurable damage to Earth and humanity.

The “security” we feel in having hoarded personal wealth is a myth. As long as one person has something that other’s don’t, there is no security. When resources are held in private, we constantly struggle against one another to control them. Whether it’s robbers, merchants with useless products, Religious evangelists, or the State, someone will always be trying to take some of what you have acquired. This concept applies not just to the wealth of money, but to all forms of private property. Security comes with sharing, and equality.

The notion that we must compete is absurd, and a root of many of our current society’s ills. Cooperation would end theft, unfair labor practices, environmental devastation, poverty, hunger and malnutrition. We would, at last, see the end of the daily tedium of our consumer culture.

If people were to embrace cooperation, we would find new liberty, new freedom.

We constantly say of ourselves, “The land of the free,” or, “This is a free country,” or, “We will give them freedom (implied: like we have)”. Does calling ourselves free make it so? Constant repetition makes truth… that’s the propagandists’ motto.

The freedom in this country is a freedom to obey the rules. As long as we do what we’re told is acceptable, we’re free. Is this not the same “freedom” that slaves had? Freedom to follow the rules?

Rules fix nothing.
Only education and direct action can.

annie
2004-03-08 - 13:29:55

agreed. (for the most part)
but the world is vastly undereducated. - what of that eventuality?
in comes religion to scare the masses into conformity.
why bother teaching when we can just frighten?
(sarcasm, sarcasm)

Jen
2004-03-10 - 14:46:43

Okay ... I'm going to go into a bit of a different direction, but to me... this is a perfect example of the difference between the far right and the far left.. The conservatives want to regulate what you DO. You're only allowed to marry so-n-so... If you commit such-and-such crime you have to pay with your life... The liberals want to regulate WHAT and HOW you think. You can't think homosexuality is wrong or you're a homophobe and a hateful person... If you disagree with Affirmative Action you're a racist... The whole concept of a "hate crime" is if you BELIEVE a person is inferior because she's a woman, or black, or a lesbian, and you commit a crime against her, then it's worthy of more punishment.

In which society are we really more free? If I can be ostracized from a society (I assume without laws this would be society's only recourse) because I WANT to compete for wealth, because I don't accept the social norm of cooperation, what freedoms can I possibly have? Freedom from robbery? Hmm.

We live in a society where our thoughts are arguably our most protected freedom. Speech is protected ... arguably because it is a representation of our thoughts. Freedom of religion... again, freedom to think and believe as we choose... freedom to gather (why?) to express our thoughts...

If it comes down to a crime-ridden society with a billion laws or a "flower power" type commune where I have to lock-step with everyone else's thoughts, I'd rather be robbed. Thanks anyways.

Luckily for you, we live in a society where you have the *freedom* to join such a commune. But I'm also protected from being forced to join.

airiq fritts
2004-03-12 - 07:30:38

how odd that the notion of switching the underlying tone of competition within society to a tone of cooperation is considered "controlling how people think". The obvious blind spot in this logic would be that currently, how we think _IS_ controlled; we have been told all day every day for thousands of years, that we must compete.

authoritarian governmental systems can controll thier people through brutality and violence. Within a demockracy, such as ours, the only way to controll the people is through controlling the public mind, which american media excells at.

I'm not asking for a world of thought-controll at the hands of leftist radicals. I am asking for a world free of coercion in all areas. I ask for a world free of authoritarian hiarchies telling me what is best way to live my life. I ask for a world based in mutual aid and free associations.

I'm just stating that the mind controll that we are subject too, which tells us we must compete, is a lie, established, and repeated for the benefit of a few powerful people at the top of the socio-economic stratum.

haveing a world with no rulers is obviously not going to fix all of the problems in the world. however, it means realizing that is up to each of us individually to make the world better, and not wait for someone else to come fix it for us.

No government can give you freedom. You are born free, government does nothing more than take it piece by piece, then claim to give you "rights" in an attempt to satiate your rage at domination and subjugation.

Our society is much less free than you think.

The false dilemma of our world of capitalism and domination or a "flower-power" communist state is a powerful, manipulative logical fallacy, being case-in-point for the thought-controll instituted by our society. There are many other options.

I opt for anarchy.

Jen
2004-03-14 - 04:47:07

Ok... So in your vision of a perfect society everyone cooperates with everyone else. Everyone has equal wealth so nobody is ever jealous and therefore nobody ever commits any crime (err, immoral behavior). If there's no crime, there's no need for government, so ... naturally.. anarchy is the perfect choice.

So what about families? What if one man decides his buddy's wife is better than his own? Without implying that women are propery, you've got the same issues. Since women can be envied just like a large house or a trendy outfit, men will naturally be envious of those men with the "better" women. And, as you so eloquently proposed above, a society with envy is a society with crime. So the only way to prevent rape in your society is to share women among all the men just like they are resources. And, once you do that, there's no such thing as rape anymore I'm still thinking i'd rather be robbed by someone breaking a law than raped by someone in a crime-free soceity.

I think, perhaps, that the motivations that drive people to commit crime -- i.e. crime as we think of it today -- is a lot more complicated than you've admitted so far. I think it's a combination of a desire for wealth, a desire for respect, a desire for acceptance, for a sense of accomplishment. Some do it to right what they believe is a bigger wrong. Some do it because they believe they are too intelligent, important, or lucky to ever get "caught". My point is, that even if you knock out one or two of these motivations through socialist anarchy, you won't remove them all. And you'll remove society's standing resource for dealing with people who make criminal choices..

I think you live in a society with many more freedoms than you realize. You have the freedom to come on this website and say we would all be better without our current form of government. In some places, the people would imprison you for saying such things. You're allowed to give up all your worldly possessions and move out to your own Walden Pond (granted, you have to pay taxes, but assuming you have no income, well...)

I've just got to remind you that this government we have in this country is "by the people". We as a society CHOSE our current system of government for ourselves. The idea that we are born completely free is absurd.. Absolute freedom is impossible. How can I be born with both the freedom to own property and the freedom to take someone else's? We as a people agree to give up some freedoms in return for a protection of others.

And by all means, don't misunderstand me. I have a lot of respect for you.... taking up this position and arguing the way you have done. But you gotta' realize... Women in Switzerland couldn't vote until the 1970's... Women in Kuwait still can't.. Don't take all you've got for granted.

bipolar aurora
2004-03-22 - 06:57:13

First of all, anarchism isn’t a political system, it’s a state of being; a state of lawlessness through the act of chaos. It defines the absolute randomness of space and time in such a way that it’s hectic being results in the utter perfection of its environment.

Anarchy therefore is human nature: if there is envy, if there is greed, if there is ignorance, violence, murder, hatred, bigotry and disease, than so be it – that is the way of things, and not even an instilled governmental system to regulate our, ‘socio-economic’ behavior, will ever change that. Be them controlled under the acts of one, or under the acts of many, there will always be errors, and there will always be a down side to an up. Just keep in mind, that there is reason for the acts of others, and when that reason is found and solved, there is no longer a route cause to your problem.

One of the things I am sick and tired of hearing however, is how ‘free’ this country really is. One may have the right to speak there mind within North America – which is the truth, but will involve repercussions if you say something that others don’t want to hear – but in Africa you have the right to smoke pot, a right that we are neglected by law to do in America, but still do within shrouded secrecy to one another. And so Americans smoke pot in secret, and Africans speak there mind in secret, while I sit and live in secret because I legally have to.

A quote comes to mind when dealing with issues like this: “Fear of this country comes from nothing but the fear of living someplace worse.” And it is true in a lot of respects – our society is based on fear, and because of that, we are easily assimilated into the mentality that, Hey, at least we have some rights; at least we aren’t China and can have more than one child without having to even bother worrying about what gender the child will be, so we won’t have to put up with the choir of killing it if it’s a girl. Besides, if you don’t like America, than it’s your God Given Right to buy a plane ticket for over inflated prices, to go anywhere else but here – and Cuba, because they’re just a bunch of communist fucks and you don’t wanna go there anyway, nuh uh.

I could go on, but I don’t really give enough of a shit about it to. There are no right answers and there are no wrong answers: only morals. Morals that we can not let go of, proving to us daily that we are all hypocrites and liars. And no amount of education or insight will ever stop you from feeling what you want to feel. Because if you still have a problem with the death penalty being applied to a man that you would just assume kill yourself, or if you think medicine is still good, even though you know plagues and illness are necessary to keep from over population – than you will never be any better than the system you are a part of.

Anonymous
2004-03-22 - 17:02:03

The difference is here in the US we've voted to make pot illegal... whereas in Africa, nobody got to vote to take their free speech away. That's a pretty big difference.

Airiq Fritts
2004-03-22 - 17:25:54

1- Bipolar Aurora:

Anarchism is very much a politcal theory. It has nothing to do with chaos. It is very clearly defined in the works of it's founders, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc. Like other anti-capitalist political or economic theories (socialism, communism...), Anarchism has been misconstrued and demonized by capitalist media to the point where many people don't have any understanding other than 'it's bad' or 'it's nice, but it'll never work'. The perversion of Anarchism continues, as it becomes equated with violence, terrorism, and chaos. Please, read the basic foundations of the theory before declaring what it "is". Anarchism has nothing to do with "no rules"... it means "no rulers", which is entirely different.

2. Jen-

i agree with your first paragraph, but have problems with the second.

Association between people must be entirely voluntary.

Anarchism is a theory of Anti-Authoritarianism. Rape is an extreme example of authoritarian action, and diametrically opposed to anarchism. No person should force any action upon another. Rape is entirely unacceptable.

You speak of "sharing women"... i think you're halfway there..
everyone is shared with one another, as much as they individually choose to be. Monogomous relationships only last as long as BOTH parties choose to remain monogomous. One person cannot make the decision to keep the another from "cheating". And no one has the right to tell another person who they can or can not spend time with, have sex with, be intimate with etc.

The fact is that women are not objects, and are free to make every choice regarding thier own lives and bodies. In the context of my original essay, we should not be competeing against one another for controll of people or any resource.

We should cooperate for the benefit of all, not compete against one another for the benefit of the small minority known as The Ruling Class.

Cooperation = Everyone Wins.
Competition = One winner.

-
I think it's a presumptuous statement to say we are more free than i think.

I agree, we have the "freedom of speech" garunteed by our government. This is without any doubt, the most precious right we have. I would die for the right of Nazi's, Fascists, Communists, Capitalists, or anyone else, to be able to speak freely.

But having freedom of speech does not mean that everything else is peachy-keen. We cannot, as often is done, simply say that because we have the right to complain, there is nothing to complain about.

As for the bit about government "by the people".. remember what Thomas Jefferson had to say in the Decleration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson
2004-03-22 - 17:26:37

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Bipolar Aurora
2004-03-23 - 07:41:11

I think you misunderstood me. I am not speaking of a chaotic destruction and terrorization of the people through an anarchistic suite of ‘no morals,’ ‘no laws.’ Rather, I am speaking of a chaos in which places an inherent unpredictability as to the behavior of a natural system.

I made my previous post as an opportunity to raise another facet of anarchism that does not define itself by a political genre. While you talk of Bakunin’s founding of social and political theories, there are still others that believe in a natural, primitive form of existence that works off the ‘chaotic’ leniencies of everyday life.

I am speaking of primitive anarchism: the belief that anarchism is human nature; a social theory that takes humans back to tribal communities through the degeneration of our modern day social/political/economic systems.

For example: Thousands of raindrops falling into the ocean, creating thousands of more tiny splashes upon its surface – that is chaos. A tree getting hit by lightning and catching afire and reducing it to a charred stub in the ground – that is chaos. Waking up in the morning and wondering if this is the last day of your life, or just the beginning – that is chaos. The crumbling of a civilization to a vast ruin, only to be retaken by nature as plants and animals begin to grow in the midst of collapsed buildings and toppled bridges – that is chaos.

I’m just playing devil’s advocate here now.

airiq fritts
2004-03-24 - 10:13:17

i'm sorry, i did misunderstand you.

however, although i agree with much primitivist theory, i do object to calling it anarchism. i feel that it further changes the connotation of the word which represents the original political theory, thus causing further confusion within the milieu as well as the general public. most share the same ideas, that people can work together instead of against one another; some distinction must be made between syndacalism (anarcho-communism), primitivism, green anarchism, and all the other sub-genres of anti-authoritarian philosophy.

i am guilty of not clearly defining what i mean when i say "i opt for anarchy". i believe my views fall in with eco-syndaicalists.

Mouse
2004-04-24 - 15:13:16

I suppose it would be nice to have no laws. The dream of a utopia, where laws and rules wouldn't be necissary. However I can't help feeling they are.
It's the never ending story of.. control vs. mass histeria.
It's perfectly true. Rebellion is in human nature. If someone tells us not to do something we feel the incessant urge to do exactly the opposite. So since laws tell us not to do something, many politicians feel that getting rid of laws will remove the desire to break them. Therefore ending crime on it's own.
However, there's the other side, without laws, it only makes it that much easier to commit wrongs. Because there is no resistance.
A utopia would be nice, if society were perfect and all thought on the same level. Yet we don't. With or without laws, crimes Will be commited. It's inevitable. It's the human condition. And the majority can control the need to rebel. But for those who don't, they will be reckless, laws or not. We can't have a Utopia no matter how hard we try. At least with Laws and boundries, we can maintain some sort of standard control preventing chaos and histeria everywhere.
In the aspect you mentioned. Serving under law. We are slaves to restrictions of law. But law only classifies right and wrong. It's a guideline to help society. That isn't slavery at all. It's millions of people with one goal in mind, and that goal is peace.

Mouse
2004-04-24 - 17:19:45

And to add to that,
"What good are laws? Good people don't need 'em and bad people don't follow 'em."
I think that is true, however, without Law's the determination as to good and bad people is gone too. Without Laws the distinguishing feature between good and bad, is no longer strongly defined.

add a comment

Name:

Comment:

viewed...:
One Nation...Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All

Disclaimer

You Slut!

The Age of Hedonistic Relationships

The Lesser Vessel

Copyright 2001-2002 Uncouth Network. All material is owned by the individual author and may not be reproduced without his/her consent. Any references to copyrighted or trademarked material is not designed to be an infringement. If you feel a copyright or trademark is being violated, please contact the .