/lit/ - Literature

>>5413009
>anything being inherently evil

top cake

No, anarchy is just stateless society.

>>5413013
>anything at all being evil

Bakunin is pretty accessible since he wrote for the masses. Most anarchist authors were like that.

>>5413020
In an objective sense perhaps, but I'm sure you can have relative evil

>>5413035
No, you can only have the perception of evil.

>>5413035
What's it relative to?

>>5413053
>implying everything isn't just 'perception'
219

>>5413054
you

>>5413056
RAW pls go

>>5413009
Stealh nomadic dispersal.

>>5413067

>>5413067
i thought it would be written 'must not fap' before i opened the pic

>>5413056
Then you mean subjective? Because I don't understand what evil relative to me means.h

If anything anarchism assumes people are better/less base animals than they really are.

>>5413079
So are you saying I have thought of a truly new idea?

>>5413077
Well, relative means to compare to something else, how else can you have 'evil' without 'good' to compare it to?

>>5413079

This.

The flaw of anarchism isn't that it sees evil where there is none; it's that it sees good where there is none. Anarchists are right that the State is inherently evil and oppressive. The problem is that the alternatives are even worse.

>>5413077
Exactly, so how am I inherently a benchmark for one or the other? Can I even be inherently one or the other? How do I tell which I am?

>>5413079
This anon gets it.

>>5413084
And good, like evil, is subjective. The only 'right' thing is to do as you please.

>>5413093
Quoted incorrectly. Phones.

>>5413084

>>5413096
So both relative (to yourself) and subjective (as you define)
I'm glad we agree

>>5413093
Do you need to label yourself beyond 'the unique' or any other description? You're not inherently anything, those are just spirits

>>5413096
Within the confines of whatever system you're subject to. Because the system that's in place is surely the system that should be in place as evidenced by the fact that it is the one in place. If another should be in place, surely that system would take the place of the current system. The only justification a system needs to exist is the fact that it is allowed to exist.

>>5413089
But we *can* be better. We have gotten better. With proper education, and a little technological help, we can achieve a better world.

>>5413105
You said relative to each other.

>>5413113
Discard that then

>>5413105
I don't really subscribe to dualism. Without a benchmark separate from myself I don't see how I can trust myself to say if something is something is good or evil. And I know of no such objective benchmark.

>>5413120
What is this, a spiritual maths problem? Are we giving things a good-rating of 6 and seeing how it compares to an evil-rating of 7?

Are good and evil things just waiting to be discovered, like a fossil or a piece of technology?

If you want something to be evil then it is evil, 'objective benchmarks' are just an invention to help convince yourself and others.

>>5413111
How could technology help when research and manufacturing are directly tied to the people profiting from the capitalist system?

>>5413111
>education will make everyone cooperate and be happy

>>5413130
I'm not the one that said evil is relative to something. So yes, if something is relative to something else than that means the something is either equal to, lesser or greater than that something else.

So if the values of both the something and the something else are entirely arbitrary then there is no way in any practical sense good or evil is relative to anything.

>>5413137
We've already spent thousands of years and billions of lives working towards this ideal, we might as well go all the way

>>5413145
>this is the way we've always done it !

>>5413135
don't reply to it

>>5413111
But ignorance is bliss. If we were all uneducated we'd surely all be happier. Education would only spawn idealism and idealism spawns conflict.

OP here, I suppose I should clarify.

I did not mean that everything that could exist that could be described as a society is "evil" in some objective sense. Merely that the one we have has relentless malevolence towards our common goal of not being sad all the time for no reason as an irreplaceable part and in general does not compare favorably with anything.

In any case would someone point me towards some books on either subject?

>>5413192
try this http://comparativeperspectivesoninequality.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/army-of-altruists-graeber-harpers.pdf

>>5413198
okay. what is it, though?

>>5413217
It's just an essay on morality I think

>>5413217
an article by a leading anarchist intellectual about how society stifles people's altruistic urges

>>5413009
>Anarchism agrees with me, right? Is there good material on it?
Anarchists are pro-social, mate. They're anti-state and anti-capital.

Anti-archon, not anti-society.

>>5413237
are they just saying that despite our good nature we've chosen terrible systems by accident, every time? that seems delusional.

>>5413237

>Anti-archon, not anti-society.

Except for Anarcho-Primitivists, but nobody takes them seriously.

>>5413245
The historical materialist anarchists, ie: most of them, are aware that the conditions of anarchy are socially dependent. They are just less pessimistic than [most] marxists about the role of collective subjectivity in history.

>>5413111
Technology per se does not improve things. Better bombs and more immersive entertainment do not improve things. Specific sorts of technology can improve things, but most technology is about opiate or profit.

Education is only about training people to perform duties for their superiors, and for indoctrinating the prevailing ideology. Max Stirner's conception of a new education (as outlined in The False Principle of Our Education) that would primarily be about teaching people to dissent and assert themselves as individuals, is hardly likely to pass, because it would work counter to the interests of any power which proliferates structured education.

>>5413009
Anarchism (according to Wilde, atleast) assumes people can do what they want, and that true freedom without government will lead to the full, unchained expression of the human soul, in an artistic utopia. So no, it's not saying society is evil, anarchism is saying government is evil.

>>5413081
And no, you haven't thought of a new idea whatsoever, you don't even have an idea, you've just mentioned a thought, that's it.

>>5413067
im a RAW fan but that made me laugh very hard. He has some good insight sometimes but then this picture is spot on on some of his stuff

>>5413089
you saw the Englishmen Hobbes, not all men

>>5413009
Read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, he has some very good things to say about anarchism. In fact, many anarchists were influenced by him, like Ema Goldman or contemporary "post-anarchists".
But really, his views on anarchism are pretty much essential. Also, Foucault's theory of society goes well with what you say about it, he also influenced many other contemporary anarchists. His idea, influenced by Nietzsche, is that power is evil, but not everything is power, so ideas of utopias are more than just empty reactions. He developed some strategies of how to get out of this hell into a state where all members of the herd will be free on a the greenest pastures. He can be quite sentimental, Foucault, but don't let that bother you.

⇒anarchism

You can always emigrate to Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Sierra Leone or Nigeria and experience the beautiful utopia of anarchy. They are so free of governmental control that everyone is free to torture, mutilate and murder you without ever having to fear any consequences. Ultimate freedom. What are you waiting for? Take the next plane, kid. I know you won't, because you don't really want anarchy. You're a spoilt, mentally challenged first world brat enjoying the benefits of a state that protects your rights, in particular your right to be an edgy 10 year old.

>men are evil
>therefore they should be free to do as they please with no government to set rules