NationStates Jolt Archive

Simply because we are long overdue for one I think and all the seniour Anarchists seem to be visiting less often (or possibly I have stopped noticing them). And I must stop semi-hijacking other threads to be honest.

Tired of all the abortion etc threads. So, what is your idea of what Anarchism is?

Since previous threads have had bibliographies and links I think I should at least make an effort (although most literature I have is in dead tree form and not available to me at the moment):

Infoshop FAQ (www.infoshop.org/faq/) [which doesn't seem to work for me at the moment :confused: ]

Another FAQ (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392077) [thanks to Dingoroonia]

Studies in Mutualist Political Economy (http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html)

an anarchist faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/) (same one as infoshop's but not down currently)*

infoshop (http://www.infoshop.org)*

the anarchy archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/)*

anarchy for anybody (http://a4a.mahost.org/)*

the northeasern federation of anarchist communists (http://www.nefac.net/)*

northwest anarchist federation (http://www.nafederation.org/)*

the international of anarchist federations (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/)*

the international workers association (http://www.iwa-ait.org/)*

the institute for anarchist studies (http://www.anarchist-studies.org/)*

flag! (http://flag.blackened.net/)*

and then there is z's collection of anarchist links http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htm*

Nearly forgot there is also Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml), which also has local pages (For example, where I am, Liverpool (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/)/Manchester (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/manchester/))
-There is even a Zapatista (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/zapatista/) section, however you'll probably need a decent understanding of Spanish.**


*Kindly supplied by Free Soviets
**Kindly supplied by Outer Bohemia

Well that about cover links I can remember (others would be appreciated, and for the sake of fairness I'll include decent anti-anarchist links)

Books I can remember off the top of my head are:

Anarchy - Errico Malatesta [also available ]

A very Short Introduction: Anarchism - Colin Ward

No Gods; No Masters (vols. 1 + 2)- Daniel Guerin

In Defence of Anarchism - RP Wolff

An Anarchist FAQ - Albert Metzer

Demanding the Impossible; A History Of Anarchism - Peter Marshall.

I know there are more, Such as Bakunin, Kropotkin et al, many available of the internet, I'll try and find them.

NB: If you want to say something trite like "ANACHSM IS STOPID LOL!!!" go [url=http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8025454]here (]here[/url), Fine is you don't agree with it or like it, but don't cough up statist propaganda, make it reasonable (or funny) otherwise go here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8025454).

Pvt. Stephanie, reporting for duty, sir!
Err, are you a sir or a ma'am?
Anyway, I'm here, even if I'm not a "seniour" anything.

Anyway, I'm here, even if I'm not a "seniour" anything.

Your Comrade know ;)

And I am Comrade too, and simply because I am so pleased I found out my computer has an infra red port. http://img184.exs.cx/img184/2448/picture102ol.jpg

Anarchy is an idiotic concept.

Anarchy is an idiotic concept.
Someone wasn't listening (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8025454) :rolleyes:

If you can justify it though.....

Anarchy can be solved by marijuana, its puts people in a state of Pacifism...


"Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger once
told Congress just the opposite - that it leads to non-violence and
pacifism"

I'm going to say "OMG ANARCHY IS TEH STUPID LAWLZ" in a nice way.

Anarchy has no logic behind. It would create an utter chaos if such a state existed. There must, must, must, be some authority for there to be order. It's just the way it is.

Anarchy can be solved by marijuana, its puts people in a state of Pacifism...


"Federal Bureau of Narcotics director Harry Anslinger once
told Congress just the opposite - that it leads to non-violence and
pacifism"
That was funny, but "violence" would have been better put in the beginning than "anarchy", really. Especially if you had dropped it into the middle of one of those drug-related arguments we have kicking around.
That would have been hilarious there.

Anarchy has no logic behind. It would create an utter chaos if such a state existed.

Such a claim would require evidence. Real evidence, not anecdotal.

There must, must, must, be some authority for there to be order. It's just the way it is.

There is authority, you cannot escape the fact. Authority is not intrisically bad. Provided it does coerce someone, try and control the actions of the individual it is OK.

I'll fight anyone for the legalization of marijuana hahaha,...


"The only crime most marijuana users commit is that they use
marijuana."

Such a claim would require evidence. Real evidence, not anecdotal.



There is authority, you cannot escape the fact. Authority is not intrisically bad. Provided it does coerce someone, try and control the actions of the individual it is OK.

Have you ever seen an anarchist state? Don't think so. Granted neither have I, but it's for the reason that it DOESN'T WORK. No, there is no authority in anarchy, because there is a complete absense of laws. Therefore, you could beat the shit out of someone, kill someone, rape and pillage, and you'd be a free man. Christ almighty. Does that sound good to you?

Cyrus reporting for duty!

Down with the government!

Have you ever seen an anarchist state? Don't think so. Granted neither have I, but it's for the reason that it DOESN'T WORK. No, there is no authority in anarchy, because there is a complete absense of laws. Therefore, you could beat the shit out of someone, kill someone, rape and pillage, and you'd be a free man. Christ almighty. Does that sound good to you?
yes it does, cause then I would kill you

So, a question then for Anarchists. How would a child be raised in such a society? Children need to have some level of authority otherwise, they will most likely become the biggest brats around, won't they?

children become brats because they are pampered

So, a question then for Anarchists. How would a child be raised in such a society? Children need to have some level of authority otherwise, they will most likely become the biggest brats around, won't they?
A lack of government doesn't mean a lack of parenting and education.

yes it does, cause then I would kill you

Of course, that's if I don't kill you first ;)

The principles behind Anarchy seem to be that it worked well before governments and that the current governments are inherently messed up. While I don't argue against the validity of this argument, I have another problem with Anarchism, namely that it cannot last. The fact is that people naturally form pecking orders of some sort, and over the years these can easily evolve into governments. Imagine an Anarchist state. In one localized area, someone tries to dominate others. Let's say the people force him back. To do this they must organize in some way. If these sorts of things continue and the people are not forced into Anarchism (which would be hypocritical) the mutual defence alliance will begin to work on a more permanent basis. Eventually it will go the way of the Delian League, turning into a full-fledged power structure. Thus, Anarchy cannot last. The only way to stop this is to have some outside government enforcing Anarchy. Currently I'm creating a sci-fi world where they have an Anarchist preserve that is kept free of government.

Is that logical enough for ya?

Have you ever seen an anarchist state?

Well no. For the same reason I have never seen a square with three sides though. It is impossible for one to exist

Don't think so. Granted neither have I, but it's for the reason that it DOESN'T WORK.

Really? Well tell these guys (http://www.thefec.org/) then. They haven't seemed to have noticed, nor the Zapitistas (although, I don't think they have a website, although Marcos is writing a detective story). They do work, have existed, and will continue to exist.

No, there is no authority in anarchy, because there is a complete absense of laws.

Or maybe not. To use this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authority), some of the definitions are big no-nos to anarchists, however look at 4 for example, that type of authority is ok. I'm not just being pedantic btw. I have found it is best to make sure everyone is on the same level rather then using differing definitions.

Nor are there complete absense of laws. Take the Anarcho-Communists for example, they believe that the whole community should be part of the decision making process, which yes, includes laws. But laws everyone agrees to as opposed to laws put in place to keep everyone in their station.

Therefore, you could beat the shit out of someone, kill someone, rape and pillage, and you'd be a free man. Christ almighty. Does that sound good to you?

Doesn't sound good no. Thank God serious Anarchists don't advocate that.

A lack of government doesn't mean a lack of parenting and education.

No, but it does include a great "lack of intelligence" package.

So, a question then for Anarchists. How would a child be raised in such a society? Children need to have some level of authority otherwise, they will most likely become the biggest brats around, won't they?
Well, that is why few Anarchists argue for complete lack of authority. But Anarchists are probably more optimistic in thinking the amount of time it takes for a child to be able to think for itself.

Along with what Neo-A said.


No, but it does include a great "lack of intelligence" package.

:confused:

Of course, that's if I don't kill you first ;)
correction, if somebody else doesn't kill me first, I have quite the list of people who hate me, you are not a threat. Although those that are highest on my list would suffer painfully long deaths for the rest of their short lives

:dammit, they need a twisted face smiley:

:confused:
I believe Haloman was basically saying "Anarchists are stupid".
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well no. For the same reason I have never seen a square with three sides though. It is impossible for one to exist



Really? Well tell these guys (http://www.thefec.org/) then. They haven't seemed to have noticed, nor the Zapitistas (although, I don't think they have a website, although Marcos is writing a detective story). They do work, have existed, and will continue to exist.



Or maybe not. To use this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authority), some of the definitions are big no-nos to anarchists, however look at 4 for example, that type of authority is ok. I'm not just being pedantic btw. I have found it is best to make sure everyone is on the same level rather then using differing definitions.

Nor are there complete absense of laws. Take the Anarcho-Communists for example, they believe that the whole community should be part of the decision making process, which yes, includes laws. But laws everyone agrees to as opposed to laws put in place to keep everyone in their station.



Doesn't sound good no. Thank God serious Anarchists don't advocate that.


Notice that "those guys" all have communities with populations under 100. It might be able to work on a small scale, but not in an entire country. And, still they aren't true anarchies. They must sill abide by laws set forth by the government. You presume that the entire community would want to work together and share income. Ain't gonna happen.

I believe Haloman was basically saying "Anarchists are stupid".
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pretty much. At least one anarchist is smart. Kudos.

2 entries found for anarchy.
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Oh, snap.

A lack of government doesn't mean a lack of parenting and education.

But then, if a child sees some level of authority, why won't they try in the future to bring that authority apon the masses?

The principles behind Anarchy seem to be that it worked well before governments and that the current governments are inherently messed up. While I don't argue against the validity of this argument, I have another problem with Anarchism, namely that it cannot last. The fact is that people naturally form pecking orders of some sort, and over the years these can easily evolve into governments.

Which is why communities before government are used as evidence that we aren't red eyed killers without control, but only really the primitivists can be construed as wanting to return to thing

Imagine an Anarchist state. In one localized area, someone tries to dominate others. Let's say the people force him back. To do this they must organize in some way.

The existence of an Anarchistic community presupposes a certain level of organization anyway, especially in Anarcho-Communism and the other more collectivist anarchies.

If these sorts of things continue and the people are not forced into Anarchism (which would be hypocritical)

An odd concept, but the idea of forcing someone to be free isn't Alien to some thinkers, Hegel for example, and Stirner iirc

the mutual defence alliance will begin to work on a more permanent basis. Eventually it will go the way of the Delian League, turning into a full-fledged power structure.

Unfortunetly I have never heard of the Delian League. Where would be a good place to look?

Thus, Anarchy cannot last. The only way to stop this is to have some outside government enforcing Anarchy. Currently I'm creating a sci-fi world where they have an Anarchist preserve that is kept free of government.

I don't quite get what you mean. Anarchists aren't against government per se, but imagine it in a completely different way. There would be no need for an outside government preserving an Anarchy like we do to animals in nature preserves

And on the Sci-Fi note, I would read The Dispossessed by Ursula la Guin if you haven't already, for ideas.

Ever been to Kamsack? (sp?)

Sorry to hijack the thread. I can't comprehend how an anarchist country would work, but then I don't know much about anarchy either.

For god's sake, please not another Anarchist thread.

Anarchy is stupid because no one is simply going to say, "I hate the governemnt. let us form peaceful, anti-heiarchial tribes/clans/communes and co-exist peacefully, without such government provided services as electricity, running clean water, etc..."

Notice that "those guys" all have communities with populations under 100. It might be able to work on a small scale, but not in an entire country. And, still they aren't true anarchies. They must sill abide by laws set forth by the government. You presume that the entire community would want to work together and share income. Ain't gonna happen.
Umm, has happened.

And not all Anarchists are Communistic, me for example. I am a believer in the free market.

On these communities, yes they are small. Anarchist communities tend to be, not because it is impossible to work on a large scale (Try and read Uses of Disorder by Richard Sennet), but because it is not widely followed and we cannot afford to all congregate in one place.

Yes, they must still abide by the laws of the land, but that is for survival, and does not mean that if they were granted exemption from the law they would break down overnight.

2 entries found for anarchy.
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Oh, snap.
Wow, you've found political bias in the Dictionary. Well done.

I could 'prove' Muslims are evil by citing a dictionary too. Doesn't make it true.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

That isn't a bias, because apparently it's true.

For god's sake, please not another Anarchist thread.

Don't like, don't read ;)

Anarchy is stupid because no one is simply going to say, "I hate the governemnt. let us form peaceful, anti-heiarchial tribes/clans/communes and co-exist peacefully, without such government provided services as electricity, running clean water, etc..."

What Anarchism isn't:
anti-hierarchical
anti-government.

Although frequently made claims, they are more simplifications rather then tenets of a political philosophy.

There are many way to provide basic services than through a government too.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

That isn't a bias, because apparently it's true.
I had definition two in mind at the time.

If you want true anarchy in a modern society then look at the robber barons of the 1890s to around 1920ish. Pure unrestrained free market capitalism. That is what anarchy will bring about because no one would regulate the economy or anything else at all. Power would be quickly concentrated in the hands of a few who are good enough at manipulating the lack of system and the people in it. That is basically Libertarianism.
Anarchism is supposed to be the violent destruction of the current order so that we may rebuild society into a socialist utopia.
Personally, I like the first one because honestly, I dont want anyone telling me what to do economically or socially. Sure, huge wealth and inequality gaps would occur and I may not be on top of the wealth pile, but thats where the fun begins because equality among humans is a biological impossibility. Yes that is preaching social darwinism (which isn't pc because the nazis, russian commies, imperialists, and other no no groups did that), and yes opportunity plays a large part in where you end up in life as well, but to be honest little utopian visions of a perfect and equal future can and will never occur unless all differences between people are nullified both genetically and opportunisticly. And then probably one disease would come along and wipe us all out or the genes would mutate and someone would end up on top again because that is how it happens.
So in conclusion anarchy is a stupid idea if you are concerned with fairness, but if you are concerned with a no holding back cut throat competition to see who gets the biggest part of the pile then go for it. It is the state of nature for Hobbes.

Oh and Nation of Fortune, we really dont care about you and your homicidal urges.

Excuse my lack of proper typing skills, I'm in the middle of a proect on Che Guevara.

So, apparently, Anarchy has a basic government and therefore contradicts itself?

Which is why communities before government are used as evidence that we aren't red eyed killers without control, but only really the primitivists can be construed as wanting to return to thing



The existence of an Anarchistic community presupposes a certain level of organization anyway, especially in Anarcho-Communism and the other more collectivist anarchies.



An odd concept, but the idea of forcing someone to be free isn't Alien to some thinkers, Hegel for example, and Stirner iirc



Unfortunetly I have never heard of the Delian League. Where would be a good place to look?



I don't quite get what you mean. Anarchists aren't against government per se, but imagine it in a completely different way. There would be no need for an outside government preserving an Anarchy like we do to animals in nature preserves

And on the Sci-Fi note, I would read The Dispossessed by Ursula la Guin if you haven't already, for ideas.

First of all, I'm pretty sure that Anarchy is defined as a lack of government, or at least a lack of codified bureaucracy. Small communties work because people can easily leave if they are troublesome, but in the case of an actual Anarchist state this couldn't as easily be the case. In any case, an Anarchist state would most deifinitely oppose a codified law against government because lets face it it is hypocritical. The forced to be free thing was Sartre, who was talking about the human condition, not governments. The Delian League was an alliance of Greek States that worked to mutually defend eachother from Persia. Though people could contribute money or troops Athens was the main contributor of troops which were funded by the money from the others. Eventually this became what was effectively an Athenian empire. As a final note, an Anarchist state would not, as I explained, be able to deal with an egomaniac without gaining bureaucracy or outside help. Anyways, an Anarchist preserve is a cool idea and solves the problem of how I can get even the Anarchists to like the leader of the planet I'm devising.

Anarchism is supposed to be the violent destruction of the current order so that we may rebuild society into a socialist utopia.
I haven't heard anybody say that...

Ever heard of the Haymarket bombing? Research that a little bit and anarchism during the late 1800s.

Simply because we are long overdue for one I think and all the seniour Anarchists seem to be visiting less often (or possibly I have stopped noticing them).

hey yeah, it has been awhile.

and i prefer the term 'señor anarquista'

Oh and Nation of Fortune, we really dont care about you and your homicidal urges.
I kind of figured that people wouldn't understand, if you knew what i've been through you would have a different view of me. But I'm not telling a bunch of strangers online

then why even mention it in the first place?

Goverment only arises because the people allow it. If we scrapped it all tommorow, it'd pop up again in a few days. We'll never have anarchy because most people are nihilists. They will mostly take the path of least resistence and just rationalise any transgressions against their supposed morals.

If you want true anarchy in a modern society then look at the robber barons of the 1890s to around 1920ish. Pure unrestrained free market capitalism. That is what anarchy will bring about because no one would regulate the economy or anything else at all.

One of the few thing that Anarchists have in common is anti-capitalism.

So please explain how there can be something like the Wall Street crash in a a gift economy (for example)

Power would be quickly concentrated in the hands of a few who are good enough at manipulating the lack of system and the people in it. That is basically Libertarianism.

There is a system. We are not nihilists you know.

Anarchism is supposed to be the violent destruction of the current order so that we may rebuild society into a socialist utopia.

No, that is revolutionary socialism which not all anarchist support.

eg "‘We must not suppose the revolutionary action is the means of social reform because this so-called means would simply be an appeal to force, to arbitrariness, in short a contradiction." - Proudon (The 'daddy' of Anarchism for some)


Personally, I like the first one because honestly, I dont want anyone telling me what to do economically or socially. Sure, huge wealth and inequality gaps would occur and I may not be on top of the wealth pile, but thats where the fun begins because equality among humans is a biological impossibility.

I'd love to see this proof.


So in conclusion anarchy is a stupid idea if you are concerned with fairness, but if you are concerned with a no holding back cut throat competition to see who gets the biggest part of the pile then go for it. It is the state of nature for Hobbes.


Ever think Hobbes could be wrong?

hey yeah, it has been awhile.

and i prefer the term 'señor anarquista'
Err, señor translates as mister, not as seniour.
;)

hey yeah, it has been awhile.

and i prefer the term 'señor anarquista'
Typo, sitting next to an open window. MUST KEEP CIRCULATION GOING BY TYPING.

But I'll bear that in mind

Excuse my lack of proper typing skills, I'm in the middle of a proect on Che Guevara.

No worries. I'm surprised mine aren't worse at the moment.

So, apparently, Anarchy has a basic government and therefore contradicts itself?

Or maybe Anarchism has advanced government and doesn't contradict itself.

then why even mention it in the first place?
because even though it's to personalto tell to a bunch of strangers It exxplains how I am, and mostly the reason, i'm not telling is because I don't want sympathy

BTW have you ever seen a movie called the way of the gun?

Ever heard of the Haymarket bombing? Research that a little bit and anarchism during the late 1800s.

they never really figured out who was behind the bombing. it certainly wasn't any of the haymarket martyrs. i think the current thesis is that it was a guy named george meng.

and the claim that "anarchism is supposed to be the violent destruction of the current order so that we may rebuild society into a socialist utopia" is totally at odds with the ideas of proudhon and those of many other anarchists. anarchists divide on the question of how much violence is acceptable, but on the whole anarchism and anarchists are much more peaceful than your average statist political machine.

My Dear Conceptualist,
In response I must say:

A system without rules and regulations in the market is anti-capitalist how? Just wondering but the basis of capitalism is free trade, no regulation. No government would mean inherently no regulation. Thus capitalism.

Gift economy? what is that like reciprocal altruism in hunter gather societies?

So basically your anarchism is the same as communism if it is just the withering away of government to leave a perfectly functioning society?

For the biological proof, read a text book or take a class on either human evolution or biological roots of human behavior or even just evolution in general. Humans are animals and the same rules apply.

And hobbes can't be wrong because I know that the other view, Locke, wouldnt work because im the type of person that would definitley swindle somebody out of something if it was to my benefit.

Err, señor translates as mister, not as seniour.
;)

i know. the originally intended word was 'senior'. adding the u makes it sound spanish. so i ran with it.

My Dear Conceptualist,
In response I must say:

A system without rules and regulations in the market is anti-capitalist how? Just wondering but the basis of capitalism is free trade, no regulation. No government would mean inherently no regulation. Thus capitalism.

Maybe not, for a long time the concept of free trade was putting up tariffs on import goods that would compete with local produce. That definition is closer to being the basis of Capitalism.

Capitalism decribes the process behind the production of wealth rather then the way it is distributed (hence why the USSR is described as State Capitalist, wow deja vu)

Gift economy? what is that like reciprocal altruism in hunter gather societies?

Something like that, but I'm not the best person here to explain it.

So basically your anarchism is the same as communism if it is just the withering away of government to leave a perfectly functioning society?

Not quite as simplistic as that. And I am closer to a mutualist then a communist (never good with terms and labels)

For the biological proof, read a text book or take a class on either human evolution or biological roots of human behavior or even just evolution in general. Humans are animals and the same rules apply.

Any in particular? Maybe ones with a relevent chapter, the last Biology textbook I read was for GCSE and it certainly didn't describe it.

And hobbes can't be wrong because I know that the other view, Locke, wouldnt work because im the type of person that would definitley swindle somebody out of something if it was to my benefit.

:confused:

Right, this isn't a bipolar world, and you are not the mould for everyone, or rather we didn't come from the same mould.

i know. the originally intended word was 'senior'. adding the u makes it sound spanish. so i ran with it.
Ohhh.
Okay, I get it now.

Oh, your talking about the non-tiger hobbes....
Pooee.


And Locke owns. He took over the earth.

A system without rules and regulations in the market is anti-capitalist how? Just wondering but the basis of capitalism is free trade, no regulation. No government would mean inherently no regulation. Thus capitalism.

no. time to define terms. capitalism is a system where capital is owned by a tiny elite (private ownership of the means of production) and where most people's only way of making a living is renting themselves out to the capital owning elite (wage labor). these conditions are created and maintained through the active use of state power.

if 'free trade' and 'no regulation' is what makes capitalism capitalism, then 'capitalism' has never existed on any sort of meaningful scale. at which point it does not concern anyone, as the point of being anti-capitalist is to oppose the actually existing system - whether you choose to call it capitalism or not.

Look Anarchy cant exist because with no government there is no law and order and there can be no order without some form of anarchy and visa versa. Ps. This bio dude is pretty cool :gundge:

Loke does take over but with bean at his side. BTW he fucked Petra

I ment Locke

Anarchy has no logic behind. It would create an utter chaos if such a state existed.

That's quite a claim. How about the anarchist Native Americans who lived in relatively stable societies for... what, four thousand years?

There must, must, must, be some authority for there to be order.

Sure. I'll go further... there must, must, must be some authority. Even if you tried, you could not get rid of it. Authority is usually a good thing, because authority is conferred -- people grant authority, or at least recognize it. Power... power is neither good nor bad, inherently. It depends on who uses it, for what, and how.

I ment Locke
there is a little button in the corner that says edit you know

Have you ever seen an anarchist state?
Not directly, but I haven't seen a fascist state directly either. I can, however, find historical evidence for both of them.
No, there is no authority in anarchy, because there is a complete absense of laws.
Actually, I think anarchist societies are probably more lawful than most others. What makes you think anarchists would be so foolish as to eliminate law?
Therefore, you could beat the shit out of someone, kill someone, rape and pillage, and you'd be a free man.
I doubt that. Unless you are really good at running/hiding/etc.

"That's quite a claim. How about the anarchist Native Americans..."

Uhm... I don't wanna make some stereotype, but wasn't there usually a Chief or something? And there was definately heiarchy.

How would a child be raised in such a society?
Pretty much... in the same way they have always been raised. It varies, of course, by culture... as to what family members are likely to be around, what other people, and so on. But why should the fundamental concepts of child-rearing be any different for anarchists?
Children need to have some level of authority otherwise, they will most likely become the biggest brats around, won't they?

Yes, probably. I suspect most anarchists would do a better job than too-busy too-rich parents today who just buy them whatever they want.

2 entries found for anarchy.
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Oh, snap.

#1) dictionaries are descriptive, not normative.
#2) dictionaries are, at best, summaries of usage and not complete - especially when it comes to technical and specialized usages.
#3) and if you insist on using internet dictionaries, at least use a real one. and look up the most important terms in question - in this case, 'anarchism'.

the online version of the compact oed has this to say:

anarchy
• noun 1 a state of disorder due to lack of government or control. 2 a society founded on the principles of anarchism.
— ORIGIN Greek anarkhia, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler’.

anarchism
• noun belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a cooperative basis.
— DERIVATIVES anarchist noun & adjective anarchistic adjective

A lack of government doesn't mean a lack of parenting and education.

And a lack of class power does not entail a lack of government. Every society needs government. Anarchist society just governs itself rather than allowing a ruling class to govern for all.

Anarchist 1: YEAH! ANARCHY! Down with the government! Kill Bush! Murder cops! Yeah! No Control!!!!

Anarchist 2: FUCK YEAH! NO CONTROL!!!

Anarchist: I'm so pent up with angst. I have so much anger toward this evil government! Yeah! Let's go buy beanies with a red anarchy A on them for $12.95 at Hot Topic!

Anarchist 2: …um…YEAH!

Anarchist: Goddamnit! I don't have money!

Anarchist 2: Don't worry, I just applied for a VISA Check Card. It should be here tomorrow. Until then, let's mosh to Anti-Flag!

Anarchist 1: FUCK YEAH!

~Modern Counter-Culture, a demonstration~

How do you fools thing one can have individual rights when there is practically no government to enforce them? Huh? Do you think people will just get along and that murderers will all start planting daisies? Sorry, but this dream is as pointless as the ideal of a Hippie Commune. Sorry anarchists, but humans haven't learned to not do bad stuff to other people. You're 80,000 years too early.

Loke does take over but with bean at his side. BTW he fucked Petra

No Bean slept with Petra. Bean owns too. And artificially impregnated her. But thats a spoiler.

I think that it is ironic that I am talking about the most ordered kind of government (Peter Wiggin's Hegemony) in a thread about anarchy.

Anarchist 1: YEAH! ANARCHY! Down with the government! Kill Bush! Murder cops! Yeah! No Control!!!!

Anarchist 2: FUCK YEAH! NO CONTROL!!!

Anarchist: I'm so pent up with angst. I have so much anger toward this evil government! Yeah! Let's go buy beanies with a red anarchy A on them for $12.95 at Hot Topic!

Anarchist 2: …um…YEAH!

Anarchist: Goddamnit! I don't have money!

Anarchist 2: Don't worry, I just applied for a VISA Check Card. It should be here tomorrow. Until then, let's mosh to Anti-Flag!

Anarchist 1: FUCK YEAH!

~Modern Counter-Culture, a demonstration~

How do you fools thing one can have individual rights when there is practically no government to enforce them? Huh? Do you think people will just get along and that murderers will all start planting daisies? Sorry, but this dream is as pointless as the ideal of a Hippie Commune. Sorry anarchists, but humans haven't learned to not do bad stuff to other people. You're 80,000 years too early.

Oooh, banality

Anarchy does nothing but make Governments stronger. Through anarchy dictators take power and you end up going from say a Monarchy to a vicious oppressing Dictatorship. So in the end it gains nothing except from going bad to worse or Good to bad. Deal with it, its facts.

"That's quite a claim. How about the anarchist Native Americans..."

Uhm... I don't wanna make some stereotype, but wasn't there usually a Chief or something? And there was definately heiarchy.

From my memories of Year 6 History, the Chief couldn't force you to do anything. He was followed more from habit than from law. Though my fuzzy memory has some reference to a tribe with a secret police force, but that could have been from a trip.

Anarchy does nothing but make Governments stronger. Through anarchy dictators take power and you end up going from say a Monarchy to a vicious oppressing Dictatorship. So in the end it gains nothing except from going bad to worse or Good to bad. Deal with it, its facts.

Fact generally imply evidence. If you don't have evidence it isn't a fact.

And a lack of class power does not entail a lack of government. Every society needs government. Anarchist society just governs itself rather than allowing a ruling class to govern for all.
Hmm.
You beat me, and I'm on your side too!
Damn my accidental miswordings...
(is miswordings a word? it should be)

Little did everyone know, that the Chieftan had employed his own GESTAPO to eliminate the trouble makers int he tribe.

Native American 1: I heard that the Chief fell off his horse, haha.

Native American 2: Don't say that, OR THEY'LL GET YOU!!

Native American 1: Wh- AACK!!

*Hands grab him from behind a bush and drag him away. Muffled gun shot is heard.*

(is miswordings a word? it should be)
It is now :D

Uhm... I don't wanna make some stereotype, but wasn't there usually a Chief or something?

no. it depends on the culture in question, but most na cultures either had no chief or had a chief with no power other than over certain ceremonial activities and for dealing with people outside the group. certainly no special coercive powers.

Look at History itself eh? After lenins death russia went into a sort of anarchy each faction within the Party itself warring eachother. Then later say hello to Stalin. Anarchy itself is physicly impossible as well, someone will always lead and some will always follow. Its human nature , theres natural born leaders who you will never silence and those who live to follow these people. It won't work but go ahead dream all you wish, even though in such a society you'd all be slaughtered by the person with the nice big army backing him up.

The principles behind Anarchy seem to be that it worked well before governments and that the current governments are inherently messed up.
No, the principles behind anarchism are political equality and freedom. Anarchists believe that the best society is one in which the population governs itself rather than merely "behaving" according to the rules invented by an elite ruling class.
I have another problem with Anarchism, namely that it cannot last.
Again... North American natives. Anarchists for four thousand years. Find ANY other constitution that has lasted so long.
The fact is that people naturally form pecking orders of some sort,
True, but "pecking" orders involve hierarchies of authority, not power.
and over the years these can easily evolve into governments.
Apparently not so easily, if primitive anarchies are entered into evidence. But yes, a hierarchy of authority can develop into a hierarchy of power, and anarchists must guard against this... But a democratic republic can just as easily (if not more easily) vote itself into fascism... Protecting against such decay is simply a part of political reality.
Imagine an Anarchist state.
Ooooo... pretty. :D
In one localized area, someone tries to dominate others. Let's say the people force him back. To do this they must organize in some way.
Yes, but they are already organized, and their organization does not deal lightly with trouble-makers.

On behalf of all anarchists, may I respectfully request that we debate the virtues and pitfalls of anarchism as it is presented by anarchists in the real world, rather than the fantasies of politically narrow-minded sci-fi fans?

Little did everyone know, that the Chieftan had employed his own GESTAPO to eliminate the trouble makers int he tribe.

Native American 1: I heard that the Chief fell off his horse, haha.

Native American 2: Don't say that, OR THEY'LL GET YOU!!

Native American 1: Wh- AACK!!

*Hands grab him from behind a bush and drag him away. Muffled gun shot is heard.*
The Chieftain? There were lots and lots at anyone time. Since I am not hot on Pre-Colonial America, am I meant to assume this was an exception or a rule?

Yes, THE Chieftain. Sounds like The Bishop from Monty Python.

Look at History itself eh?

Well I am taking a BA in it.

After lenins death russia went into a sort of anarchy each faction within the Party itself warring eachother. Then later say hello to Stalin.

Note to TP, learn to differentiate between the differing meaning of anarchy

Anarchy itself is physicly impossible as well, someone will always lead and some will always follow. Its human nature

1. We can all lead?
2. Define Human Nature
3. Provide proof for said nature

Gadzooks! Anarchy!

On behalf of all anarchists, may I respectfully request that we debate the virtues and pitfalls of anarchism as it is presented by anarchists in the real world, rather than the fantasies of politically narrow-minded sci-fi fans?

hear fucking hear!

hear fucking hear!
In would say hear hear, but my paranoia makes me think I may be culpable.

Notice that "those guys" all have communities with populations under 100. It might be able to work on a small scale, but not in an entire country.
First of all, their populations are in the thousands, not the hundreds. Secondly, you will get little argument from most anarchists that a reduction in the scale of politics is necessary to anarchism. Estimates vary as to how small it has to be, but generally no one anticipates an "anarchist United States." Government is "bottom-up" rather than "top-down." The primary political field is the community or region. Each of these cooperates with other regions, possibly even forming confederate-style trade and defense councils.

And, still they aren't true anarchies.
Well, there may never be a "true" anarchy, if by that you mean the complete absence of power hierarchies and state-like structures. But then again, there will never be a "true" capitalist free market or a "true" version of anything else. The point is to decide which ideal it makes the sense to strive for. The fact that none of them can ever achieve perfection tells us nothing... about any of them.

They must sill abide by laws set forth by the government.
Yes. That is what living in society means. Anarchist society is no different. You presume that the entire community would want to work together and share income.
Not really. As an anarchist, I think the community may decide to adopt any economic scheme they see fit. I happen to think that a market socialist economy makes the most sense, and I would certainly push for it within an anarchist society... but I would abide by the community's decision. That's what being an anarchist means.

Isn't Anarchism just technically not caring? It doesn't have to be an extreme sense of not caring about anything at all, to me I'm an anarchist just because I don't feel very strong emotions or reactions to situations. Most things don't matter. It's almost like enlightenment ;)

Just a quick question: are all of the anarchists out there for anarchy in the native american state/ tribal communities or are you guys for anarchy in a modern society?

Also, I think some of you guys should read a little bit about the whole federalist notion and fear of pure direct democracy. It sorta kinda helped shaped our whole constitution. Sure, its a pessimistic view of society and people, but I think it is closer to the truth than most things.

Oh, and for those interested in biological differences in humans etc. a good book is Evolution and Human Behavior by John Cartwright. But thats just for those of you who don't think that people are inherently different and biologically driven to compete.

Anyway, I have books to read, papers to write, and a social life to pretend to have so I'm out of this thread for now.

2 entries found for anarchy.
an·ar·chy Audio pronunciation of "anarchy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Oh, snap.

That's right... check a common dictionary to understand a political concept.

Try opening an actual text of political theory. You will find that the definitions have virtually nothing in common.

But then, if a child sees some level of authority, why won't they try in the future to bring that authority apon the masses?

For the same reason the children raised in modern democracies do not generally try to impose the monarchical rule of their parents upon society.

Just a good book for those of you who are into the whole tribal communism thing or tribal lifestyle or whatever:

Nisa: the life and words of a !kung woman by Marjorie Shostak

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

That isn't a bias, because apparently it's true.

No, it is blatantly false. Have you been reading? Anarchists oppose hierarchical power. We are perfectly happy with authority. In fact, frequently enough we argue that leaders today do not have enough authority, because they base their rule on military or economic power.

Authority goes hand in hand with legitimacy.

If you want true anarchy in a modern society then look at the robber barons of the 1890s to around 1920ish. Pure unrestrained free market capitalism. That is what anarchy will bring about because no one would regulate the economy or anything else at all. Power would be quickly concentrated in the hands of a few who are good enough at manipulating the lack of system and the people in it. That is basically Libertarianism.
Anarchism is supposed to be the violent destruction of the current order so that we may rebuild society into a socialist utopia.
Personally, I like the first one because honestly, I dont want anyone telling me what to do economically or socially. Sure, huge wealth and inequality gaps would occur and I may not be on top of the wealth pile, but thats where the fun begins because equality among humans is a biological impossibility. Yes that is preaching social darwinism (which isn't pc because the nazis, russian commies, imperialists, and other no no groups did that), and yes opportunity plays a large part in where you end up in life as well, but to be honest little utopian visions of a perfect and equal future can and will never occur unless all differences between people are nullified both genetically and opportunisticly. And then probably one disease would come along and wipe us all out or the genes would mutate and someone would end up on top again because that is how it happens.
So in conclusion anarchy is a stupid idea if you are concerned with fairness, but if you are concerned with a no holding back cut throat competition to see who gets the biggest part of the pile then go for it. It is the state of nature for Hobbes.

Oh and Nation of Fortune, we really dont care about you and your homicidal urges.


I am too tired of debunking the same unreflective stereotypes over and over again. Read the rest of the thread.

So, apparently, Anarchy has a basic government and therefore contradicts itself?

No, anarchism has a very thorough government embodying genuine political freedom and equality. This is not a contradiction, because it is quite simply the fundamental proposition of anarchism.

(Primitivism and some forms of individualist anarchism are obvious exceptions, but they represent, for the most part, mere fringe groups unconnected to the rich tradition of anarchist thought.)

First of all, I'm pretty sure that Anarchy is defined as a lack of government, or at least a lack of codified bureaucracy.
Then you only reveal your own ignorance. When you are "pretty sure" about something, and people who actually know contradict you... the very natural desire for knowledge should lead you to correct your belief. Here you have two anarchists explaining that the theory has nothing to do with a rejection of government as such, or laws.

If you do not believe us, you may refer to any texts in the academic canon of anarchist thought. Please, I invite you to.

The forced to be free thing was Sartre, who was talking about the human condition, not governments.

Actually, I think Sartre's language was something more like "doomed" to be free. Rousseau is best known for the notion of "forcing" people to be free.

The forced to be free thing was Sartre,
Well I'm not to hot on Sartre, but I am next to positive that Hegel's concept of Freedom did mean you can force one to be free.

Well that about cover links I can remember (others would be appreciated)

have some more:

an anarchist faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/) (same one as infoshop's but not down currently)

infoshop (http://www.infoshop.org)

the anarchy archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/)

anarchy for anybody (http://a4a.mahost.org/)

the northeasern federation of anarchist communists (http://www.nefac.net/)

northwest anarchist federation (http://www.nafederation.org/)

the international of anarchist federations (http://www.iaf-ifa.org/)

the international workers association (http://www.iwa-ait.org/)

the institute for anarchist studies (http://www.anarchist-studies.org/)

flag! (http://flag.blackened.net/)

and then there is z's collection of anarchist links http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htm

there's a whole bunch more anarchist federations and networks that i need to look up websites and contact info for. i'll try to compile them - and people outside the u.s. should feel free to point out stuff from where you are.

No government would mean inherently no regulation. Thus capitalism.

Seriously, how many times do we have to say, "Anarchists govern themselves; anarchist government may regulate (or even control) the economy?" Honestly, just give me a number and I'll say it that many times. Because the last four or five seem not to have gotten through.

Gift economy? what is that like reciprocal altruism in hunter gather societies?

Personally, I think a "gift" economy is a pretty lousy idea for an advanced society... but to each his own. I support market socialism.

So basically your anarchism is the same as communism if it is just the withering away of government to leave a perfectly functioning society?

Actually, anarcho-communists and Marxian communists do have pretty much the same end in mind... The big difference (to simplify quite a bit) is that anarchists think we should worry about the political changes first, then let the egalitarian anarchist society work out the economy, while Marxians think that the existing state should be "used" to establish the communist economy, after which it would "whither away," as you say.

And hobbes can't be wrong because I know that the other view, Locke, wouldnt work because im the type of person that would definitley swindle somebody out of something if it was to my benefit.

Ummm.... Tell me how Locke is the "other view" that opposes Hobbes? Locke and Hobbes have quite a bit in common... Locke just managed to decorate his theory in more acceptable religious language. Moreover, neither one of them really things human beings are fundamentally "greedy." For Hobbes, the basic emotion is fear -- especially fear of death -- and most people only actively compete for scarce resources because if they don't the very few truly greedy people will simply squeeze the life out of them. For Locke, the state of nature was a reasonable decent place -- the big problem for him was that he needed government to protect property. So although Hobbes is famous for calling life in the state of nature "nasty, brutish, and short," Locke is really the one to base his theory on the desire for property. It sounds like you would agree more with him.

An anarchist state has never been recognized because it usually exists as civil war. During these times people can trade any old crap and pretty much do as they please since there is no stable government to monitor things or arrest people. Inevitably the criminals (or just enterprising jerks) who the government had enough sense to lock away will seize what power they can, creating clans/gangs/organizations/etc and they will reap the rewards from having the sense to get organized. Oddly enough, this IS a form of government. These groups will war with each other for more power, prolonging civil conflict.

I wonder if Cambodia falls in this category during and after the Khmer Rouge?

To be recognized legally by the world as a state, a form of government must exist. This provides an obvious problem for anarchy.

Like all things in chaos, order will inevitably form. Even if it is just swarms of motorcycle gangs. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome springs to mind.

have some more:


there's a whole bunch more anarchist federations and networks that i need to look up websites and contact info for. i'll try to compile them - and people outside the u.s. should feel free to point out stuff from where you are.
Thanks, I'll edit now.

Hooray for AnarchyeL, who knows infinitely more about this than I do and probably has some idea what s/he is saying, unlike me!
:fluffle:

"That's quite a claim. How about the anarchist Native Americans..."

Uhm... I don't wanna make some stereotype, but wasn't there usually a Chief or something? And there was definately heiarchy.

Yes, there were a variety of political positions that held authority, but they exercised very little power. They were more like advisors. And war was entirely private enterprise... basically young warriors would organize a war party of volunteers. It was very egalitarian. Not perfect, but what is?

Like all things in chaos, order will inevitably form. Even if it is just swarms of motorcycle gangs. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome springs to mind.

Actually, the opposite is true; see entropy.

Actually, the opposite is true; see entropy.

Then again, you could argue that a completely dissipated universe is orderly....

AnarchyeL, you remind me of Letila.




And that ain't a compliment.

AnarchyeL, you remind me of Letila.




And that ain't a compliment.
He's nothing like Letila. (No offense to Letila meant here) He is far more informed in his arguements then Letila imo.

This is how it seems to me:

There is no perfect system. And that's the point. Every system is flawed, so we get rid of systems altogether. With the elimination of man's law, nature's law is allowed the foreground it will eventually take anyway. The concept of people needing to be lead is a matter of self confidence and attachment to the "group". It is the prevelance of fear that keeps all from being free. With the elimination of a group dynamic comes individuality. How scared are you to be alone? I think that's the question. From the singular concept of identity, I am not my nation, my possessions, even family, so what do you become? Part of a greater whole than you could even wrap your mind around. All over, every day, the world is happening. Instead of Germans there's Hannah. Instead of the group, there's the individual. And we are all individuals and therefor a greater collective than if seperated by labels/nationality/class. There is no war, but the class war. And only anarchy addresses that. The idea isn't to change the government it's to change your mind, and eventually that rock tossed in the river will cause the ripples to set forth a true revolution.

But he does that Letila thing....

He takes every sentence, put it into a wuote, and DISSECTS IT, PIXEL BY PIXEL!!

But he does that Letila thing....

He takes every sentence, put it into a wuote, and DISSECTS IT, PIXEL BY PIXEL!!
:eek: How aweful

I love that little smiley, he's like, "Oh shit!".

Anarchism is based on the false premise that people can live together peacefully in large groups without creating a heirarchical social order such as has been observed in every large group of people.


Anarchists are on all fours intellectually with religious fundementalists and UFO nuts.

Anarchism is based on the false premise that people can live together peacefully in large groups without creating a heirarchical social order such as has been observed in every large group of people.

We aren't against heirarchy per sa though. It is a naturally occuring phenomena that is not incompatible with Anarchism

But he does that Letila thing....

He takes every sentence, put it into a wuote, and DISSECTS IT, PIXEL BY PIXEL!!

Well, if some people didn't have the annoying habit of trying to sneak their assumptions by in subordinate clauses, I wouldn't have to.

:D

Don't worry, you are in good company: Jefferson does the exact same thing in the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events..." begins a long subordinate clause in which he assumes everything the document supposedly "argues." By the time he gets to the end of the sentence, he has compelled his readers to accept his assumptions just to make sense of the damn sentence!! Of course, the trick is that most of them don't realize what he's done. (He is a bit better at it than you are.)

Well, if some people didn't have the annoying habit of trying to sneak their assumptions by in subordinate clauses, I wouldn't have to.

:D

Don't worry, you are in good company: Jefferson does the exact same thing in the Declaration of Independence. "When in the course of human events..." begins a long subordinate clause in which he assumes everything the document supposedly "argues." By the time he gets to the end of the sentence, he has compelled his readers to accept his assumptions just to make sense of the damn sentence!! Of course, the trick is that most of them don't realize what he's done. (He is a bit better at it than you are.)
Sounds like a useful skill to have then :D

Sounds like a useful skill to have then :D

Sure. It is a fine rhetorical skill. But it's not used for making arguments... It is used for obscuring them.

Jefferson, of course, knew that full well. He didn't write the Declaration to make a point so much as to piss off the King of England.

Sure. It is a fine rhetorical skill. But it's not used for making arguments... It is used for obscuring them.

Jefferson, of course, knew that full well. He didn't write the Declaration to make a point so much as to piss of the King of England.
Similar to Hancock's signature (but a bit more intellectual)?

Similar to Hancock's signature (but a bit more intellectual)?

Pretty much. Of course, Jefferson's original is much more interesting... the Congress doctored it up a bit before they signed it and sent it off. Among other things, he tried to set down the seeds of a slavery abolition movement in the founding document of national independence. (The Continental Congress decided "all men are created equal" didn't have anything to do with slavery, but when Jefferson complained about being "slaves" to Britain, they thought the language was just too close... if it is wrong for Britain to "enslave" the colonists, it follows that it is wrong for the colonists to enslave Africans. They cut the language out.)

Well I'm doing an American politics and government course this semester, so I have an excuse to spend ages looking for it (and getting sidetracked on the way of course).

I must say this has been a most enlightening thread. My own definition of anarchy was pretty fuzzy.
I still think it wouldn't work in a large gruop. It seems like in order to work, there would have to be a strong sense of community. A sense of responsibility for those around you and a respect for the leader. This works best when people know each other well.
People in a large impersonal society like ours just don't have a sense of responsibility for how their actions effect those they don't know.

i see it has a very similar philosopy to that of the neoliberal agenda whihc is too based on the belief of goodness inherent with in all people, and is too, just a load of jimmy brit. for one to feel connection with other humans they must have social cohesion, if i am to give a rats about the destruction of environmental assets outside my local area and acknowlegde that they in turn affect my environment, I must identify with the problems economic and social pressures of workers from all areas of the globe epeciallly if we are to collaborate and fight against destructive forces outside our control. opposed to livng in a insular sweaty hippie village. anarchism is born out of the frustrations of capitalism and is although good intentioned, ill formed and always so easily overtaken by the forces in which it oposes most by its inability to effectively protect itself due to lack of unity, just ask spain!

i see it has a very similar philosopy to that of the neoliberal agenda whihc is too based on the belief of goodness inherent with in all people

¿

you can't possibly mean the same thing by the term 'neoliberalism' as i do.

anarchism is born out of the frustrations of capitalism and is although good intentioned, ill formed and always so easily overtaken by the forces in which it oposes most by its inability to effectively protect itself due to lack of unity, just ask spain!

spain which would have fallen to the fascists on the first day of the coup in 1936 if it wasn't for the anarchists? where it took both fascists and a betrayal by the stalinists to end the success of the anarchist social revolution? nobody could have beaten the combined forces and resources of both the fascists and the stalinists. hardly an impressive point against them, without also being an argument for why representative democracy can't possibly work.

Ah...fuck. I missed all the fun.

Ah...fuck. I missed all the fun.
Lets just hope there'll be more :)

Well I'm doing an American politics and government course this semester, so I have an excuse to spend ages looking for it (and getting sidetracked on the way of course).

Try The Portable Thomas Jefferson edited by Merrill D. Peterson. I'm sure it has the original Declaration draft, some great letters (check out the one to his nephew), and his only published "book," Notes on the State of Virginia. In that he basically sets out to debunk the prejudiced claims of Europeans who think that everything is "smaller" in the Americas... so there is a lot of "dull" material on how big our animals are compared to theirs. The funny part is that he also takes the time to make judgments about the size of Native American sex organs.... :)

If you're into the founders, you must read Richard K. Matthews' books on Jefferson, Madison, and (upcoming) Hamilton.

I must say this has been a most enlightening thread. My own definition of anarchy was pretty fuzzy.
I still think it wouldn't work in a large gruop. It seems like in order to work, there would have to be a strong sense of community. A sense of responsibility for those around you and a respect for the leader. This works best when people know each other well.
People in a large impersonal society like ours just don't have a sense of responsibility for how their actions effect those they don't know.

One can argue that any society needs those things to work well. If you read Augustine, he was basically making that argument about the Roman Empire, because he recognized all the signs of decay... as it turns out, he was right. (We probably would not read him today if the Empire had not collapsed a few decades after he wrote The City of God.)

So community and responsibility are general political problems not isolated to anarchism. Most anarchists think anarchism is part of the solution, and many theorists of democracy more generally tend to agree that one of the reasons people have no sense of responsibility is that they have no responsibility. In other words, if you give people a chance to participate meaningfully in politics, chances are they will take you up on it.

i see it has a very similar philosopy to that of the neoliberal agenda whihc is too based on the belief of goodness inherent with in all people, and is too, just a load of jimmy brit.

Well, anarchism and neoliberalism have nothing in common (and I wonder just what it is you call "neoliberal"). While 19th-century anarchism shared in the "transcendental" romanticism of the day, modern anarchists generally do not imagine human beings as much different than any other theorists. Indeed, we point out that it is systems of hierarchical power that must believe people are good -- otherwise, how are we to trust the powerful to care about the powerless?

Anarchism insists on an equal distribution of power precisely because we distrust the "goodness" of rulers to make law on behalf of the ruled.

for one to feel connection with other humans they must have social cohesion, if i am to give a rats about the destruction of environmental assets outside my local area and acknowlegde that they in turn affect my environment,

Agreed. Thus, anarchists propose that local communities and regions take responsibility for their own natural resources. No company in Britain should own the coal mines of the American Appalachians -- the local people should. In an anarchist system, you don't have to care about the destruction of assets outside your local area.

I must identify with the problems economic and social pressures of workers from all areas of the globe epeciallly if we are to collaborate and fight against destructive forces outside our control.

That is true. But what about once you take control of them?

It's aliiiiiiiive! Again. :eek:

Why did you have to bring it back, Conceptualists? :(

It's aliiiiiiiive!

I never died, says he,
I never died, says he.

Anarchists, I have a question: how would you prevent the now-vacant power vaccum from being filled?

Anarchists, I have a question: how would you prevent the now-vacant power vaccum from being filled?

There is no power vaccum in an anarchist society, instead power is spread amongst the members of the community.

I never died, says he,
I never died, says he.

What was Alfred on when he wrote that, anyway?

Anarchists, I have a question: how would you prevent the now-vacant power vaccum from being filled?

What power vacuum?

Why did you have to bring it back, Conceptualists? :(

Well I was sick of the Abortion/Homosexual/Relgion cycles, and thought since we have been quite good lately we deserved a thread.

Well I was sick of the Abortion/Homosexual/Relgion cycles, and thought since we have been quite good lately we deserved a thread.

Meh.

What was Alfred on when he wrote that, anyway?

Quite possibly rotgut moonshine contaminated by god knows what judging by the country and period in which it was written.

Alfred Hayes?

Alfred Hayes?

Well, it sure wasn't Alfred Jarry, or we'd have had The Assassination of Joe Hill Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race instead.

Well, it sure wasn't Alfred Jarry, or we'd have had The Assassination of Joe Hill Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race instead.

Well that sounds interesting too.

Anarchy is an idiotic concept.
Not bad for your first post. But you're still n00bish. You kinda flamed. Instead, you should say, "Anarchy is a nice thought, but it's unrealistic". Something like that.

Well, anarchism and neoliberalism have nothing in common (and I wonder just what it is you call "neoliberal"). While 19th-century anarchism shared in the "transcendental" romanticism of the day, modern anarchists generally do not imagine human beings as much different than any other theorists. Indeed, we point out that it is systems of hierarchical power that must believe people are good -- otherwise, how are we to trust the powerful to care about the powerless?

Anarchism insists on an equal distribution of power precisely because we distrust the "goodness" of rulers to make law on behalf of the ruled.

Hear,hear, magnifico.

Alfred Hayes?

Is that what we're calling Jesus now?

Is that what we're calling Jesus now?
Nah, he's the prophet. Joe Hill is the Lord.

...which is why I always disliked Bruce Springsteen for calling himself "the Boss".

You really can't make any claims as to human nature. Our entire civilization is based on certain assumptions about the nature of humanity, but when you're talking about a free-thinking, self-determined individual, then how can you say that people MUST be this way or they MUST be that way? We make assumptions because we assume we need to in order to conceptualize and function in our world. But in the process we forget that they are assumptions and the three millennia of recorded Western philosophy on which we have built all our institutions is based on the single assumption that we are all self-interested to the point of violence and without "proper" power structures to force conformity, no society could survive. We believe this so much that we think it a natural law; we've enslaved ourselves to this so-called "truth".

There are three truths that are absolute to all human beings. These truths make no claims as to the nature of humanity, but are rather objective observations as to how we behave and the limits of our capacity.

-We all suffer and we all desire happiness.
-We choose as to how we seek that happiness, escape suffering, and define ourselves, individually and collectively, in our universe.
-We are ultimately powerless over our material reality.

Apart from this, all else is artifice and institution, the products of the human imagination.

You really can't make any claims as to human nature.
Sure you can. In fact, you do. The real question is, how well does one support one's claims?
Our entire civilization is based on certain assumptions about the nature of humanity,
That may be a little too strong a claim. Our "entire civilization" is based on historical processes in production, politics, and ideas. Certain elements of these reflect assumptions about human nature (and these are not always the same assumptions).
but when you're talking about a free-thinking, self-determined individual, then how can you say that people MUST be this way or they MUST be that way?
What a complicated argument you fit into half a sentence! Where shall I begin?

First, your emphasis of "MUST" sets up an easily defeated straw man. Few, if any, suggestions about human nature demand that people "MUST" be anything at all. Like so many theories in social science and philosophy, conceptions of human nature are probabilistic: they say things like "most people are this way" or "people tend to behave in a certain way."

Secondly, the terms "free-thinking" and "self-determined" assume a lot that you need to defend. Few people anymore think that there is any neat distinction between "free" and "determined." While we know that people are ultimately "free" to make their own decisions, we also know that their freedom is shaped by biological, psychological, and social determinations.

Taken together, these two points suggest that while it is difficult or impossible to make sweeping generalizations that can predict the attitudes or actions of any particular person, it may be possible to generalize about the ways in which biological, psychological, and social determinants structure the psychic world in which attitudes and actions take place. It is that ability to generalize about mental and social experience that constitutes the theoretical ground of "human nature."
We make assumptions because we assume we need to in order to conceptualize and function in our world.
Close. We make assumptions because we actually do need them in order to conceptualize our world and function in it.
But in the process we forget that they are assumptions
Perhaps from time to time we do. However, we have learned that many of our assumptions lead to very well-supported concepts, and it would be foolish to fail to distinguish between mere assumptions and well-supported abstractions based on assumptions.
and the three millennia of recorded Western philosophy on which we have built all our institutions is based on the single assumption that we are all self-interested to the point of violence and without "proper" power structures to force conformity, no society could survive.
This is simply not true. It would not even take very much reading in philosophy for you to find your assumption disproved. Even the philosophers best-known for the "self-interest" theory (Hobbes and Locke) do not present it in the simplified version with which most people are familiar today. As I have pointed out already in this thread, Hobbes thought that the most basic human emotion is fear, and our fundamental "interest" is avoiding a violent death. If you read Locke's thoughts on education, he really thought you could break children of their most dangerous ambitions as long as you tackled the problem early on.
We believe this so much that we think it a natural law; we've enslaved ourselves to this so-called "truth".
Perhaps the only accurate statement in your entire post, so long as you apply it to the average American and not the philosophical canon.
There are three truths that are absolute to all human beings.
Well now! A bold statement!
These truths make no claims as to the nature of humanity,
Of course they do. Don't kid yourself.
but are rather objective observations as to how we behave and the limits of our capacity.
Let's see....
-We all suffer
No. Most of us suffer. Some of us have psychological disorders such that we either do not feel pain (or much else), or it does not register as "suffering." Moreover, some people live such lives of comfort (due to wealth and upbringing) that it is difficult to locate a time when they suffer. At any rate, it is a bit ridiculous to talk of their "hardships" and those of people who really suffer in the same breath.
and we all desire happiness.
No. Some people have been psychologically damaged to the point that happiness is actually threatening to their self-cohesion; a few of them even recognize this fact. Moreover, it is not even possible to claim that for the rest of us happiness is desired "above all other things." Many people will sacrifice their own happiness for the happiness of others, or for honor or duty, or for for faith. You cannot get around this problem by claiming that these things must make them "happy," because then you just have a circular (and therefore useless) definition of happiness as "whatever it is people want."
-We choose as to how we seek that happiness, escape suffering, and define ourselves, individually and collectively, in our universe.
You drastically underestimate the ways in which our basic psychology (at the individual, not the species, level) constrains the ways in which we can "choose" happiness.
-We are ultimately powerless over our material reality.
Well, that is a defeatist attitude if ever there was one. You don't think people can change material circumstance at all? History is the study of how human beings change material reality. (Unless by "material reality" you mean the more limited facts of natural law... and even here one could argue that what was a simple law three hundred years ago -- people cannot fly -- no longer applies as "law" at all. People can fly, under certain circumstances, i.e. whenever they occupy a machine capable of doing so.)

Books I can remember off the top of my head are:

Anarchy - Errico Malatesta [also available here]

A very Short Introduction: Anarchism - Colin Ward

No Gods; No Masters (vols. 1 + 2)- Daniel Guerin

In Defence of Anarchism - RP Wolff

An Anarchist FAQ - Albert Metzer

Demanding the Impossible; A History Of Anarchism - Peter Marshall.

I know there are more, Such as Bakunin, Kropotkin et al, many available of the internet, I'll try and find them.

books off the top of my bookshelf include:

People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchism - Harold Barclay

God and the State - Mikhail Bakunin

Anarchism and Other Essays - Emma Goldman

Anarchism - Daniel Guérin

Fields, Factories, and Workshops - Petr Kropotkin

Mutual Aid - Petr Kropotkin

Running on Emptiness - John Zerzan


oh yeah, and my newest book
A New World in Our Hearts: Eight Years of Writings from the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation - edited by Roy San Filippo

No Berkman? Some mishtake shurely? ABC of Anarchism remains a very handy soft introduction.

No Berkman? Some mishtake shurely? ABC of Anarchism remains a very handy soft introduction.
Well I was hoping to attract Letila, who I know has a few links.

But he seems to have gone to that great forum in the sky :(

Looks like I will have to look on my own.

Not bad for your first post. But you're still n00bish. You kinda flamed. Instead, you should say, "Anarchy is a nice thought, but it's unrealistic". Something like that.



The problem is that anarchism, because of its bold and loud denial of objective reality and reliance on flights of imagination for its theoretical basis goes beyond 'unrealistic.'

A genuine advocacy and argument for anarchism is more than simply foolish, it *is* stupid, in the most literal sense of the world.

The problem is that anarchism, because of its bold and loud denial of objective reality and reliance on flights of imagination for its theoretical basis goes beyond 'unrealistic.'

Care to be more specific? Are you claiming that all human societies must possess heirarchical organisation in order to survive?

The problem is that anarchism, because of its bold and loud denial of objective reality and reliance on flights of imagination for its theoretical basis goes beyond 'unrealistic.'
You must be thinking of our opponents' characterization of anarchism. They make up their own version of the theory, boldly and loudly deny the objective reality of what its adherents actually say, and rely on flights of imagination for a theoretical "critique" that goes beyond 'unrealistic'.

A genuine advocacy and argument for anarchism is more than simply foolish, it *is* stupid, in the most literal sense of the world.

Considering that the "literal" definition of "stupid" is "slow of mind," this really does accurately convey my sense of people who, despite repeated assertions to the contrary, insist that "anarchism" means a "world without rules."

Honestly, how long will it take? How many times do we have to say, "Anarchism is well governed"? "Anarchists believe in the rule of law"? "Anarchists understand authority and approve legitimate authority"?


Seriously. Give me a number. Will five times do it?

Anarchism is well governed. Anarchists believe in the rule of law. Anarchists approve of legitimate authority. Anarchism is well governed. Anarchists believe in the rule of law. Anarchists approve of legitimate authority. Anarchism is well governed. Anarchists believe in the rule of law. Anarchists approve of legitimate authority. Anarchism is well governed. Anarchists believe in the rule of law. Anarchists approve of legitimate authority. Anarchism is well governed. Anarchists believe in the rule of law. Anarchists approve of legitimate authority.


There, five times. Sinking in yet?

But now you've just got me chanting, and you will accuse anarchists of being cultish.

:D

Simply because we are long overdue for one I think and all the seniour Anarchists seem to be visiting less often (or possibly I have stopped noticing them). And I must stop semi-hijacking other threads to be honest.

Tired of all the abortion etc threads. So, what is your idea of what Anarchism is?


Snipped various interesting links.

Give me some time to digest it all. BTW, why nothing by Bakunin?

Snipped various interesting links.

Give me some time to digest it all. BTW, why nothing by Bakunin?
Well it was midnight and I knackered......

No idea, considering I even have God and the State bookmarked (iirc because I was looking for a quotation and meant to finish reading it).

here (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html)

Which also links to other writings.

No Berkman? Some mishtake shurely? ABC of Anarchism remains a very handy soft introduction.

alas, i just moved across the country, and my top shelf of books has been reduced in size and variety.

Such a claim would require evidence. Real evidence, not anecdotal.

May I speak in a philosopical sense.

Thank you

I see only two types of Anarchy

1.) Where everyone understands moral obilgation and everyone follows it.

2.) One where I can violate any of your rights(no law based right, rights like not killing you unjustly) and no one would do anything. Without some order, how is one going to protect oneself?

How would one gain resources for life(such as food and water and housing)?

How would one have motivation for doing better for society?

Only in a civilation where all and I mean all understand and follow moral obligations can Anarchy really work.

Oh and remeber kids only through the true void can we find a perfection.

bump

Bump

Just let it die, man.

Just let it die, man.
It would die quicker if you hadn't just bumped it again ;)

It would die quicker if you hadn't just bumped it again ;)

:p

Let's end it on teh funney note, from America: The Book--

"While anarchy can often turn a humdrum weekend into something unforgettable, eventually the mob must be kept from stealing the conch and killing Piggy."

:p Genius.

i'd totally forgotten about it (which is odd, since usually my friend who helps organize it bugs me to fly out to dc for it), but did anyone go to the national conference on organized resistance?

http://www.organizedresistance.org/index.shtml