NationStates Jolt Archive

I got this off a site stating the Basic Principles of Anarchism:

Capitalism Capitalism is an economic system based upon wage labor. Under capitalism a small group of people, the capitalist class, owns the means of production (land, factories, mines, etc.) and the working class (the majority of the population) must sell their labor to the capitalist class in order to survive. If the workers do not sell their labor they will starve because they do not have access to the means of production - the capitalist class monopolizes them. The ownership of the means of production by the capitalists does not have to be direct but can be through an organization they control, such as corporations. Anarchists are also opposed to all other class systems but focus on capitalism because it is the dominant economic system today. Class is economic hierarchy. Other class systems include feudalism, soviet-style "socialism" (which many anarchists consider to be a form of state-capitalism) and slavery.

Now.. i would like someone to clarify this for me.. becuase, atleast in america, this is not so.

In the capitalist economy, there is such a thing as investors.. And in America, over 65 % of households hold stock portoflios investing in companies.. In Captialism Investors own the means of production, and investors may well be the working class if they own stock in the company.. There are really no legal restrictions on who may and may not buy stock in any publically traded company. In this sense, the working class does have access to the means of production, contrary to the arguments of Anarchists.. where is the monoploy of the capitalist class ?

SEcond i read this so called myth about anarchists:

Anarchists advocate complete chaos This is a complete myth with no basis in reality. Anarchists do not advocate chaos and anarchy does not mean chaos. Similar slander used to be said about the ideas of democracy and republics. In places where a Monarchy was thought necessary the idea of elected governments was often equated with complete chaos. This association is the result of slander by the powerful (the state, corporations, etc.) that control the media and is, unfortunately, not a surprise. Since anarchists seek to overthrow them it is not surprising that they would slander anarchism with all sorts of absurd nonsense.

This is a very nice argument as to governments now spreading propoganda against anarchy, but makes no cases against the allegation. If you follow the logic of anarchy, an argument against all authority, no one person, force, or group has power over another. This gives complete freedom to each individual to act as he or she wishes, and if they so decide to act in an immoral fashion.. there is no power to hault their actions.. As well with limited resources from which to work with and the issues of population natural conflicts occur over the limits of resources. Chaos of course will insue from this... In fact the very definition of Chaos is the lack of structure and organization.. And as anarchy argues authority which gives organization how then can there be anything but chaos ?

1. Think in a larger context. Could not the majority of the US be part of a capitalist class when the entire world population is considered?

2. Anarchism is a collectivist philosophy. They essentially advocate a classless democracy. IMO, classless democracy=government. It is quite true that most anarchists do not advocate chaos.

Saying that anarchy would induce chaos is very different to saying that democracy would induce chaos.

I'm not even going to say that anarchy is bad or good, but honestly, it is naive to think that everyone will get along peacefully with no laws. An argument like "so say in an anarchy I want to go rape and kill, who's going to stop me" is unusable in a case against democracy. Both democracy and monarchy require law to function.

Saying that an absence of law and policing will result in wanton rape, pillage and burn isn't some crazy government propaganda, it's logic.

As for modern capitalism, it doesn't involve class at all in a legal sense. All people are treated equally under the law, which generally exists only to prevent such activity as might occur in an anarchy, things like theft and murder.

Capitalism and anarchism aren't complete opposites, in fact in many ways they are just two levels of extremity to a certain philosophy. If we take that philosophy to be "Government should not interfere in [certain activity]", then capitalists are taking that philosophy but including a "except in the case of theft, assault and so on", and anarchists are taking the philosophy with no suffixes.

I'm not bashing anarchism here exactly, I can see merits in the philosophy, but I prefer a refined anarchy, or an "economic anarchy", where people are free from government except when they kill or steal. This is capitalism.

2. Anarchism is a collectivist philosophy. They essentially advocate a classless democracy. IMO, classless democracy=government. It is quite true that most anarchists do not advocate chaos.

Although aren't there anarchists who actually advocate pure survival of the fittest, and a "rape pillage and burn" society? Those aren't collectivists, they're extreme individualists, taking "every man for himself" to the furthest degree possible.

I personally believe that the hierarchy is necessary, with the key being maximized class mobility.

This is a very nice argument as to governments now spreading propoganda against anarchy, but makes no cases against the allegation. If you follow the logic of anarchy, an argument against all authority, no one person, force, or group has power over another. This gives complete freedom to each individual to act as he or she wishes, and if they so decide to act in an immoral fashion.. there is no power to hault their actions.

Yes there is.

As well with limited resources from which to work with and the issues of population natural conflicts occur over the limits of resources. Chaos of course will insue from this... In fact the very definition of Chaos is the lack of structure and organization.. And as anarchy argues authority which gives organization how then can there be anything but chaos ?

Anarchists aren't against authority completly.

Anarchists aren't against authority completly.

To be honest, anarchists who advocate authority in any quantity are not anarchists. The word anarchy means "without rule".

To be honest, anarchists who advocate authority in any quantity are not anarchists. The word anarchy means "without rule".
No it doesn't.

It means "without rulers"

To be honest, anarchists who advocate authority in any quantity are not anarchists. The word anarchy means "without rule".

I've seen anarchists who advocate the absence of unjustified authority.

Anarchism. n. The doctrine that all government should be abolished

Anarchist. n. An advocate of anarchism or of political disorder

Anarchy n.
1. disorder, esp. political or social.
2. lack of government in society.


Anyone arguing that they are an anarchist, but do not want political disorder is either insane, or does not understand the meaning of the words.

Now.. i would like someone to clarify this for me.. becuase, atleast in america, this is not so.

In the capitalist economy, there is such a thing as investors.. And in America, over 65 % of households hold stock portoflios investing in companies.. In Captialism Investors own the means of production, and investors may well be the working class if they own stock in the company.. There are really no legal restrictions on who may and may not buy stock in any publically traded company.

True, there are no legal restrictions... but you do have to have money, and to own any significant amount of stock you need to have a lot of money. Thus, while it may be true that 65% of households own stock, stock ownership is monopolized by a rather small capitalist owning class that actually controls enough to hold power.

Notions of economic control vary within anarchism, but you will find that at least some socialist leaning anarchists agree with something along the lines of "public corporations" in which "stock" control is relatively (or, for some, perfectly) evenly distributed. Thus it is not the principle with which they disagree, but the fact of the inequalities of capitalist reality.

This is a very nice argument as to governments now spreading propoganda against anarchy, but makes no cases against the allegation. If you follow the logic of anarchy, an argument against all authority, no one person, force, or group has power over another.

That's right. We all hold equal power, together.

This gives complete freedom to each individual to act as he or she wishes,

No, it gives complete freedom to each individual to participate in the act of rule-making.

there is no power to hault their actions..

Sure there is. Anarchists are not stupid or naive. That is just horrible slander. We believe in collective decision-making as opposed to rule by a minority.

And as anarchy argues authority which gives organization how then can there be anything but chaos ?

Anarchists oppose arbitrary power, NOT authority. Authority is conferred, and as long as it is conferred willingly we see no problem with it. Of course, we are not likely to give much -- if any -- power to our authorities.

Although aren't there anarchists who actually advocate pure survival of the fittest, and a "rape pillage and burn" society? Those aren't collectivists, they're extreme individualists, taking "every man for himself" to the furthest degree possible.

not really. if anything, those are nihilists. which is something different entirely.

No, it gives complete freedom to each individual to participate in the act of rule-making.

Sure there is. Anarchists are not stupid or naive. That is just horrible slander. We believe in collective decision-making as opposed to rule by a minority.


Just how are these highly praiseworthy and lofty ideals going to be implemented in practice. If you are arguing that everyone participates in the law making process then you are not proposing anarchy, but direct democracy. (I have my own ideas on how this can work, which I may post soon.) If it is not this, then what are you talking about when you say "collective decision-making"?

Anyone arguing that they are an anarchist, but do not want political disorder is either insane, or does not understand the meaning of the words.

Exactly. I go by dictionary definition. If you believe in a rulerless society where decisions are made by population-wide referrendum, you do not advocate anarchy, you advocate direct democracy.

Anarchy is, I believe, by most common definitions, considered a state of both lawlessness and the absence of leadership. Thus anarchy is not a collectivist philosophy. Under "dictionary" anarchy, it's every man for himself.

For the anarchists here, (who can read Spanish, and hence Portuguese) can someone explain how this can even exist?

The Federation of Gaúcho Anarchists (http://www.fag.rg3.net/)

Exactly. I go by dictionary definition.

get a better dictionary. might i recommend a dictionary of political philosophy, seeing as we are dealing with a technical term of the field? and even that will only be a summary of the actual meaning of the term.

Anyone arguing that they are an anarchist, but do not want political disorder is either insane, or does not understand the meaning of the words.
Right, who should I ask what anarchism is?

A professed anarchist such as Bakunin, Proudhon etc. (or in a modern setting Free Soviets, AnarchyeL, Letila et al)?

Or a dictionary who's purpose is to give general definitions and common usages of words which possibly reflect a certain bias?

For the anarchists here, (who can read Spanish, and hence Portuguese) can someone explain how this can even exist?

The Federation of Gaúcho Anarchists (http://www.fag.rg3.net/)

anarchists have always called for the existence of federations, both for current organization of anarchist activities and as the future structure of a voluntary society. we've got tons of them all over the world.

Anyone arguing that they are an anarchist, but do not want political disorder is either insane, or does not understand the meaning of the words.

Words are defined by the people using them.

Right, who should I ask what anarchism is?

A professed anarchist such as Bakunin, Proudhon etc. (or in a modern setting Free Soviets, AnarchyeL, Letila et al)?

Or a dictionary who's purpose is to give general definitions and common usages of words which possibly reflect a certain bias?

But what if professed anarchists thoroughly disagree on the definition of anarchy? I know that there are anarchists who follow the "dictionary" philosophy, arguing that lawless killing promotes faster evolution and survival of the fittest, or that it is immoral for anyone to impose any laws on anyone else, no matter how basic.

However, it seems there are also those who call themselves anarchists who actually advocate law, order and government, but as a direct democracy, where every issue is addressed via nationwide referendum.

Which definition are we to believe? Both claim to be anarchists, but their philosophies are vastly different.

I'm not even going to say that anarchy is bad or good, but honestly, it is naive to think that everyone will get along peacefully with no laws.

True. That's why anarchists don't think that.

Although aren't there anarchists who actually advocate pure survival of the fittest, and a "rape pillage and burn" society?

I am quite sure there are people out there who believe this and call themselves "anarchists." However, they have absolutely no connection to the powerful tradition of theoretical anarchism. If you want to discuss the flaws of their ideas, discuss it with them (although I doubt they are interested in listening). If you want to discuss the merits of the real anarchist tradition, then let us have that conversation.

But what if professed anarchists thoroughly disagree on the definition of anarchy? I know that there are anarchists who follow the "dictionary" philosophy, arguing that lawless killing promotes faster evolution and survival of the fittest, or that it is immoral for anyone to impose any laws on anyone else, no matter how basic.

They are nihilists.

If they claim to be anarchists they are wrong, and are usually adolescents who have only read the dictionary definition and are solely influenced by the statist propaganda of what anarchism is rather then the actual political theory put forward by Anarchists.

However, it seems there are also those who call themselves anarchists who actually advocate law, order and government, but as a direct democracy, where every issue is addressed via nationwide referendum.

Kinda.

However, seeing as these anarchists represent the political thought that is the follow on of the original self-styled anarchists (Proudhon iirc) I would go with them.

Which definition are we to believe? Both claim to be anarchists, but their philosophies are vastly different.

The ones that follow on from the original anarchists.

If you follow the logic of anarchy, an argument against all authority, no one person, force, or group has power over another. This gives complete freedom to each individual to act as he or she wishes,


Wrong! If you follow the logic of anarchy, you do NOT have complete freedom, that is you are not "free" to oppress, exploit, etc. people, because that would be totally against the logic of anarchy!!


and if they so decide to act in an immoral fashion.. there is no power to hault their actions..


"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is under constant attack" said Malcolm X, and we can apply this proposition to this case. Anarchist are not saying that one shouldn't defend himself against evil. In fact most anarchist advocate mutual community defence systems.
So there would be power!


In fact the very definition of Chaos is the lack of structure and organization.. And as anarchy argues authority which gives organization how then can there be anything but chaos ?

One of the basic propositions of anarchy is that authority (state, capitalism, church, to name three) is not necessary in order to have organization. In fact syndicalist-anarchists have a slogan "Agitate! Educate! Organize!".

To make it simple:

Authority does sometimes imply order and organization.
No Authority does not necessarily imply disorder and disorganization.

Just how are these highly praiseworthy and lofty ideals going to be implemented in practice. If you are arguing that everyone participates in the law making process then you are not proposing anarchy, but direct democracy.

Indeed, "direct democracy" is a goal held by many -- if not most -- modern anarchists. Direct democracy is the political prong of their agenda. Socialism or communism is the economic prong. Thus, "anarchist" means more than "direct democrat," although it may include the concept.

(Not all anarchists believe in COMPLETE direct democracy, and some believe in something much closer to a "technocracy." But for the purposes of this discussion, I think the equation anarchism = socialist direct democracy is pretty decent.)

Right, who should I ask what anarchism is?

A professed anarchist such as Bakunin, Proudhon etc. (or in a modern setting Free Soviets, AnarchyeL, Letila et al)?

Or a dictionary who's purpose is to give general definitions and common usages of words which possibly reflect a certain bias?

OK then, let us move to the technical reference material. Here I am goping to be translating as I go, so bear with me for any bad grammar.

ANARCHY Ger Anarchismus, Por Anarquia, Fre Anarchie, It Anarchia

A. Disorder (particularly disorder due to the absence of an organizing authority) " The metaphysical doctrine concerning the desire for moral liberty has to be historically seen as a consequence of modern anarchy" Comte. Positivist Catechism

B. Political doctrines (comprised of several varieties) the common point of which consists of rejecting all state organizations which impinge on the individual.
Source Vocabulário Técnico e Crítico da Filosofia: André Lalande, Published in Brazil by Martins Fontes, São Paulo 1999

The technical definition is in complete accordance with the everyday one.
Anyone may self denominate themselves anything they want. This does not mean that that denomination applies, or is truthful.
I can call myself a ballet dancer, it does not mean that I can suddenly float around the stage.

Words have meanings that are negotiated and agreed. Dictionaries are the records of these agreements. If you wish to cal yourselves anarchists, then you had better understand the term as your listeners will understand it. If you do not, then you are not going to be able to communicate your ideas.
If you do not understand the term the same way as your listeners do, then use a different one. Invent a word, describe your position, be clear.
:headbang: (My first headbang, but sometimes people have to be so thick headed about communicating clearly.)

Invidentia, you claim that you got the info from an anarchist website. May I respectfully suggest you
a) actually read what you ripped
b) think about the content
c) consider your own prejudice, which comes across so very clearly.

Then you may actually be more receptive to other ideas or philosophies which you obviously have invested no thought in.

But what if professed anarchists thoroughly disagree on the definition of anarchy? I know that there are anarchists who follow the "dictionary" philosophy, arguing that lawless killing promotes faster evolution and survival of the fittest, or that it is immoral for anyone to impose any laws on anyone else, no matter how basic.

However, it seems there are also those who call themselves anarchists who actually advocate law, order and government, but as a direct democracy, where every issue is addressed via nationwide referendum.

Which definition are we to believe? Both claim to be anarchists, but their philosophies are vastly different.

Well, one has an intellectual history. The other does not.

Thus, if you want an intellectual discussion of political theory, you may reasonably assume that you are dealing with the politics-theoretic definition of popular rule -- unless corrected by those with whom you speak.

So many misconceptions...

I am quite sure there are people out there who believe this and call themselves "anarchists." However, they have absolutely no connection to the powerful tradition of theoretical anarchism. If you want to discuss the flaws of their ideas, discuss it with them (although I doubt they are interested in listening). If you want to discuss the merits of the real anarchist tradition, then let us have that conversation.

Well then I stand corrected. I thought that traditional anarchy involved championing darwinism and advocating lawlessness, and that this idea of "organized anarchy" was a recent phenomenon.

The technical definition is in complete accordance with the everyday one.

only if you assume that the state is the only possible form of organization. but this is trivially false.

and that ain't much of a technical definition.

"Exactly. I go by dictionary definition. If you believe in a rulerless society where decisions are made by population-wide referrendum, you do not advocate anarchy, you advocate direct democracy.

Anarchy is, I believe, by most common definitions, considered a state of both lawlessness and the absence of leadership. Thus anarchy is not a collectivist philosophy. Under "dictionary" anarchy, it's every man for himself."


its funny that you feel you somehow have the authority to overturn political definitions that are nearly a hundred and fifty years old. and a dictionary definition isnt good enough in a political debate. go read HISTORY (about anarchism in spain and ukraine) and the writings of actual ANARCHISTS (like bakunin and proudhon).

OK then, let us move to the technical reference material. Here I am goping to be translating as I go, so bear with me for any bad grammar.


Source Vocabulário Técnico e Crítico da Filosofia: André Lalande, Published in Brazil by Martins Fontes, São Paulo 1999

The technical definition is in complete accordance with the everyday one.
Anyone may self denominate themselves anything they want. This does not mean that that denomination applies, or is truthful.

The denomination came before negative definition.

I can call myself a ballet dancer, it does not mean that I can suddenly float around the stage.


In the same way that a punk who has listened to Anarchy in the UK once can call themselves an anarchist. Doesn't make them one though.


Words have meanings that are negotiated and agreed. Dictionaries are the records of these agreements. If you wish to cal yourselves anarchists, then you had better understand the term as your listeners will understand it.

We do. But we reject the common definition and try and explain the real one.

If you do not, then you are not going to be able to communicate your ideas.
If you do not understand the term the same way as your listeners do, then use a different one. Invent a word, describe your position, be clear.


That has already been tried.

And this conversation is the result of it. Please explain the point of coming up with a new word when.

1. This one [Anarchism] is still useful and has a descent etymology.
2. It probably only be corrupted again.

:headbang: (My first headbang, but sometimes people have to be so thick headed about communicating clearly.)
:rolleyes:

The technical definition is in complete accordance with the everyday one.

Not really. Your technical definition reads:

"B. Political doctrines (comprised of several varieties) the common point of which consists of rejecting all state organizations which impinge on the individual."

Of course, if you speak the language of political theory you know that "states" are a particular kind of government that exists separate from the people. Native Americans, for example, although they had governments, had no states.

So it is true that anarchists are opposed to state organizations. This does not mean they are opposed to organizations.

Definitions only make sense when you understand the language (in this case, political theory) in which they are written.

As for "anarchy" when taken to mean "directly democratic communism", I would suggest that a direct democracy would produce non-communist results. If communist principles were really that popular, communist representitives would recieve much more substantial vote counts in representitive democratic countries of today.

On a similar theme, what if the first issue to be addressed by this direct democracy was "we can't be bothered to all vote on every issue, why don't we just elect leaders who roughly match our politcal stance"? I speculate that proper direct democracy would be likely to vote itself out of existence in an instant.

As for "anarchy" when taken to mean "directly democratic communism", I would suggest that a direct democracy would produce non-communist results. If communist principles were really that popular, communist representitives would recieve much more substantial vote counts in representitive democratic countries of today.

Just like how slavery was popular and thus accepted and thus people today still support it. :rolleyes:

I think that a lot of you are getting hung up on definitions. Those who are Anarchists know what they mean when they say that. Those who are not, choose to confuse the issue by fixating on a stereotype of what they would like it to mean.

Here's a suggestion, why not accept that Anarchists, who claim to be so, should explain what they mean by the term. If you want to disagree with something, it helps to at least understand what you are disagreeing with an individual about.

As an Anarchist, I frequently encounter this mindblock and therefore choose to call myself a Libertarian....then again, many other people will deliberately confuse what the meaning of Libertarianism is.

As an Anarchist, I have no desire to be ruled over by others, nor do I want to rule others. What I want is for politically and spiritually aware people to make their own decisions, within a mutally supporting framework.

Note, this does not work within a Capitalist ethos, because after all, if democracy was effective, then it to, would be considered unworkable within capitalism.

When judging the merits of other political philosophies, you first need to free your mind from the constraints of narrow (and lazy) thinking. If you want to understand Anarchism, or any other political philosophy, then think about it within it's own medium, not that of a political framework that's totally inconsistent with it's aims and objectives. After all, this is the reason why (alleged) Communism failed within the Russian soviet system, which was just another version of state capitalism.

Just like how slavery was popular and thus accepted and thus people today still support it. :rolleyes:

Slavery was not popular with the thousands who were kept as slaves. I'm assuming that we're talking about the voting of all mentally capable adults when we talk about voting and elections. Your analogy is invalid.

And this conversation is the result of it. Please explain the point of coming up with a new word when.

1. This one [Anarchism] is still useful and has a descent etymology.
2. It probably only be corrupted again.


As you say, this conversation is a result of it. This conversation consists of one group saying, that the other does not understand the term.
It has just about run out of steam, and is leaving both groups frustrated and irritated.
Surely that is a good reason for coming up with a new word.
Nova Castlemilk says:
As an Anarchist, I frequently encounter this mindblock and therefore choose to call myself a Libertarian....then again, many other people will deliberately confuse what the meaning of Libertarianism is.
Which strikes me as being a more reasonable attempt to explain the position, than to just say, anarchy is not what you understand it to be.

The trouble is that for me, and others that maybe more or less self critical, anarchy has a meaning that is in conflict with the meaning that you are placing on the term. This is not a mindblock, it is that the word has a meaning for us, and changing that meaning has to be justified.
If I were to suddenly start calling myself a conservative, but by this I meant that I was an environmentalist I would confuse others. These others already have a preset notion of what a conservative is. You appear to be trying to do the same with anarchy. Take a known term and change its meaning. This is not a good plan.

Create a new term, or appropriate one that is less well known. Anarchist is too widely used in the anti-institution wreck an destroy society meaning to be easlily have a different meaning assigned to it.

A suggestion: try Bakuninist.

Slavery was not popular with the thousands who were kept as slaves. I'm assuming that we're talking about the voting of all mentally capable adults when we talk about voting and elections. Your analogy is invalid.

Nonetheless, my point was that ideas change. People today don't hold the same ideas as people back then and people in the future won't necessarily hold the same ideas as people today.

Edit: Note that many people today don't like starving or working in sweatshops...

Nonetheless, my point was that ideas change. People today don't hold the same ideas as people back then and people in the future won't necessarily hold the same ideas as people today.

Well in that case the proof will be in the pudding. Maybe in a hundred years everyone will actually vote for a communist economy. Today though, if this "democratic anarchy" was implemented, and the populace was similar to those of modern countries, the direct democracy would immediately vote itself un-direct again.

Nova Castlemilk says:

Which strikes me as being a more reasonable attempt to explain the position, than to just say, anarchy is not what you understand it to be.

Well that is what I usually do. Thankfully I live in a society where Libertarian is synonym for Anarchist. However on these forums Libertarian means something different.

The trouble is that for me, and others that maybe more or less self critical, anarchy has a meaning that is in conflict with the meaning that you are placing on the term. This is not a mindblock, it is that the word has a meaning for us, and changing that meaning has to be justified.

You [by which I mean anti-Anarchists] changed the term. We came up with it ;)

If I were to suddenly start calling myself a conservative, but by this I meant that I was an environmentalist I would confuse others. These others already have a preset notion of what a conservative is. You appear to be trying to do the same with anarchy. Take a known term and change its meaning. This is not a good plan.

You've put the cart before the horse.

Create a new term, or appropriate one that is less well known. Anarchist is too widely used in the anti-institution wreck an destroy society meaning to be easlily have a different meaning assigned to it.

A suggestion: try Bakuninist.

What and ignore all those other brilliant minds.

I suggest Spoonerite, to claim him back from the Anarcho-Capitalists.

If I were to suddenly start calling myself a conservative, but by this I meant that I was an environmentalist I would confuse others. These others already have a preset notion of what a conservative is. You appear to be trying to do the same with anarchy. Take a known term and change its meaning. This is not a good plan.

Create a new term, or appropriate one that is less well known. Anarchist is too widely used in the anti-institution wreck an destroy society meaning to be easlily have a different meaning assigned to it.

A suggestion: try Bakuninist.

we've had the word for over 150 years. there is no change of meaning here. the widespread use of 'anarchy' and 'anarchist' as pejorative terms comes out of scaremongering aimed at the anarchist movement of 120 years ago.

and we are not going down the road of naming ourselves after people. we're fractious enough as it is without becoming proudhonist-kropotkinist-malatestans* or whatever.


*but if we do go that route, i got dibs on this one

Although aren't there anarchists who actually advocate pure survival of the fittest, and a "rape pillage and burn" society? Those aren't collectivists, they're extreme individualists, taking "every man for himself" to the furthest degree possible.

That's Anarcho-Primitivism, contrary to Libertarian Socialism (i.e. Anarcho-Communism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Anarchism is a very old political philosophy.
In saying this, I have to comment, especially to Alien Born, that calling yourself a "Bakuninist" is just as bad as calling yourself a "Marxist". Marx's political philosophy was essentially valid but he was stuck in his own mindset and history has shown the failure of his political/economic arguements.

That's the danger when you align yourself a political idealogy, when it fails, you do to.

Bakunin had some great ideas, in fact during the First international, his arguments defeated those of Marx, where a majority of the First International identified with an Anarchist philosphy.

But you are on the right track however. To learn about Anarchism, you should research the wealth of literature about it.

Some names (along with Bakunin) are Maletesta, Proudhon, Kropotkin etc.

Even in todays world, there is a wealth of Anarchist magazines and newsletters in most large towns, which show how Anarchism is a needed and valid form of political action.

Don't get hung up on the word, but find out what the spirit of Anarchism is.

we've had the word for over 150 years. there is no change of meaning here. the widespread use of 'anarchy' and 'anarchist' as pejorative terms comes out of scaremongering aimed at the anarchist movement of 120 years ago.

and we are not going down the road of naming ourselves after people. we're fractious enough as it is without becoming baukunist-kropotkinist-malatestans or whatever.

Yeah, lefties are the living proof that some people should never be able to read a thesaurus.

That's Anarcho-Primitivism, contrary to Libertarian Socialism (i.e. Anarcho-Communism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

I stand corrected.

If everyone stuck to the original meanings of words, rather than the currently accepted meaning of words, our discussions here would be almost completely unintelligable. Words do acquire new meanings, particularly fairly early in their lives. Anarchist appears to be such a word.

All I am arguing here is that the word anarchist means something different to the vast majority of the world, in comparison to the meaning that those proclaiming themselves to be anarchists attach to it.
Is it surprising then that the general public misunderstands you?

To insist that you use the word as it traditionally meant what you want it to mean is more than a little strange for a group that is so strongly opposed to the imposition of traditional ideas. Abandon it. Choose a new label.
You wisely reject naming the ideology after an individual, so create a new name.

By the way, I am in my naive way a Libertarian, pro direct democracy, opposed to the excessive machinery of state, opposed to unnecessary regulation. But I do not consider myself to be an anarchist of any stripe, as I do see an essential role for a central state.

Alien, you ask us to name ourselves by some other title. Guess what would happen then? The same prejudice that exists against Anarchism would also exist against the new term. The reason why this is so, is because the philosophy behind Anarchism is what is feared, not the word itself.

To put it another way, The American military hates the Iraqi terrorists, while the Iraqi freedom Fighters, abhor the invasion from the American murderers.

You see what words can do? In the end it's not the title but the integrity of the idea that counts.

That's Anarcho-Primitivism, contrary to Libertarian Socialism (i.e. Anarcho-Communism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

i don't think most primmies would fall under the 'everyone for themsevles' idea

Alien, you ask us to name ourselves by some other title. Guess what would happen then? The same prejudice that exists against Anarchism would also exist against the new term. The reason why this is so, is because the philosophy behind Anarchism is what is feared, not the word itself.

To put it another way, The American military hates the Iraqi terrorists, while the Iraqi freedom Fighters, abhor the invasion from the American murderers.

You see what words can do? In the end it's not the title but the integrity of the idea that counts.

Are you really then the mass murdering, bomb wielding anti social rampaging mob that the word anarchist conjures up in peoples minds.
Most people do not have the faintest idea of the politics behind the term. They never get beyond the superficial gut reaction. If you change your name, then at least you avoid that initial rejection due to stereotyping.
The prejudice is almost purely against the term as few people know anything more than this.
You could at least be judged by your actions, which is the situation in Iraq. Rather than by a false reputation, which is the case for the majority of muslims and christians and apparently for all anarchists.

What kind of name would we call ourselves, then?

What kind of name would we call ourselves, then?

democratic-republicans!

democratic-republicans!
Could work in Britain, but guess in America it would get you some pretty odd looks.

I agree Alien, and as an Anarchist, I have been involved with people who intially did not understand what Anarchism was. As time goes on however, many people realise that the philosophy is what counts and some have chosen to identify themselves as Anarchists.

The real struggle is not to get people to understand what the term Anarchism means but instead to seek to change peoples opinions by argument and action.

Anarchism by it's very nature cannot flourish within a political framework that is at odds with its political philosopy. To give an example...
Do you think that you would ever have convinced a serf, living within a feudalistic economy of the merits of capitalistic democracy. He would have thought it so much "pie in the sky"

He could not have conceived of being as educated as his Lord, choosing to embark on most any career he wanted, chosen to live anywhere he decided in the country, having enough resources to be independent from his ownership by the local Lord. None of the benefits of capitalist democracy would have seemed real or achievable.

At present, that is the situation that exists with the philosophy of Anarchism (or any other alternative title you choose) It's the message that people are afraid of, they choose not to believe it's a realistic and achievable goal. That is also why the controlling bodies of any state is so afraid of Anarchism....it does not fit into the stereotype they try to place it under, by it's actions and arguements, it is always a threat to the status quo.

There may come a time in the future, when people look back at out "ignorant and prejudiced world order" and wonder why we chose to live in the Dark Ages for so long, when we could have sooner begun to achieve a society that benefited all in the world, not just the minority of industrialised nations and the even smaller minority of individuals who benefited most, while the rest languished in poverty.

I'm not being melodramatic here....of 6 billion people in this world, less than 1 billion enjoy all the things that we in the west take for granted. That means aprox 84% of the people on this planet are unfairly disadvantaged while the remaining 16% generally live lives of vapid self interest.

All I am arguing here is that the word anarchist means something different to the vast majority of the world, in comparison to the meaning that those proclaiming themselves to be anarchists attach to it.
Is it surprising then that the general public misunderstands you?

Who said we use the term when talking to the "general public"?

When I talk to diverse audiences I try to avoid labels -- at least as long as possible -- because they rarely do any good. If someone insists on a label, I usually use "libertarian socialist" because I want to avoid the INSTANTANEOUSLY bad reaction that "anarchist" causes.

After I've "hooked" them, sooner or later the word "anarchist" comes up. But only once we're already on the same page theoretically.

But when I am discussing political theory with educated people, or people who presume to discuss such issues with any degree of intellectual seriousness, I call myself an "anarchist," because this better identifies the intellectual tradition and political movement with which I identify.

It is a matter of context and a matter of audience.

You should be honored that we choose to discuss anarchism with you, because this decision implies that we assume your willingness to treat it with the respect that a thoughtful and interesting political philosophy deserves.

Why are you so intent on proving us wrong?

The fact that anarcho-communism sounds completely oxymoronic doesn't help us much, either.

Who said we use the term when talking to the "general public"?

When I talk to diverse audiences I try to avoid labels -- at least as long as possible -- because they rarely do any good. If someone insists on a label, I usually use "libertarian socialist" because I want to avoid the INSTANTANEOUSLY bad reaction that "anarchist" causes.

After I've "hooked" them, sooner or later the word "anarchist" comes up. But only once we're already on the same page theoretically.

But when I am discussing political theory with educated people, or people who presume to discuss such issues with any degree of intellectual seriousness, I call myself an "anarchist," because this better identifies the intellectual tradition and political movement with which I identify.

It is a matter of context and a matter of audience.

You should be honored that we choose to discuss anarchism with you, because this decision implies that we assume your willingness to treat it with the respect that a thoughtful and interesting political philosophy deserves.

Why are you so intent on proving us wrong?

Your making us sound like a cult now :)

Could work in Britain, but guess in America it would get you some pretty odd looks.

that's why its a great idea

wait!

i've got an even better one - democratic federalists.

(ok, somebody should stop me before i start going off about the greenbacked bull moose party or something)

Your making us sound like a cult now :)

Really? Cool. I've always wanted to join a cult....

Seriously, I am just saying that only an idiot goes around proclaiming ideological allegiances to an uninformed audience. That is just not how one speaks politically.

Meanwhile, I expect a more exclusive audience professing an interest in political discussion to accept standard political-theoretic definitions rather than insisting that the terms of the discipline should be revised every time popular culture shifts popular meanings.

At some point we have to stop and confront the real problem.

As others have pointed out, the problem does not arise because anarchists unwisely adopted a name for themselves that has an unpopular meaning.

It also did not arise because there was some "confusion" over what it was anarchists were talking about. Advocates of anarchism have always been very clear about their ideals and intentions.

The problems arose because the opponents of anarchism -- who knew perfectly well what it was -- adopted the tactic of running around yelling "Anarchy is chaos! Anarchy is chaos!"

It does not matter how we might rename ourselves. Our opponents -- knowing perfectly well what we propose -- would run around claiming that what we are talking about is "chaos" and "lawlessness." Since our opponents have considerably more power than we do, and more access to media resources, chances are their "definition" would catch on.

(Terms like "libertarian communism" only barely survive this because they are so cumbersome in the first place. People's eyes start to glaze over at the "big words," so there is little need to corrupt them.)

The solution is, and always will be, education. A new name will not work any better than the old one unless we can give people the knowledge they need to counteract the propoganda of our opponents.

Meanwhile, I expect a more exclusive audience professing an interest in political discussion to accept standard political-theoretic definitions rather than insisting that the terms of the discipline should be revised every time popular culture shifts popular meanings.

The problem is that the term anarchist has had bad press for about 120 years.
I am not suggesting that you change your name with every little shift in the public opinion landscape. But the consistent rejection of the possibility of listening to your position due to a prejudice about the name for more than a century? To refuse to consider changing the name is just being assinine (in the full meaning of the word).

The solution is, and always will be, education. A new name will not work any better than the old one unless we can give people the knowledge they need to counteract the propoganda of our opponents.

The knowledge to counteract the propoganda will not get through unless you change your name.
Without this "Oh its just those chaos hungry crackpots again" would be about the best response you could hope to get.

But the consistent rejection of the possibility of listening to your position due to a prejudice about the name for more than a century?

As I said, it would be utterly foolish to address a general audience by starting, "so let me tell you why I am an anarchist." But it would be just as bad to start, "so let me tell you why I am a communist," or (in the United States) "so let me tell you why I am a socialist."

The "bad press" is due to the fact that these are marginalized points of view. Changing the name will never solve the problem AND it would create a disjunct between contemporary advocates and the historical movement of which they are a part. Perhaps if you are not involved in radical politics, you don't understand how important it is to feel part of a continuing struggle.

The name is empowering. The history is empowering. Of course, our opponents know this, which is why they corrupt the name... and then why they try to convince us (oh so helpfully) to change it.

If you are not an anarchist, why does it bug you so much that we will not change our name? You should be happy you have such an easy target!

Could it be because you realize the name itself retains a certain power that you would like to deny us?

Anyway, among people who are prejudiced toward the name, I would never use "anarchist" (or "communist" or "socialist"). But I find that I am very successful in explaining "what's wrong with the world" from an anarchist or socialist perspective, and only THEN "letting people in" on the fact that this comes out of the anarchist/socialist tradition -- which they are frequently then very happy to read.

However, I hoped I could expect more of people on Nationstates. We are here, after all, for political discussion, right? As a common courtesy, don't you think all of us should put aside our prejudices and discuss philosophies as they are rather than as people believe them to be?

The knowledge to counteract the propoganda will not get through unless you change your name.

If that is true, then the only way to overcome racism is to change the color of your skin.

If that is true, then the only way to overcome racism is to change the color of your skin.

You know better than that! :mad:

You know better than that! :mad:

Why so mad?

Please, explain the difference to me.

You claim, on the one hand, that unless anarchists change their name -- the first thing people see, the "cover to our book" -- there is no way education can possibly change the way people view us.

It follows that education should be just as powerless against any prejudice, including racism.

Why so mad?

Please, explain the difference to me.


You claim, on the one hand, that unless anarchists change their name -- the first thing people see, the "cover to our book" -- there is no way education can possibly change the way people view us.

It follows that education should be just as powerless against any prejudice, including racism.


Anarchism is a belief set. It has an option as to how it labels itself, it can choose any name it likes. It can choose any public image it wants to have. If you are going to be so stubborn and righteous that you refuse to change your public image, that is your choice.
Racism, sexism, are prejudices where the victims do NOT have the option of changing their public image. Also they are not being victimised by for something they have chosen to be. They can not just stop being black or female, even if they wished to.

The analogy is completely false. The term anarchist has a bad name due to the actions of individuals that called themselves anarchists, in London and in the USA. Blacks and women are victims of prejudice imposed without reason, with no provocation. They have worked hard to overcome this prejudice, with the help of some non blacks and some men. This was possible to do because there was no foundation for the prejudice. This is not the case with the term anarchist. Check your history, see how many people have been killed by anarchists, claiming to be anarchists. Then tell me that the rejection is purely due to propoganda.

(I, by the way am a white male, so no vested interest here, just a sense of injustice)

Anarchism is a belief set. It has an option as to how it labels itself, it can choose any name it likes. It can choose any public image it wants to have.

That is irrelevant. The point is, you claim education cannot change public perceptions of an object unless the object pretends to be something else, something new. We can argue about whether or not anarchists should change their name, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not, supposing we do not, education can change public perceptions.

The term anarchist has a bad name due to the actions of individuals that called themselves anarchists, in London and in the USA.

Really? Do you know who they are/were? Do most people who are prejudiced toward the term anarchist? In any case, this also is irrelevant to the present discussion.

This is not the case with the term anarchist. Check your history, see how many people have been killed by anarchists, claiming to be anarchists.

Okay, I'll bite. How many? (And do you really want to start comparing death counts with capitalism? Really?)


As a side note, a lesson in logical debate:

You tried to combat my analogy by drawing an irrelevant distinction between two things. Distinctions are important, but they have to have something to do with the topic under consideration.

If you want a better argument for your case, try, "Ah, but blacks did change the words applied to them. They opposed words like '******' for a reason: too much negativity is bound up in the words; they are a barrier to progress."

To which I would reply that anarchists want to do the same thing when we retain our basic identity (anarchist; black) while dissolving through education the application of unfair terminology (lawless, chaotic; niggardly).


And so reason triumphs yet again.....

You still haven't answered my question:

Why do you care so much? If you oppose anarchism, you should be happy that we are (in your opinion) stumbling along with our name tied around our feet.

The very fact that our opponents are so convinced we should change tends to suggest to me that we probably should not.


PERHAPS to take my analogy too far.... You are like the white guy who says, "Sure, I'll accept black people. Once they start acting and dressing like everyone else."

No, it gives complete freedom to each individual to participate in the act of rule-making.

Now, i can understand this concept which is essentially a perfect democracy, instead of a representative democracy, where citizens make the rules.. (in which case we are actually talking about a government structure). However, minus this, I can make a very strong argument that what your speaking of here is very much equivalent to a representative government (much like Italys). In this form of democracy/republic there exists many nationalities/groups each holding an equal stance in government to make rules. It however is the most ineffective because few people think the same way and have differing priorities or beliefs of what is right and wrong.. Its much like arguing ethics, ethics differs from every person, so such as in buisness no real sense of buisness ethics can be identified spesifically. If a concesous cannot be attained how can law come to pass.

Wrong! If you follow the logic of anarchy, you do NOT have complete freedom, that is you are not "free" to oppress, exploit, etc. people, because that would be totally against the logic of anarchy!!

Well, it is this logic i dont understand.. Because anarchy is to call into question the authority of others.. (ie rulers). So if i am an individual, and there is no authority over me.. no one holds power over me. Then why am I not free to act as i will. Who dictates what is exploitation, or oppression. If i run a company, and half my staff is German speaking, and i make a rule that they can only speak english when at work.. is this oppression ? some will say yes.. others will say no. But without the existance of an authority.. who is avalible to give this true answer ?

The anarchy you describe sounds exactly like direct democracy.. so what is the difference ?

"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is under constant attack" said Malcolm X, and we can apply this proposition to this case. Anarchist are not saying that one shouldn't defend himself against evil. In fact most anarchist advocate mutual community defence systems.
So there would be power!

When i made my statement that there is no one to hault there actions.. i meant, there is no overriding authority to hault their actions.. It is that exact fact, people will have to defend themselves from all possible threats because there will be nothing to disaude people from acting immoral.

One of the basic propositions of anarchy is that authority (state, capitalism, church, to name three) is not necessary in order to have organization. In fact syndicalist-anarchists have a slogan "Agitate! Educate! Organize!".

To make it simple:

Authority does sometimes imply order and organization.
No Authority does not necessarily imply disorder and disorganization.

I can see how no authority does not mean disorganization.. but organization does mean government .. and as far as ive seen, anarchy means no government. So there is some descrepency here... as I asked before, What is the difference between a direct democracy and the anarchistic system you advocate ?

Now, i can understand this concept which is essentially a perfect democracy, instead of a representative democracy, where citizens make the rules.. (in which case we are actually talking about a government structure).
That's right.
However, minus this, I can make a very strong argument that what your speaking of here is very much equivalent to a representative government (much like Italys).
I would like to hear that argument. (You do not make it here... You give an explanation of Italy's government, but you do not make the comparison to direct democracy.)

In this form of democracy/republic there exists many nationalities/groups each holding an equal stance in government to make rules. It however is the most ineffective
In what way is it ineffective?
because few people think the same way and have differing priorities or beliefs of what is right and wrong.
Well... yeah. But can you think of a better way for them to make decisions than as equals?

If a concesous cannot be attained how can law come to pass.
There is very rarely consensus in any diverse group. Different groups come up with different ways to deal with this. The most "liberal" version (in the sense of preferring change) is to simply allow that majorities have decision-making power. Majoritarianism is a far cry from "consensus," but it does manage to get things done.

In the most extreme cases, in which groups are highly heterogeneous and there are high levels of political distrust, institutions may still use consensus or unanimity rules that are designed to protect threatened minority. In such cases, decisions are usually made by a process of compromise and negotiation.

Some issues may be fundamentally "undecidable," like abortion in the United States. Here democratic citizens commit themselves to a (potentially long) political confrontation in which they try to actually convince their opponents, shift the terms of debate, or otherwise create the conditions under which more definite decisions are possible.

Well, it is this logic i dont understand.. Because anarchy is to call into question the authority of others.. (ie rulers). So if i am an individual, and there is no authority over me.. no one holds power over me.
But there is authority. There is government. The thing that makes it "anarchist" government is the fact that no individual, class, or class interest makes rules for everyone else. There is no distinction between "rulers" and "ruled."

The anarchy you describe sounds exactly like direct democracy.. so what is the difference ?

For myself, my idea of anarchist life is distinct from what advocates of "direct democracy" envision... but yes, most anarchist thought at least resembles direct democracy or sees some place for direct democratic institutions within a broader framework.

Among the differences, for most anarchists, are a commitment to socialist or communist economics (and thus a measure of economic equality), as well as a relatively strong commitment to local politics. (Direct democracy can occur, at least in theory, on any scale.)
It is that exact fact, people will have to defend themselves from all possible threats because there will be nothing to disaude people from acting immoral.
Only the same threat of punishment that exists in EVERY human society. If it works under conditions of extreme inequality (with great incentives to crime), it ought to work at least as well under conditions of relative equality. (And equal protection. Political theorist Gordon Schochet is currently working on a fascinating book on political obligation in which he argues that residents of the ghetto have no justifiable obligations to local, state, or national government in the United States for the simple and obvious reason that government utterly fails to protect them from the threat of violent death. Anarchists hope to remedy such situations.)

but organization does mean government
Yep.
.. and as far as ive seen, anarchy means no government.
Nope.

Anarchism advocates self-government of all by all.

The form of government some of you have discussed concerning Anarchy - collective democracy of a sort - reminds me of the form of democracy that Athens used before it was conquered by Sparta. You can find an interesting article on it here. (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc1/lectures/07democracy.html)

Just a small contribution on my part. I'm afraid most of this is over my head in terms of analytical ability!

*snip*

Actually, that's a REALLY good place to start. If you want the best possible discussion of what political life meant to the Greeks, pick up Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition. The whole book is good, but you only have to read up to page 78 to get some wonderful insights on the public/private distinction and how it plays out historically.

That's right.

I would like to hear that argument. (You do not make it here... You give an explanation of Italy's government, but you do not make the comparison to direct democracy.)

Direct democracy is essentially an extreme version of a Proportional Democracy [ I was getting the name wrong :D]. In a direct democracy, the people themselves come together to make the laws which will govern society. In a Proportional Democracy, representatives of every special interest, and every nationality is represented equally. Every group, every special interest, every person has an equal say in every issue. The problem is, with so many special interest, with so many perspectives, each viaing to have their own perspective put forth often the real problem can't even be determined because often people do not precieve so called "problems" in any one way. The simple thing is, you face grid lock in the legislative process. And with static political party powers, you can never hope to free up the process.

In Italys case, the proportional democracy is renouned as the most inefficent government in Europe, as it is extremely difficult for any issue to be resolved because no group can agree on an answer. As such laws cannot be passed in any meaningful time period. If a Society governed by a Direct Democracy was asked to address an issue such as Social Security on the brink of collapse (to be relavent to todays real world social problems) ... it is quite plausible, almost expected that issue would not be reach a resolution in time.. this is because people would not ( as in todays reality) agree on what the problem actually is. Without atleast a basic consensous on what the problem is, how can one possibly expect an answer to be found. However, with catch-all-political parties, there is a greater chance that a consensous maybe found on this issue (atleast on the issue of the problem itself) because there only exists 2 actors, instead of 100 different actors.

And just to clarify, your version of Anarchy is actually direct democracy ? Why not call it what it is then.. a direct democracy, or a government run by the people.

Also one problem with this idea of direct democracy is, that with so many issues, so many perspectives, so many precieved problems, how does anyone get around to actually living life when so much time must be invested just to address each issue ?

This is infact one reason why Direct Democracies have not come into being. It is implausible to think every person could engage in the political process personally while still being able to sustain themselves. In effect a working class person, someone whose life titers from check to check has little extra time to dabble in politics. So he best benifits from a representative government, where his views can be heard, without him being there to express them.


Well... yeah. But can you think of a better way for them to make decisions than as equals?

My answer to your question is going to be obvious.. but i pose this question to you.. Is it better to have a system which represents everyone equally but is unable to function efficently and effectivly in the legislative process or is it better to have a structure which can effectivly and efficently pass legislation while representing the most people possible (though not everyone) ?

The proportional Democracy structure is the closest thing to direct democracy / or what sounds like your anarchy to date... and it is by all observed realities the most inefficent government type to date.

The Majoritarian System with Catch-all-political parties.. You use catch-all-political parties which are designed to encompass mulitple perspectives and special interest into realitvily few groups so you maximize efficeny and essentially acheive effectiveness by actually being able to attain some meaningful level of consensus so that laws can be passed in an efficent time table. While its true as an individual one catch all political party may not represent all of my political/social ideals, It is realitive to assume one will encompass atleast a few if not a majority of my ideals and thus be able to legitimaly represent me on some level.

A suggestion: try Bakuninist.

NEVER!
I am not a "Bakuninist".

I declare comunismo libertario in this thread.

http://enrager.net/forums/images/smiles/StarRBmini.gif

Direct democracy is essentially an extreme version of a Proportional Democracy.

No, it isn't. For a variety of reasons, some of which I will enumerate below.

In a Proportional Democracy, representatives of every special interest, and every nationality is represented equally.

Careful. What is actually supposed to happen is that special interests and national or ethnic groups are represented proportionally based on popular support.

Every group, every special interest, every person has an equal say in every issue.

No, many (not every) group has a proportional say in every issue.

Now, some important points:

First, there is always a necessary cut-off. Since we are dealing with representative bodies, there cannot possibly be more "groups" represented than there are representatives in the assembly. Considering that there are almost certainly more distinct interests than there are representatives, one cannot claim that "everyone" is represented "equally."

Moreover, proportional representation favors wealthy, organized groups just as much as pluralist (American) winner-take-all democracy. If one does not have money, it is extremely difficult to organize a party capable of representing one's interests. Direct democracy is considerably less susceptible to this problem (although under conditions of vast inequality the problem will nevertheless exist).

Also, the popular initiative is at best incidental to proportional represenation, whereas direct democracy requires it as a matter of course. People have not only the power to vote on measures, but to propose them as well.

The simple thing is, you face grid lock in the legislative process.

So? That government should avoid gridlock and "get things done" is largely a normative statement. Interestingly, Madison and others designed the United States Constitution to institute a government with as much gridlock as possible because they wanted to make it difficult for any one faction (including, for them, the majority) to easily pass legislation.

And with static political party powers, you can never hope to free up the process.

Maybe. But "static political parties" are more of a problem in proportional representation than in direct democracy, are they not?

In Italys case, the proportional democracy is renouned as the most inefficent government in Europe, as it is extremely difficult for any issue to be resolved because no group can agree on an answer.

Again, a normative claim: "everyone else" dislikes the government of Italy. But what I want to know is what actual problems has this caused? What has Italy been unable to resolve that really needed a speedy resolution? And if it is so terrible, why do they keep it?

If a Society governed by a Direct Democracy was asked to address an issue such as Social Security on the brink of collapse (to be relavent to todays real world social problems)

Social Security is not on the brink of collapse. It is actually much healthier than the rest of the federal government. Don't buy into the hype: the only serious threat to Social Security is George W. Bush.

... it is quite plausible, almost expected that issue would not be reach a resolution in time..

When issues are truly pressing, even the most heterogenous decision-making bodies tend to act quickly. The U.S. government does not exactly run smoothly, but when they perceive a military threat (whether or not there actually is one is beside the point) Congress has been known to act quickly and decisively.

(Ironically, I think that at the national level -- which is ultimately too large for me -- a two-party parliamentary system is preferable to all others, but this is because I value accountability over representation when the scale is so great that even proportional representation is unlikely to accurately represent my beliefs.)

And just to clarify, your version of Anarchy is actually direct democracy?

No. As I have been attempting to explain, direct democrats and anarchists have a lot in common, but anarchism is distinct from direct democracy, not least in that it includes a preference for particular economic philosophies, but also in that it places a greater emphasis on meaningful political activity as opposed to the simple act of voting.

Direct democracy is an institutional framework by which to make collective decisions on any scale. Anarchism is a transformation of collective life in its social, political, and economic facets, which in its most contemporary forms usually includes a political framework comparable to direct democracy.

Also one problem with this idea of direct democracy is, that with so many issues, so many perspectives, so many precieved problems, how does anyone get around to actually living life when so much time must be invested just to address each issue ?

There are many answers to this question, and they vary a great deal from anarchist to anarchist. For myself, I expect the "direct democracy" aspect of society to deal primarily with the "big issues" of collective ends. I also expect people to elect administrators whose role is to enforce and administer the law, but not to legislate... These should either be elected very frequently (yearly) or the offices should be filled on a rotating lottery basis, as in ancient Athens.

A deeper answer involves the fact that direct political involvement opens up more "life to live" than it excludes. You know the word "private" originally carried a STRONG sense of "privation"? The ancients considered it slavish to want to withdraw from political life into merely private affairs. Most anarchists hold a similar belief.

In effect a working class person, someone whose life titers from check to check has little extra time to dabble in politics.

Good point. That is why anarchists advocate a world in which NO ONE "teeters from check to check."

I belive Ive again used the wrong term then.. The italian government is not proportional.. that is the German system.. the italians have a different system in which each political faction has an equal say in the government.. i just can't remember the right name.. >.< now im frustrated.. if someone remebers or can find out please post it.. cause this will nag at me until i know the right answer


DAMN... I think i was right in the first place.. its a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

if im again incorrect >.< which i think this time im not.. please leave the correct answer.

In the process of a quick Google search, I have discovered (unsurprisingly) that there is not so much consensus over Italy's problems as you imply:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/viewbook.asp?isbn=0300044119

Among the reviews:

"An intriguing look at Italian politics--its apparent chaos and surprising success--by the foremost expert on the Italian political system. Suggesting that what may be pathological for democracy in one climate may actually work in democracy’s favor in Italy, Joseph LaPalombara shows how the Italians have managed to forge a remarkable democracy, one that reveals degrees of toleration, freedom, and sheer political inventiveness others should find enviable."

In the process of a quick Google search, I have discovered (unsurprisingly) that there is not so much consensus over Italy's problems as you imply:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/YupBooks/viewbook.asp?isbn=0300044119

Among the reviews:

"An intriguing look at Italian politics--its apparent chaos and surprising success--by the foremost expert on the Italian political system. Suggesting that what may be pathological for democracy in one climate may actually work in democracy’s favor in Italy, Joseph LaPalombara shows how the Italians have managed to forge a remarkable democracy, one that reveals degrees of toleration, freedom, and sheer political inventiveness others should find enviable."

well short of reading the book, i couldn't give you a definiative answer on the legitimacy or accuracy of his point of view, however, ive studied indepth the Italian political system (THOUGH IM NOT ABLE TO REMEBER THE DAMN NAME OF THE SYSTEM!!!) and there are many flaws within it which has greatly hindered the system itself.. I can garantee you however, if you take any basic comparative political course in college you will quickly learn the short falls of this system..

well short of reading the book, i couldn't give you a definiative answer on the legitimacy or accuracy of his point of view, however, ive studied indepth the Italian political system (THOUGH IM NOT ABLE TO REMEBER THE DAMN NAME OF THE SYSTEM!!!) and there are many flaws within it which has greatly hindered the system itself.. I can garantee you however, if you take any basic comparative political course in college you will quickly learn the short falls of this system..

I'm not really a big fan of comparative politics. I had to take a course on the EU to get through my Masters... and I feel confident that will be the last one of my career. For me it goes political theory, public law, and American politics -- in that order.

However, since you have studied the Italian system "in depth," and it sounds so interesting, I would be terribly grateful if you could provide a few examples of the ills suffered by Italians because of their political system.

In this case, I am NOT interested in theory. I want to know what bad has actually come to them because of their political system.

NEVER!
I am not a "Bakuninist".

are you a proudhonist-kropotkinist-malatestan then? or are you a damned reactionary capitalist running dog splitter? or, heaven forbid, a makhnovist-durrutist-goldmanist-stirnerite?

are you a proudhonist-kropotkinist-malatestan then? or are you a damned reactionary capitalist running dog splitter? or, heaven forbid, a makhnovist-durrutist-goldmanist-stirnerite?

I like to think I'm the bastard son of Marx and Kropotkin's favourite pet goat.

Well, it is this logic i dont understand.. Because anarchy is to call into question the authority of others.. (ie rulers). So if i am an individual, and there is no authority over me.. no one holds power over me. Then why am I not free to act as i will. Who dictates what is exploitation, or oppression.


Anarchism is not pure individualism or all about an individual. Anarchism is not pure collectivism or all about the community. It's both and neither, it is anarchism.

As I stated earlier, anarchism is not about everybody doing what ever they please. To put it short: it is not anarchistic to act archisticly (that is to be a ruler, oppressor, aggressor, exploiter, choose the word..). So if you oppress someone, it is quite certain that in anarchist community people would react to your actions, maybe violently, more likely (I'm an optimist in this.. :) ) trying to solve the situation through discussions..


If i run a company, and half my staff is German speaking, and i make a rule that they can only speak english when at work.. is this oppression ? some will say yes.. others will say no. But without the existance of an authority.. who is avalible to give this true answer ?


Many anarchists oppose the idea of wage labour, indeed some of them call it even wage slavery! So it is not very likely that you would be running a company in anarchist community. You could be working there, but not the ruler. Anarcho-capitalists on the other hand oppose this idea..

So, anyway, let's assume that you are the head of a company and half of you staff speaks German. Is that oppression? Well, think about it.

If you just make a rule, that english is the work-language, what are you doing? You are just stating an opinion "From now on only English shall be spoked in the workspace". What would happen? Nothing, because the workers think that the proposal sucks. What should happen? Tell me. Is this oppression? Not at this point it's free speach.

On the other, if you start threatening you worker, that they lose their work or you cut the wages, it is oppression. People should be able to communicate in there own language.. (there can be situations in which this doesn't work)

So, who is to say what is oppression? That is the question, actually two questions. We are not able to give an exact answer about what is oppression, we only have strong gut-feelings about that. And that is what we must start. We, as individuals, are the authority in our own lives. We, as communities, are the authority in our own communities. So who is to say? We are to say.. and I like to add: feeling of justice and reason is to say.

Anyway, the situation is this. The world is not simple so there's no simple answers, there's no one answer. We have to choose and carry the consequences.

To ask Authority to make the choises for you is unrealistic and irresponsible. To ask Authority to solve oppression and injustice is like fighting fire with with fire or like giving salt to the thirsty.. Justice comes from discussions, solidarity and cooperation, not from ordering it about. Justice is not mechanical, it's a living thing..


The anarchy you describe sounds exactly like direct democracy.. so what is the difference ?


I am for direct democracy, but I think that anarchism is more than that.


When i made my statement that there is no one to hault there actions.. i meant, there is no overriding authority to hault their actions.. It is that exact fact, people will have to defend themselves from all possible threats because there will be nothing to disaude people from acting immoral.


We are neither born nor living in a vacuum. First most of us have parents and other family, grandfathers, grandmothers, etc. They teach there morality. At a certain age we start forming our own morality.

In anarchy there is a certain and clear morality, anarchist one. There is moral authority in community, and in individuals themselves. As I have said, even that there is not an overriding authority, say state, to hault evil immoral acts, the moral community and moral individuals will act against them. And in addition, most people have strong moral sense, that prevents them from doing immoral things..

There is no need for preparing for the worst all the time. For the most of times life in anarchist society is peaceful, even more peaceful that in the present one.


I can see how no authority does not mean disorganization.. but organization does mean government .. and as far as ive seen, anarchy means no government. So there is some descrepency here... as I asked before, What is the difference between a direct democracy and the anarchistic system you advocate ?


Yes, organization does sometimes mean government, but government doesn't always mean Government as a state. (I was going to say that as an institution, but that wouldn't have been right..)

The difference between direct democracy and the anarchy I'm advocating is minor. As I said before, I am a "Direct Democrat" (:?). But I think anarchy is more than just about politics and decision-making. Direct democracy doesn't necessarily solve the problems with man-woman, hetero-non-hetero and other hierarchic relationships. There are many hierarchic systems that cannot be undone just by changing political or economical system.

essentially then your anarchy is a mixture of direct democracy and social/communism (sharing of resources) ok... thats alittle more clear..

but isn't this system you advocate then reliant on the idea that there is a majority view point on any one issue.. because short of one, no one side is justified in which case you have an interesting conflict ripe for havok... If no majority consensous can be reached on dividing issues like abortion, or religion in society, or who lives where, or who owns what.. with no medium in which will help facilitate a resolution, frustration can (almost be expected to) rise to level upon which violence is then used to deal with the issue.

In your world.. authorities without authority are equal to those who have no knowledge on certain issues.. you say it is irresponsible to pass on the duty of law making onto others to legislate for us. But is it responsible for us to leave law making in the hands of people who have no knowledge or experiance in law making.

Take the issue of creationism and science, in this case you leave the door open for creationism to take hold over science, because those experts in teh field are no more influencial then farmer joe .

`To me this is a great travesty to put those people unqualified to make informed decision in a position in which they have to decide what is best for themeselves, maybe even others... (children, family members) Certainly children cannot make decisions for themselves and rely on parental guidence.. and it is often the case that parents themselves look to higher authorities for guidence on a variety of issues..

This system you propose seemingly is far less benifical for soceity as a whole... Short of any majority decision on any critical issue, people are then left to make decisions for themselves even if they are (most likely) uninformed unqualified decisions which will have determental effects on their lives and the lives of their family members.

At some point we have to stop and confront the real problem.

As others have pointed out, the problem does not arise because anarchists unwisely adopted a name for themselves that has an unpopular meaning.

It also did not arise because there was some "confusion" over what it was anarchists were talking about. Advocates of anarchism have always been very clear about their ideals and intentions.

The problems arose because the opponents of anarchism -- who knew perfectly well what it was -- adopted the tactic of running around yelling "Anarchy is chaos! Anarchy is chaos!"

It does not matter how we might rename ourselves. Our opponents -- knowing perfectly well what we propose -- would run around claiming that what we are talking about is "chaos" and "lawlessness." Since our opponents have considerably more power than we do, and more access to media resources, chances are their "definition" would catch on.

(Terms like "libertarian communism" only barely survive this because they are so cumbersome in the first place. People's eyes start to glaze over at the "big words," so there is little need to corrupt them.)

The solution is, and always will be, education. A new name will not work any better than the old one unless we can give people the knowledge they need to counteract the propoganda of our opponents.

Anarchy and libertarian communism has much deeper problems than what definition is floating around.

Even a great deal of those who understand the tenets of anarchy are not sold on it's being a viable government model.

essentially then your anarchy is a mixture of direct democracy and social/communism (sharing of resources) ok...

Let us just say that this explanation will do for now.

but isn't this system you advocate then reliant on the idea that there is a majority view point on any one issue..

No. But why do you seem to think that there must be a resolution to all political disputes "RIGHT NOW"? Universal agreement is the death of politics. But anarchists LOVE politics.

because short of one, no one side is justified in which case you have an interesting conflict ripe for havok...

No more so than at present. (And probably less so, considering the elimination of class interests.)

with no medium in which will help facilitate a resolution,

Discussion is a medium, and I have already discussed some of the institutions by which people will reach decisions. Somehow, you are still letting that "prejudice" in.

frustration can (almost be expected to) rise to level upon which violence is then used to deal with the issue.

That, of course, is what laws are for. Presumably, we all agree at least on this: violence is not to be tolerated. If we cannot agree to that, we cannot have society at all.

authorities without authority

There is no such thing. But that should be obvious.

are equal to those who have no knowledge on certain issues..

No. In what fantasy world are authorities "equal" to the ignorant when it comes to knowledge? That does not even make sense.

But is it responsible for us to leave law making in the hands of people who have no knowledge or experiance in law making.

Presumably, in an anarchist society people would have been raised into a world in which everyone has knowledge and experience in law-making. It is not as if they are raised to adulthood in some non-anarchist hideaway and then "dropped in" unawares. They know their duties, rights, and responsibilities quite well. They are simply better educated in civics than the average person today.

Take the issue of creationism and science, in this case you leave the door open for creationism to take hold over science, because those experts in teh field are no more influencial then farmer joe.

Again, a contradiction. An "authority" is an authority because they are authorized. People do not believe scientists because they have power. We tend to believe them because they know more than we do. There is no contradiction in our authorities being separate from government. How many senators have degrees in evolutionary biology?

Certainly children cannot make decisions for themselves and rely on parental guidence.. and it is often the case that parents themselves look to higher authorities for guidence on a variety of issues..

Absolutely. We trust authorities for guidance. Why do we have to give them power?

EDIT: If people cannot be trusted to make competent decisions about issues, how in hell can they be trusted to make competent decisions about who CAN make competent decisions about issues?!

Anarchy and libertarian communism has much deeper problems than what definition is floating around.

That is true. I think our name is the least of our problems. (But, like our name, our other problems are things to be worked out by anarchists amongst ourselves. I am really perplexed by these anti-anarchists who want to tell us how to run our movement. My gut feeling is that whatever they tell us to do, we should do the opposite.)

;)

If people cannot be trusted to make competent decisions about issues, how in hell can they be trusted to make competent decisions about who CAN make competent decisions about issues?!

"The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against Anarchism as such -- other than relying on prejudice -- because its objections are purely authoritarian and unmask the innate Statism and authoritarianism of liberalism."
-albert meltzer

"The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against Anarchism as such -- other than relying on prejudice -- because its objections are purely authoritarian and unmask the innate Statism and authoritarianism of liberalism."
-albert meltzer

A fallacy. "Hackery" as Jon Stewart would call it. It does nothing to promote your side, as it's main point is to simply tear down the viewpoints of the other side.

I am certainly a liberal, as all of the little political quizzes have pointed out. I understand a great deal of this anarchy argument, in large part thanks to AnarchyeL, and I still have sufficient doubts concerning anarchism.

I have no doubt that the human race is ready for the elimination of hierarchy. You can make all of the reforms you would like, but hierarchy would still be maintained. My problem is that anarchy may simply take all of the citizenry out of the hierarchy and give it solely to the elite class.

Maybe when production and communication technologies have advanced far enough and we are finally conditioned to ignore the rat race, anarchy might finally be viable. But by then, there will be no need for any government, and your ideas will be rendered obsolete.

I have no doubt that the human race is ready for the elimination of hierarchy. You can make all of the reforms you would like, but hierarchy would still be maintained. My problem is that anarchy may simply take all of the citizenry out of the hierarchy and give it solely to the elite class.


The Human Race or certain cultures/societies?
There are already societies which exist without hierarchy.

The Human Race or certain cultures/societies?
There are already societies which exist without hierarchy.

Are these societies large societies, or are they small pocket societies that are mostly free of consumerism?

Maybe when production and communication technologies have advanced far enough and we are finally conditioned to ignore the rat race, anarchy might finally be viable. But by then, there will be no need for any government, and your ideas will be rendered obsolete.
I would add society's increased political awareness and determination to do away with all forms of exploitation to your list.

Then, rather than causing Anarchist philosophy to be obselete is actually the point at which people could identify themselves with an Anarchist society, causing all forms of authortarian government to become obselete.

Good evening AnarchyeL and colleagues. I dropped out last night as it was getting late and I was becoming unfair.

That is irrelevant. The point is, you claim education cannot change public perceptions of an object unless the object pretends to be something else, something new. We can argue about whether or not anarchists should change their name, but that is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not, supposing we do not, education can change public perceptions.

Where did I say that education cannot change public perceptions. I merely stated that it you cannot get your message heard, if people are not willing to listen. A very different claim.

Really? Do you know who they are/were? Do most people who are prejudiced toward the term anarchist? In any case, this also is irrelevant to the present discussion.

This site, politicaly neutral, tells one item. Read it (http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.413) And yes I was aware of this incident beforehand. No I could not have given details, as it was just something lodged in my mind, filed under anarchy/anarchist.
As the discussion is about the perception of the term, then how can you possibly say that the history of the term is irrelevant.

As a side note, a lesson in logical debate:

You tried to combat my analogy by drawing an irrelevant distinction between two things. Distinctions are important, but they have to have something to do with the topic under consideration.

If you want a better argument for your case, try, "Ah, but blacks did change the words applied to them. They opposed words like '******' for a reason: too much negativity is bound up in the words; they are a barrier to progress."

To which I would reply that anarchists want to do the same thing when we retain our basic identity (anarchist; black) while dissolving through education the application of unfair terminology (lawless, chaotic; niggardly).


And so reason triumphs yet again.....

That you do not consider the distinction important is obvious, from your reply. I however do. As should have been obvious from my using it.

The comment on logical debate, by the way, I find more than a little arrogant. Would you care to enlighten me, how you are qualified to decide what is logical debate. I am a graduate in philosophy and computing, I am an MA in the History and Philosophy of science. Unless you are a PhD in philosophy then I find it unlikely that you are any better qualified than I am to recognise logical debate, let alone teach it.

The distinction between suffering prejudice for using an optional term to describe yourself, and suffering prejudice for an accident of birth is significant to the debate. If you do not think so, then you have simply failed to understand the points I have been making. This may be my fault, for not being clear, or your fault for not reading with an open mind.

I have never opposed your goal of reconstructing the public image of anarchism, as you can verify by reading what I have said. What I have questioned is your right to determine what the word anarchy means. The blacks never tried to question what the word "******" meant, or insist that it had to be used in a non perjoritive fashion. They simply wanted not to be labelled niggers. You recognise this in your example of a "better" counter argument (actually the same one, just limited to one example, when I had generalised it). You compare the prejudice against anarchists to that of against the blacks, but you refuse to consider changing the name.

Your basic identity, whether you like it or not, is a physical and biological one. Your political identity, an optional identity, is necessarily going to be coloured by the term you chose to use to describe it.

Words, are public entities. By this I mean that they do not belong to any group, unless they are trademarks that is. Any group may try to change the meaning of an established word, but to do so is a very large task. This whole discussion of the name started with Dogburg posting:
I'm not even going to say that anarchy is bad or good, but honestly, it is naive to think that everyone will get along peacefully with no laws. An argument like "so say in an anarchy I want to go rape and kill, who's going to stop me" is unusable in a case against democracy. Both democracy and monarchy require law to function.

This provoked responses from various proponents of anarchy saying that anarchy was not like that at all. That anarchy did not mean the absence of laws. However, there are then two distinct camps of thought about the meaning of anarchy. What is critical here is that the word anarchy does not belong to either group. Neither one can define it for the other.

I am told that I do not understand the word. Not true. I do understand the word. That I disagree with your understanding just means that from my point of view, you do not understand the word. And vice versa, of course.

Why does it bother me? Because I am a philosopher by nature, because I have an interest in political philosophy. (Not my speciality, but an interest) Because I would like to have a more open discussion of the position of any political group. Because I believe that "anarchists" may have some points that should be on the wider political agenda. But while the group insists on tying itself to a bloody past through its name, this is unlikely to happen. (Not impossible, just very difficult)

The comment on logical debate, by the way, I find more than a little arrogant. Would you care to enlighten me, how you are qualified to decide what is logical debate. I am a graduate in philosophy and computing, I am an MA in the History and Philosophy of science. Unless you are a PhD in philosophy then I find it unlikely that you are any better qualified than I am to recognise logical debate, let alone teach it.
your titles and achievements are only relevant to yourself, they should not be used to place yourself upon some lofty political highground.

As an Anarchist, I choose to respect your position, though do not particulary regard you any better for using your achievements as a bolster to your argument.

If you desire to have an open and informed debate about anarchism, then perhaps your energy should not be wasted upon the political title but discuss the political philiosphy. Let politically active Anarchists deal with this difficulty in seeking to raise the political awareness of others by their dialogue and activities.

While in this forum our dialogue could be better developed by having a more focussed discussion on the nature of Anarchism.

your titles and achievements are only relevant to yourself, they should not be used to place yourself upon some lofty political highground.

As an Anarchist, I choose to respect your position, though do not particulary regard you any better for using your achievements as a bolster to your argument.

Sorry. You are right here. I was just reacting badly to an overarrogant statement. I apologise.



If you desire to have an open and informed debate about anarchism, then perhaps your energy should not be wasted upon the political title but discuss the political philiosphy. Let politically active Anarchists deal with this difficulty in seeking to raise the political awareness of others by their dialogue and activities.

While in this forum our dialogue could be better developed by having a more focussed discussion on the nature of Anarchism.


OK let us try and shift the discussion then.

I, as I said earlier, agree in principle with direct democracy. But I still see the need for a central civil service to enact the decisions of the people. How do anarchists look at this situation?

A fallacy

in order to be a fallacy, it would have to be an argument. but since it is just a statement, it cannot be a fallacy. though you could evaluate the larger article entitled "anarchism: arguments for and against" which the statement comes from to see if the whole thing is fallacious.

in order to be a fallacy, it would have to be an argument. but since it is just a statement, it cannot be a fallacy. though you could evaluate the larger article entitled "anarchism: arguments for and against" which the statement comes from to see if the whole thing is fallacious.

So he had absolutely no intention of making a point when he said it? It seemed to me that he was intent on negating liberal attacks on anarchism by calling them authoritarian. It seems very much like he is responding to attacks on anarchy made by liberals.

However, he does nothing to address either side of the issue.

So he had absolutely no intention of making a point when he said it? It seemed to me that he was intent on negating liberal attacks on anarchism by calling them authoritarian. It seems very much like he is responding to attacks on anarchy made by liberals.

However, he does nothing to address either side of the issue.

no. it is a quote from a larger article which contain his actual arguments. i used it because it fits pretty well with the question being put forward by anarchyel. if you want to talk about meltzer's arguments, i can point you in the direction of the article. i've seen it on the internet somewhere.

no. it is a quote from a larger article which contain his actual arguments. i used it because it fits pretty well with the question being put forward by anarchyel. if you want to talk about meltzer's arguments, i can point you in the direction of the article. i've seen it on the internet somewhere.

I would like to read it when I find the time, if you can post it.

Good evening AnarchyeL and colleagues. I dropped out last night as it was getting late and I was becoming unfair.

Good evening. Nice of you to admit to that.

Where did I say that education cannot change public perceptions.

Without quoting directly (because I am slightly lazy), you said that "unless" anarchists change their name, education cannot effect a change in perceptions of anarchism. "Unless" usually means "in no other way" or "cannot be done without." If you meant something else, you should have said so. (This, I think, is an instance in which everyone agrees on the meaning of the word, and there is no point fighting about it.)

I merely stated that it you cannot get your message heard, if people are not willing to listen. A very different claim.

Yes, and a truism. We also would not be able to change our name if people were not willing to listen. Moreover, as I have repeatedly stated, I think the essence of political speech is knowing how to speak in a way that encourages people to listen. I simply do not think this requires the name-change, which is a kind of retreat and is dis-empowering to the movement. (Unless we can manage to think of a more empowering name, but I have yet to see any such suggestions.)

This site, politicaly neutral, tells one item. Read it (http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.413) And yes I was aware of this incident beforehand. No I could not have given details, as it was just something lodged in my mind, filed under anarchy/anarchist.

Okay... seems pretty insignificant to me. As I said, do you really want to compare the "anarchist terrorist" death-toll to that of capitalism? (Moreover, this is a kind of fallacy of distraction: "look at what anarchism has inspired." And no, accusing capitalism of death and destruction does NOT constitute a similar fallacy, as long as it is done as part of a systemic critique: "capitalism cannot help but do this.")

As the discussion is about the perception of the term, then how can you possibly say that the history of the term is irrelevant.

Far from it! I have been arguing that the history of the term is the very reason it must be preserved. Part of the anarchist struggle has been the struggle over the meaning of the term. (Yes, meaning is political.)

That you do not consider the distinction important is obvious, from your reply. I however do. As should have been obvious from my using it.

Yes. But I also told you why I think it is irrelevant, and you have yet to answer that challenge. The fact that anarchists can change the "cover" to our "book" does not begin to tell us anything about why we should.

Would you care to enlighten me, how you are qualified to decide what is logical debate.

Sure. As with anything else, the critic's qualifications are grounded in knowledge of and experience in the subject. I have knowledge of logical debate, and I am experienced in the subject. Thus when I see errors in argument, or outright fallacies, I feel compelled to point them out, to the betterment of all.

I am a graduate in philosophy and computing, I am an MA in the History and Philosophy of science.

That does not really tell me very much about what you know about logic (or, for that matter, philosophy, history, or computing), especially considering the great diversity in approaches to these among various institutions of higher learning. I know that you must have passed enough classes in philosophy and computing to get a degree, and I suppose you must be taking classes in the history and philosophy of science now.

I do not know how many logic courses you have had, nor what kind of logic you have studied. Nor do I care. I suspect that, like most philosophy of science programs, yours involves an over-emphasis on positivism and symbolic logic. This is a pity, since it hardly trains people to recognize the sorts of problems that arise in the actual language of debate. Worse, such programs try to pretend Hegel and his logic simply never happened.

If you really want to compare formal credentials, I can give you mine... but I much prefer to judge one another on our actual, demonstrated skills in debate.

I have a B.A. in philosophy and a B.S. in mathematics, an M.A. in political science, and I am working on a Ph.D. in political theory. My best friend, incidentally, is a Masters student in the Philosophy of Science at the (ridiculously postivistic) Carnegie Mellon University, and has come to regard me -- through long experience -- as his primary resource on questions of logic and scientific reason.

Unless you are a PhD in philosophy then I find it unlikely that you are any better qualified than I am to recognise logical debate, let alone teach it.

Actually, I am paid to teach it. You?

The distinction between suffering prejudice for using an optional term to describe yourself, and suffering prejudice for an accident of birth is significant to the debate.

It is significant to a wide range of debates, but not this one. If we are the victims of prejudice, through no fault of our own (remember, we used the term, then our opponents corrupted it), why should we have to change? Sure, you may argue that there is no "moral" reason to change, and only a "pragmatic" one... but this is precisely the logic that suggests that if black people could change the color of their skin, then it would be "pragmatic" for them to do so. Indeed, in the abstract perhaps it would! But surely you see the real-world error to that kind of logic: they would be wounded by doing so. Something vital to them would be taken away. I am arguing that the same is true of anarchists... Tell us to change our name, and you ask us to abandon our tradition, our identity. You wound us.

You would agree with the pragmatism of someone like Booker T. Washington. He thought that blacks should abandon the revolutionary language of rights and settle for the "best deal" they can get at the time. The problem occurs when the situation is structured such that the "best deal" is always a little bit worse than what you had before (as with the decline in race relations from the 1870s through the turn of the century). Don't get me wrong, he was a very intelligent man and a wonderful role model... but his politics were simply too accomodating for the marginalized situation of his race.

If you do not think so, then you have simply failed to understand the points I have been making.

And you call yourself qualified to judge of rational debate? Basically, you just said, "I know I am right, and if you think otherwise it must be because you misunderstand me." You are telling me outright that your argument is purely definitional!! You presume that if I understand your definitions, then there is no "argument" to be had. This is as bad as Hannah Arendt's argument that "action is speech." Sure, it has to be if you accept her screwy definition of "action".... but that doesn't mean it bears any relation to the real world.

I have never opposed your goal of reconstructing the public image of anarchism, as you can verify by reading what I have said. What I have questioned is your right to determine what the word anarchy means.

Where did I say we have a "right" to "determine" what the word means? I have not. Rather, I (unlike you) recognize that words are inherently political. As with all politics, this means they involve conflict. There is a struggle over how to define the word, and this struggle is a component of the historical struggle to make anarchism a material reality. I do not assert a "right" to determine what it means (although I respectfully ask that people interested in a serious philosophical (rather than political) discussion of anarchism "get over it" so that we can discuss ideas rather than words).

I assert, instead, that we will continue the struggle over the meaning of the word, rather than retreating from the history of our movement.

You compare the prejudice against anarchists to that of against the blacks, but you refuse to consider changing the name.

"******" had a meaning prior to its application to black people. It was thus an inherently descriptive negative label. It had no positive history to preserve, and it had nothing to do with the self-identification of black people.

Anarchist is our word. It is how we have always chosen to identify ourselves. By struggling to preserve its proper meaning against anti-anarchist propaganda we assert the power to act as political subjects. We oppose negative descriptive labels such as "chaotic" or "lawless" not merely because they are negative, but because they are not -- cannot be -- ours.

"African" once had a negative connotation, too. Should African Americans have abandoned it? Did they? No. Because the negative meaning was imposed on something they could claim for their own. To give it up would be to renounce their identity.

Your basic identity, whether you like it or not, is a physical and biological one.

Are you sure you are a philosophy student? Even as consistent an empiricist as Hume knew better than that!

Your political identity, an optional identity,

Political identity may be subject to choice, but that hardly makes it "optional." You need to be more careful in the words you use, Philosopher. (You may have the choice to skip class, but that is not the same thing as saying attendence is "optional." In all likelihood it is not.)

Any group may try to change the meaning of an established word, but to do so is a very large task.

We know that. The question is not, as I have said repeatedly, "Is this a hard task or not?" The question is, "Is it a worthwhile task?" I argue that it is.

What is critical here is that the word anarchy does not belong to either group. Neither one can define it for the other.

Right. So why are you arguing that anarchy "means" chaos and disorder? You have been arguing, have you not, that we should change our name because it does not mean what we "think" it means?

I have been arguing the more consistent position: we are engaged in a meaningful struggle over the meaning. It is not set in stone.

Why does it bother me? Because I am a philosopher by nature, because I have an interest in political philosophy. (Not my speciality, but an interest)

This is the problem with philosophers: you never leave the realm of abstraction. For you, political philosophy is a matter of debating abstract notions of human nature and and logical consistency. It is purely academic.

Interestingly, this is a particularly modern, if not twentieth-century phenomenon. The great political theorists of the past were self-consciously partisan: they connected their thought with real movements in the world, with the need to change the world.

Plato was concerned with the self-destructiveness of democratic Athens.

Cicero feared the loss of Republican Rome to Caesar.

Augustine recognized the disintegrative centripetal forces of Imperial Rome.

Aquinas sought to revitalize the stagnant interdependence of Medieval Europe.

Machiavelli strove to reinstate a coherent political community (on decidedly classical terms, despite his relatively modern methodology).

Hobbes desperately wanted to prevent society's decay into violence and disorder (after experiencing brutal religious wars).


I could go on. The point is, political theory (philosophy) was always meant to do something in the world. "Philosophizing" about abstract notions of "equality" and "justice" is meaningless without reference to real-world material interests.

Because I would like to have a more open discussion of the position of any political group.

Really? Because so far all you have wanted to discuss is our name.

AnarchyeL

I accept most of your arguments, I am not going to repost them all. OK

I still believe that your choice in retaining a term that has a known perjorative set of connotations is pure stubborness, but I never said that you must not. But I do object to Hume being called an empiricist. I will grant you your right to argue from a high hores position if you want ot, but please do not misrepresent so blatently a humanist rather than empiricist philosopher.
(It would be nice if people occasionally recognised that Hume wrote rather more than just book 1 of the Treatise. Read book 2 at least. )
Hume on identity is not exactly a powerhouse of philosophical thought. Check that one with your philosophy coleagues and friends.

We could continue arguing like this for ever, but I had decided to move beyond the stumbling block of misunderstanding the name,and ask a direct question about "anarchist" thought.

I will repeat this question here.

I, as I said earlier, agree in principle with direct democracy. But I still see the need for a central civil service to enact the decisions of the people. How do anarchists look at this situation?

But I do object to Hume being called an empiricist. I will grant you your right to argue from a high hores position if you want ot, but please do not misrepresent so blatently a humanist rather than empiricist philosopher.

In what way are humanism and empiricism mutually exclusive? Humanism is a philosophical perspective that focuses on human need and interest. Empiricism summarizes the variety of epistemological theories that have in common this one thing: knowledge is essentially rooted in experience.

(It would be nice if people occasionally recognised that Hume wrote rather more than just book 1 of the Treatise. Read book 2 at least. )

From the first section of Book II:

" 'Tis certain, that the mind, in its perceptions, must begin somewhere; and that since the impressions preceed their correspondent ideas, there must be some impressions, which without any introduction make their appearance in the soul. As these depend upon natural and physical causes..."

Not to mention the fact that he refers us to "eight experiments" that verify his theory of the passions. Surely this is empricism. Are you not even familiar with Hume's famous disagreements with Kant's rationalism?

Seriously, if your instructors have left you off this badly, you should sue them.

I, as I said earlier, agree in principle with direct democracy. But I still see the need for a central civil service to enact the decisions of the people. How do anarchists look at this situation?

I, for one, am in complete agreement.

An explanation of Hume's empiricism from the philosophy department at Texas A & M (the result of a quick Google search):

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/emp-hume.html

An explanation of Hume's empiricism from the philosophy department at Texas A & M (the result of a quick Google search):

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/emp-hume.html

As I said, I wish people would read more than just Book 1 of the treatise.

Try something a little more specific to Hume (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3067/hume/h_index.html) , rather than to positivism.

But this is off topic.
And having read your last insulting set of diatribe in which you presume to know any subject better than anyone else I withdraw from any discussion with yourself and feel very fgreat sorrowfor any student who is inflictd with the having to suffer your inability to consider that someone else may actually know something about anything. Have a nice life.

As I said, I wish people would read more than just Book 1 of the treatise.

Sure. I've read the whole thing. I cannot say I am, ultimately, a Humean... but he has some smart things to say.

Try something a little more specific to Hume (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3067/hume/h_index.html) , rather than to positivism.

I would love to. Do you think you could find a source a bit more reputable than someone's Geocities home page? Also, the "overview" section contains only dead links.

How about this page from Stanford, specifically regarding David Hume:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/

See especially point 4, "Empiricism."


:D

Alien Born:

I just caught your last edit.

I am sorry that you have to leave... Personally, I take pity on any student who may ever be subjected to your complete refusal to admit when you are wrong.

Everyone knows Hume is an empiricist.

I am still curious what makes you think empiricism is inconsistent with humanism... but I guess you are too ashamed to venture an answer.

Thanks anyway.

I would like to read it when I find the time, if you can post it.

the whole thing:
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html
the section on specifically on objections is the second half of it.

As for "anarchy" when taken to mean "directly democratic communism", I would suggest that a direct democracy would produce non-communist results. If communist principles were really that popular, communist representitives would recieve much more substantial vote counts in representitive democratic countries of today.

I suppose that would depend on what the purpose of democracy is supposed to be. If you view that democracy's purpose is that each person have a vote, then your view would make sense. However, I view that not only should each person have a vote, but that each person should have the same amount of power. This cannot happen under capitalism, because under capitalism, money is power. Thus, those who have more money have more power.


On a similar theme, what if the first issue to be addressed by this direct democracy was "we can't be bothered to all vote on every issue, why don't we just elect leaders who roughly match our politcal stance"? I speculate that proper direct democracy would be likely to vote itself out of existence in an instant.

There is a difference between a representative, which you are referring to, and a delegate. Both do have a similar job, however a representative has a set term of an amount of time, whereas if the populace doesn't like what the delegate is doing, they may recall the delegate immediately. They don't have to wait a period of time to do so.

As I said, I wish people would read more than just Book 1 of the treatise.

Try something a little more specific to Hume (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3067/hume/h_index.html) , rather than to positivism.

But this is off topic.
And having read your last insulting set of diatribe in which you presume to know any subject better than anyone else I withdraw from any discussion with yourself and feel very fgreat sorrowfor any student who is inflictd with the having to suffer your inability to consider that someone else may actually know something about anything. Have a nice life.
I think that both of you started this discussion with the wrong aim in mind, that of having greater insight, greater philosophical depth. Those things are relevant but not exclusive.

We live in a world where people have differing skills, differences in ability and all the other differences which (should) make any society thrive.

Within an Anarchist society, those differnces are still important. Anarchism benefits most from variety. AnarchyeL, you argue very persuavely but in doing so, you have succceeded in alienating someone who has differing views from you. I consider that a failure.

Alien Born, I'm sorry if you do decide to leave this thread because you put forward well thought arguments but like I said (and I agree you did), we should focus more on discussing the nature of Anarchism.

It is arrogant to presume you have all the answers (I refer only to myself here) but through discussion and argument understanding can be reached of what the other is saying and in the course of that your own perception can be modified. I am an Anarchist, have been for some time. However, I remember in my youth, not being very clear in my political perception. Through interaction with others, I have developed a political identity, which is what I now use to seek to change the perception and understanding of others.

Alien Born, I hope you decide to return to this dialogue but if you still choose not to, then I hope that at least some of the arguments made here gave you some things to reflect upon, that at least makes this dialogue useful.

I enjoyed reading your posts and can see that you are quite a skilled debator. My advice though, is to continue focussing on the nature of Anarchism, not get sidetracked by incidental issues.

essentially then your anarchy is a mixture of direct democracy and social/communism (sharing of resources) ok... thats alittle more clear..

I think that feminism, ecology, gay right, anti-racism, etc. are as essential for "my anarchy" as direct democracy and social/communism. Every problem caused by authoritarism is not solved by implementing direct democracy and socialism or communism. Yes, I think that socialism could change the world signicately better, but I don't see how it as a system could make any difference concerning the relationships between men and women, heteros and non-heteros and man and the Nature. These are something that are social problems and more philosophical questions. In short I think that the anarchist principle of antiauthoritarism and anti-hierarchy cannot be simplified into that or that system. In this sense I think that anarchy cannot be "founded" or "established", anarchy is and will maybe always stay unreachable, Impossible. This is in the way the strengh of anarchism; evolution and revolution never stops. It is this uncertainty that assures greater freedom and liberty that can ever been achieved in present and past societies.


but isn't this system you advocate then reliant on the idea that there is a majority view point on any one issue.. because short of one, no one side is justified in which case you have an interesting conflict ripe for havok... If no majority consensous can be reached on dividing issues like abortion, or religion in society, or who lives where, or who owns what.. with no medium in which will help facilitate a resolution, frustration can (almost be expected to) rise to level upon which violence is then used to deal with the issue.


Why should there be consencus decisions on abortion or religion?

The commuties could of course take majority votes of who lives where, when someone wants to move to the community. There are multiple solutions for this problem too.

"who owns what" you ask. That depends exactly on what is this that should be owned and where, in what kind of anarchist community we happen to be. If we are talking about you toothbrush, it's quite clear that you own it, It's your personal possession. In the other hand if you are talking about 100 tons wheat, quite many wouldn't be happy of you owning and getting rich on that. Discussion, discussion. If this socially agreeable that someone owns something, it's not a problem. But if the owning creates problems, prevents creative active or is in some other way socially harmful, the ownship could even be cancelled! In this we HAVE to remember that we are not prophets and we don't know what happens in the future.. But neither does the political elite now, by the way...


In your world.. authorities without authority are equal to those who have no knowledge on certain issues.. you say it is irresponsible to pass on the duty of law making onto others to legislate for us. But is it responsible for us to leave law making in the hands of people who have no knowledge or experiance in law making.


Yes, it is irresponsible for us to leave lawmaking in the hands on ignorant people.

But who says that these people don't have knowledge of their own lives and communities. But how can people ever be liberated and responsible for their own lives if they never have to make decisions about them. And there will always be people who know more than others. And the present politicians are not necessarily the wisest ones!

Educate! Get information! Investigate! Discuss! Be social!


Take the issue of creationism and science, in this case you leave the door open for creationism to take hold over science, because those experts in teh field are no more influencial then farmer joe .


This is easy. In science making there is not such thing like majority vote. All that really counts is experimental data. So until creationism provide some experimental or scientific data to instigate that there has been a creation. They are outside of science, it is not enough to have a theory, in science you have to have some prove that shows or gives us permission to assume that our theory is right (to our present knowledge).


`To me this is a great travesty to put those people unqualified to make informed decision in a position in which they have to decide what is best for themeselves, maybe even others... (children, family members) Certainly children cannot make decisions for themselves and rely on parental guidence.. and it is often the case that parents themselves look to higher authorities for guidence on a variety of issues..


I haven't said that people shouldn't look "to higher authorities for guidance". They should investigate and think of the best solution they can come to, given the information they can get. What I have said is that these authorities shouldn't be the decision-makers, the rulers.


This system you propose seemingly is far less benifical for soceity as a whole.


Do you still think so?

.. Short of any majority decision on any critical issue, people are then left to make decisions for themselves even if they are (most likely) uninformed unqualified decisions which will have determental effects on their lives and the lives of their family members.

I don't understand where this comes from. Are you saying that people are not able to reach agreement on anything? Or are you saying that I deny the possibility of majority votes entirely? I haven't said neither of them..

Hello all,

I think a couple points might help to clarify the debate a little.

The first, to be blunt about it, is that there is no such thing as a unified, overarching anarchist doctrine that might simply be applied to existing conditions. There is, however, a rather loose set of general principles through which anarchists identify with a historical tradition; as a first approximation, I would mention such things as local autonomy, mutual aid, and both reliance on and nurturing of individuals' intelligence. The upshot of such a mindset is that in any given context, past or present, anarchists tend to actually think up and implement the forms of organization that best fit their present needs -- which can mean anything from proudhonian popular banks to organized armed forces, producers'/consumers' co-operatives, pirate radio stations, local exchange systems, self-managed social utilities, secret societies of every description, etc, etc, etc... You name it, it's been done and some form of it is probably still in operation.

The second point, corollary to the first, is that anarchists simply have no desire to take over national governments, because the nation-state paradigm is precisely something we would like to do away with, and either struggle against or ignore as much as is possible in practice. Although there have been historical instances of large-scale anarchist administration, these would be better described as federations of autonomous communities, built ad hoc and from the grassroots up, and which consequently displayed a variety of operational modalities and decision-making processes.


I, as I said earlier, agree in principle with direct democracy. But I still see the need for a central civil service to enact the decisions of the people. How do anarchists look at this situation?
Do you think you could rephrase that more specifically? Which branch(es) of 'civil service' do you have in mind?

I have not withdawn from the discussion, I simply decided that I was not going to respond to the off topic and holier than thou attitude that was being presented.

It may be that I provoked the attitude somewhat, but I distinctly got the feeling that it would not have mattered if I had been talking about my relationship with my family, the response would have been that I did not know what I was talking about.

I will also comment that the local time when I made the post you quote was 02:41 so I would have been stopping to sleep soon anyway.

The doubts that I have about anarchism do come down to how is it possible for it to work in practice. The basic idea, which as I understand it, is to free the individual from interference in their life by any institution over which they have no control, is one that I sympathise with, but one that I believe to be idealistic.
Some example questions that express this.
How will society actually function without central banks, or currency exchange systems?
To what degree and by whom, will anti social behaviour be punished?
How is the formation of new oppresive regimes by control of military force to be avoided?

Re central civil service

Do you think you could rephrase that more specifically? Which branch(es) of 'civil service' do you have in mind?

Well, pretty much all of them. I currently live in Brazil, but was brought up in the UK. Both countries have extensive apparatus of government which as I understand it are divided into four parts. There are the decision making parts; the executive branch and the legislative branch. In Brazil this means the President and ministers of state for the former and the senate and representatives for the latter. In the UK the former being the monarch (technically) and the cabinet, with the houses of parliament being the legislative part. Then there is the judiciary and the civil service. These are the parts that review, apply, advise on, and implement the decisions and decrees of the other two parts.
In the UK the civil service is supposed to be apolitical, and for the most part it is. It simply does what it is told to do by its political masters. (Yes minister not withstanding) In Brazil the civil service is more political in nature and has less continuity between governments.
What I see as being possible with direct democracy is the elimination of the executive and legislative branches of government. I can not see how the judiciary or civil service would be reduced or eliminated by this.
A law is passed, for example, that requires that all citizens are informed daily of all proposals for new laws. This would seem to be a reasonable requirement under direct democracy. However, the problem I have with respect to an anarchy is how is this law implemented? Who collates the information, who distributes it? How can any individual verify that this collation and distribution is being done? What means of redress exist for an individual who does not receive this information?

Any clearer?

Re central civil service
Any clearer?

Well, a bit. I live in France myself (but I have seen Yes Minister occasionally and I think it's a brilliant depiction of the real world, as opposed to democratic mythology), and I think what you refer to as 'civil service' would be the equivalent of what the French call 'hauts fonctionnaires', meaning, roughly and for present purposes, a body of officials who counsel cabinets on technical matters. Now the first thing I would point out is that at present both in France and in the UK these people are appointed -- not elected -- to their very stable positions, and that the public never even knows their names or the content of their counselling. Some people might like to think of them as apolitical, but given their social, educational and ideological uniformity I prefer to describe them as the commissars of technocratic tyranny:D .

A law is passed, for example, that requires that all citizens are informed daily of all proposals for new laws. This would seem to be a reasonable requirement under direct democracy. However, the problem I have with respect to an anarchy is how is this law implemented? Who collates the information, who distributes it? How can any individual verify that this collation and distribution is being done? What means of redress exist for an individual who does not receive this information?

Now much of the point with direct democracy is precisely to do away with 'civil servants' (gosh, the term is just so orwellian! :D ) by actually involving citizens in, as you say, information collation and distribution on any given issue. Actual debate comes as a bonus. If you look around, I'm sure you'll quickly find numberless grassroots organizations entirely devoted to that kind of task ('watchdog' orgs or 'popular education movements' for instance), who routinely display an impressive technical proficiency backed by voluntary experts and university researchers, but which actually aim to empower citizens rather than leave them in the dark while the responsible people sort things out. So one answer to 'civil service' is, very simply, collaborative effort.

Along another line, I really don't mean to quibble about words but I must insist again on the fact that there is no such thing as 'an anarchy' that the mass of a population might conceivably be under. I really think that anything labelled 'anarchist' is either built grassroots-up on a federative and voluntary basis, or a misnomer. And federated bodies need not necessarily be of the same nature, nor even organized along the same lines -- in fact that would be highly improbable if each one develops autonomously and is tailored to fit the particular aims of its members. So for the sake of argument, if within a given community a particular individual objects to the way his fellow-members are running things, well he can bloody well renounce membership and benefits and go join some other community, or start up his own, or try to live as a hermit or whatever. The same goes for any given body in the context of a larger federation.


I wish I had the time to address the first issue of this thread, that business about blessed shareholding in democratic-capitalist Disneyland... Absolutely must get back to that!

Now much of the point with direct democracy is precisely to do away with 'civil servants' (gosh, the term is just so orwellian! :D ) by actually involving citizens in, as you say, information collation and distribution on any given issue. Actual debate comes as a bonus. If you look around, I'm sure you'll quickly find numberless grassroots organizations entirely devoted to that kind of task ('watchdog' orgs or 'popular education movements' for instance), who routinely display an impressive technical proficiency backed by voluntary experts and university researchers, but which actually aim to empower citizens rather than leave them in the dark while the responsible people sort things out. So one answer to 'civil service' is, very simply, collaborative effort.


I have a different vision of a direct democracy. The grassroot organizations that you cite are examples of social organisation that works for single issues. Now where an individual feels very strongly about an issue thay are inclined to give their time and effort to that cause. This however will not transfer to the running of a country. There are too many interrelated issues for single issue groups to be able to function at this level.

For me direct democracy is the removal of representatives or delegates, it is the use of IT resources to allow each and every resident adult to vote on any issue of interest to them. To allow anyone to propose a new law or ruling for the consideration of the population. This is something that could be done, without too much change in our society structure. But to expect that a collective effort will just arise to enact these decisiopns, is an unrealistic position. People will still have jobs, and schools to go to. They will still be primarily concerned in meeting their basic needs of food and shelter.

If you change the voluntary organisations into paid work, you are simply recreating the instuments of central government. Greenpeace with Freinds of the Earth become the department for the environment, The civil rights groups become the home office/department of state etc.
Also these groups are not organised in a way that would be compatible with anarchist principles. They have leaderships and policy commitees etc.

I still do not see how it can work.

AnarchyeL, you argue very persuavely but in doing so, you have succceeded in alienating someone who has differing views from you. I consider that a failure.

Me too. However, considering that my straightforward reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was labeled a "diatribe" in which I claimed to know more than anyone about anything, I strongly doubt there was ever much hope.

Some people just cannot admit when they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence. If Alien Born will not agree with me when I show him(?) the most conclusive evidence possible on a simple matter of fact, why should I waste my breath explaining anarchism? Is there even a chance he can read with an open mind?

I have not withdawn from the discussion, I simply decided that I was not going to respond to the off topic and holier than thou attitude that was being presented.

"Holier than thou"?

Excuse me, but I think we need to have some resolution to this, or I simply do not know how we are going to function in this community. You were the one who brought your education into this, claiming that you should be allowed to speak as an authority regardless of whether you evidence the relevant knowledge.

This is highly relevant to the debate. We are discussing authority, which is something a person earns. If you want to be recognized as an authority on philosophy, you need to display a firm grasp of (at the bare minimum) the basic knowledge that makes up the field.

I do not know what your area of expertise in philosophy is. I assume there must be something (philosophy of mind? some branch of metaphysics?) that you know very well, in all probability better than I.

But you have to admit when you are wrong. Feel free to search for my posts on these forums, and you are certain to find plenty of examples when I do just that. Vittos Ordination can no doubt attest to the fact that my attitude in discussion has a lot to do with the person to whom I speak. He and I have had plenty of very civil discussions about much more difficult and even more charged issues than these. The secret? We were both willing to admit when we were "not sure" or "just guessing" or "wrong".

I highly recommend it to you. (It actually turns out to be quite fun.)

It may be that I provoked the attitude somewhat, but I distinctly got the feeling that it would not have mattered if I had been talking about my relationship with my family, the response would have been that I did not know what I was talking about.

Well, then you got the wrong feeling. I only said you did not know what you were talking about because you did not know what you were talking about. And I provided irrefutable evidence. That is what bothers me: when someone has nowhere else to turn in the argument and, rather than conceding defeat, accuses me of a "diatribe" (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a diatribe? really?) insults my teaching and leaves.

I think you owe me an apology.

The basic idea, which as I understand it, is to free the individual from interference in their life by any institution over which they have no control, is one that I sympathise with, but one that I believe to be idealistic.

Of course it is idealistic. So was democracy in the first place. So have been the great social movements (civil rights, feminism, etc.) What is wrong with idealism?

How will society actually function without central banks, or currency exchange systems?

Society functioned just fine before central banks on the scale of the Federal Reserve. It will function just fine without them again (and better, since economies can be run for local benefit). You probably do not realize just how much opposition there has been to central banks in the past... only in our own era have they become so easily accepted.

To what degree and by whom, will anti social behaviour be punished?

It will be punished by the democratic government, to whatever degree they deem necessary and appropriate.

How is the formation of new oppresive regimes by control of military force to be avoided?

How is it avoided NOW?

Me too. However, considering that my straightforward reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was labeled a "diatribe" in which I claimed to know more than anyone about anything, I strongly doubt there was ever much hope.

Some people just cannot admit when they are wrong, no matter how strong the evidence. If Alien Born will not agree with me when I show him(?) the most conclusive evidence possible on a simple matter of fact, why should I waste my breath explaining anarchism? Is there even a chance he can read with an open mind?

OK AnarchyeL I will try, against my better instincts, one more time.

There are always two sides to a disagreement, and if I will not agree with you in some cases, it is equally true that you will not agree with me.

What you presented as a fact was only an interpretation. There are many other interpretations as you could easily discover if you investigated. My objection to Hume being labelled empiricist, is that this leads directly to his being regarded as the father of logical positivism, which could not be further from the truth. Anyway, as I had said, this discussion is off topic.

I will and do willingly apologise for any offence I may have caused you. I do request, however, that you consider the tone of the language you use when you post things. It is more than a little arrogant at times. This I admit to being particularly sensitive to, as it is a problem I have had myself, and occasionally still suffer from.

Everyone knows Hume is an empiricist.


Just an example, OK

Everyone, is who in this case. Hume has an empirical matephysics, but his ethical and political thought is far from empiricist. You cited the passage from book 2 referring to the eight experiments to confirm the importance of the passions. Now actually look at the experiments themselves. Where is the empiricism? These are thought experiments, conceptual exercises. About as empirical as Kant. Hume on metaphysics an epistemology is empiricist. Hume on human nature is much much more complex.

My reaction was over the top, but I have become tired of people around me trying to categorise Hume's thought into one small pigeonhole. Only for them to change the slot when they look at a different passage.

What you presented as a fact was only an interpretation.

No, it is a logical deduction. Observe:

1. IF one believes that knowledge is based on experience, THEN one is called an empiricist.
2. David Hume believes that knowledge is based on experience.
3. THEREFORE, David Hume is an empiricist.

There are many other interpretations as you could easily discover if you investigated.

Since this is a topic that interests me very much, I would be grateful if you could provide one. If you cannot find a website, that is fine: just tell me on what grounds you consider Hume anything other than an empiricist. (Stated differently, what do you call his epistemological position if not empiricism?)

My objection to Hume being labelled empiricist, is that this leads directly to his being regarded as the father of logical positivism, which could not be further from the truth.

Since "positivism" is a subset of the broader term "empiricism," it is not logically possible that calling Hume an empiricist leads directly to calling him a "positivist." One would need additional evidence to do so.

Moreover, I suspect that you are confusing the "logical positivism" developed by the Vienna Circle (Carnap, et. al.) in the 1920s with the older scientific positivism still popular as a part of social scientific method. However, I would not argue that Hume is the father of scientific positivism... rather, Auguste Comte.

I will not make the claim that Hume is, in any precise sense of the term, a "positivist." I think this is incorrect. However, he was definitely an anti-foundationalist, possibly the first anti-foundationalist... and in this sense, he did set the stage for Comte's positivism, as described by anthropologist Edmund Leach:

"Positivism is the view that serious scientific inquiry should not search for ultimate causes deriving from some outside source but must confine itself to the study of relations existing between facts which are directly accessible to observation."

I will and do willingly apologise for any offence I may have caused you.

Likewise.

I do request, however, that you consider the tone of the language you use when you post things. It is more than a little arrogant at times.

Sorry. I react badly when people say things without providing explanations or evidence.

Everyone, is who in this case.

Every philosopher I can find who will give an opinion on the subject, yourself excluded.

Hume has an empirical matephysics, but his ethical and political thought is far from empiricist. You cited the passage from book 2 referring to the eight experiments to confirm the importance of the passions. Now actually look at the experiments themselves. Where is the empiricism? These are thought experiments, conceptual exercises.

It does not matter that he did not actually go out and stand around with a friend placing rocks between them. The point is that he expected his readers to think about his experiments and to judge them according to their own experience. And he says so. The second experiment is "confirmed by experience." With respect to experiment three he says, "Most fortunately all this reasoning is found to be exactly conformable to experience, and the phaenomena of the passions." In the fourth experiment he is pleased when "the effect still answers expectation."

I could go on. The point is, the final judge of knowledge for Hume is experience.

About as empirical as Kant.

Kant could not have cared less if people ever experienced a thing. Hume basically told Kant go go out and live a little and get his head out of the clouds. (Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was largely an answer to Hume.)

Hume on metaphysics an epistemology is empiricist. Hume on human nature is much much more complex.

He is certainly complex, but he will not allow any evidence that is not confirmable by experience. An empiricist.

My reaction was over the top, but I have become tired of people around me trying to categorise Hume's thought into one small pigeonhole.

I think the problem may be that you have pigeonholed all empiricism as some form of positivism, which it is not. Empriricism does not have to rely on material reality. An empiricist such as Hume can just as well say, "Try it and see how you feel." But as long as he does not say, "This is true because it makes rational sense, regardless of whether it conforms with your experience," he is still an empiricist.

Only for them to change the slot when they look at a different passage.

Show me a passage in which Hume is not an empiricist, then.

Apologies all round then.

I think it may be a good idea to start e new thread on Hume, as it is completely off topic.
It may be, being British, that I have over associated empiricism with positivism. I will investigate and get back to you.

Can we get back to anarchy and capitalism now?

My last post on this, before the recent detour, was:

I have a different vision of a direct democracy. The grassroot organizations that you cite are examples of social organisation that works for single issues. Now where an individual feels very strongly about an issue thay are inclined to give their time and effort to that cause. This however will not transfer to the running of a country. There are too many interrelated issues for single issue groups to be able to function at this level.

For me direct democracy is the removal of representatives or delegates, it is the use of IT resources to allow each and every resident adult to vote on any issue of interest to them. To allow anyone to propose a new law or ruling for the consideration of the population. This is something that could be done, without too much change in our society structure. But to expect that a collective effort will just arise to enact these decisiopns, is an unrealistic position. People will still have jobs, and schools to go to. They will still be primarily concerned in meeting their basic needs of food and shelter.

If you change the voluntary organisations into paid work, you are simply recreating the instuments of central government. Greenpeace with Freinds of the Earth become the department for the environment, The civil rights groups become the home office/department of state etc.
Also these groups are not organised in a way that would be compatible with anarchist principles. They have leaderships and policy commitees etc.

I still do not see how it can work.

I have a different vision of a direct democracy. The grassroot organizations that you cite are examples of social organisation that works for single issues. Now where an individual feels very strongly about an issue thay are inclined to give their time and effort to that cause. This however will not transfer to the running of a country.

Only if you stick to the nation-state paradigm, a very recent political concept and one that is not engraven in stone. (I'll admit it's a bit of an ironical statement given the name of this forum, but hey, the thing's a game ;) )

There are too many interrelated issues for single issue groups to be able to function at this level.
Well, I never said such groups were supposed to run anything but themselves. I was merely contending that 'civil servants' as I understood the term are anything but indispensable. So even though voluntary organizations, even as they stand, can be very valuable sources of information, political entities of any scale still ought to be run by their participating members, period.

For me direct democracy is the removal of representatives or delegates, it is the use of IT resources to allow each and every resident adult to vote on any issue of interest to them. To allow anyone to propose a new law or ruling for the consideration of the population.

OK, so practical details set aside we have fundamentally like-minded outlooks. Good! :)

This is something that could be done, without too much change in our society structure.
Ah. Tricky. There is much divergence on this point among anarchists. Some do believe, it seems, in the coming of a messianic revolution. Not my cup of tea, I must say. But the only way in which I would agree with your own statement is that people can pretty much ignore existing institutions and build their own, regardless. No point in pulling out the weeds, just plant a tree and it will suck up all the nutrients.

But to expect that a collective effort will just arise to enact these decisiopns, is an unrealistic position.
Here again, I'm sorry to be so damn finicky but could you be more specific? Are you referring to law-enforcement? Or administration and management perhaps?

People will still have jobs, and schools to go to. They will still be primarily concerned in meeting their basic needs of food and shelter.
Hey, France is still on this planet, and I actually work for a living. And nonetheless, I'm not contributing this stuff from a lofty thoretical cloud. I actually get my hands dirty in several schemes, most of them of an economic nature.
In fact, the political aspects of anarchism could reasonably be described as mere offshoots of practical economic concerns. Historically the tradition started with such efforts as Proudhon's popular banks or Pelloutier's labour exchange system. The anarchist revolution in Spain was driven and 'enacted', if that's what you mean by the word, by starving workers and peasants.
To get back to the present day (and my own efforts, for what it's worth), unionizing is still extant (and anarcho-syndicalism holds its own ground), though more recent developments include time banks in the anglo-saxon part of the world, local exchange systems in the french-speaking world, or co-operatives of every description pretty much everywhere.
Sorry if all of that sounds a bit impatient, but you did push a touchy button: one thing this theorist of revolt can't bear is to be labelled a revolting theorist! :sniper:

If you change the voluntary organisations into paid work, you are simply recreating the instuments of central government. Greenpeace with Freinds of the Earth become the department for the environment, The civil rights groups become the home office/department of state etc.
Never mentioned such a thing.

Also these groups are not organised in a way that would be compatible with anarchist principles. They have leaderships and policy commitees etc.
Er... And how does that contradict anarchist principles?


I still do not see how it can work.
If you keep throwing questions I'll be happy to assist to the best of my ability. Bear in mind, though, that it's not some fancy global scheme for the future. It's a bunch of stuff people are doing right here and now, under your nose, as they have been for a very long time.

For me direct democracy is the removal of representatives or delegates, it is the use of IT resources to allow each and every resident adult to vote on any issue of interest to them.

I suspect you are talking about direct democracy for a country on the scale of a modern nation-state, which is of course much larger than an anarchist government. On this scale, I think direct democracy on more than the occasional referendum is simply idiotic. (People are always surprised to find that I also strongly oppose the use of primary elections in U.S. presidential races. They have completely crippled our ability to select good candidates.)

But to expect that a collective effort will just arise to enact these decisiopns, is an unrealistic position. People will still have jobs, and schools to go to.

Sure. I think that will be true for anarchists, too. Personally, I do not understand these communitarian anarchists who think that everyone will just want to talk to each other and vote all the time. What, just because you want to hang out you think the rest of us have nothing better to do?

They will still be primarily concerned in meeting their basic needs of food and shelter.

On the contrary, in a decent society people should not really have to worry much about food and shelter. They may want nice things, however... or just enjoy their free time, or recreation. Whatever. There is no reason to believe (or ask) that their primary concern should be participation in government. The opportunities should be there, however.

If you change the voluntary organisations into paid work, you are simply recreating the instuments of central government. Greenpeace with Friends of the Earth become the department for the environment, The civil rights groups become the home office/department of state etc.

Okay. I already told you I think society needs administrators, possibly even frequently elected policy positions with strict accountability to the popular assembly.

Also these groups are not organised in a way that would be compatible with anarchist principles. They have leaderships and policy commitees etc.

There is nothing about leadership that is incompatible with anarchism. Anarchists oppose power, not authority.