NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a short article written by anthropologist David Graeber. You may find it interesting and informative.

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!
by David Graeber

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it's one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist - you just don't realize it.

Let's start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.
Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse. But what if that weren't true?
And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society - that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

If you don't want this post reported, you are going to add at least a sentance of your own material.Thanks for the heads up. Is a simple declaration that this is an article and that I posted it so that the NS community may read it enough?

Nope. I'm not an anarchist. I would definitely shove my way onto a bus.

Thanks for the heads up. Is a simple declaration that this is an article and that I posted it so that the NS community may read it enough?

probably, btw I forgot to add a need to the sentance, it should have said "you are going to have to need to add at least..."

I didn't mean to sound too bold.

Nope. I'm not an anarchist. I would definitely shove my way onto a bus.

That would make you a plonker.

I am an anarchist. It doesn't surprise me though.

Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated.....

Thus pointless.

/end thread

Thus pointless.

/end thread

That doesn't follow. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is pointless.

That doesn't follow. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is pointless.

It means it is likely more expensive, harder to implement and maintane and thus very likely to be inefficient.

It means it is likely more expensive, harder to implement and maintane and thus very likely to be inefficient.

An automobile is more expensive, harder to implement, and harder to maintain than a horse-drawn carriage. This does not make it inefficient, and does not make it pointless.

It means it is likely more expensive, harder to implement and maintane and thus very likely to be inefficient.

Complexity is around us. Look at aircraft or your car...complex systems that become more efficient over time...

It means it is likely more expensive, harder to implement and maintane and thus very likely to be inefficient.Complexity does not mean inefficiency. A living cell has a far more efficient source of energy generation than an automobile precisely because it is infinitely more complex. And the complexity and democratic nature of a social structure does not always imply more bureaucracy.

An automobile is more expensive, harder to implement, and harder to maintain than a horse-drawn carriage. This does not make it inefficient, and does not make it pointless.

Thats because it has technology to help it.

The technology of anarchism, and any other political view is nothing more then human input.

Thats because it has technology to help it.

The technology of anarchism, and any other political view is nothing more then human input.Social decision-making structures are as much a form of technology as other tools are.

I'm an anarchist and I love shoving my way onto a bus.

Besides, queuing is a very Anglo-Saxon concept.

Social decision-making structures are as much a form of technology as other tools are.

Well we are talking in analogies here, so there is no point in continuing this chain of arguments. My point is that history has shown us that whenever you try to implement something incredibly complex to a society, especially without the help of a centralised authority, it just falls apart.

It means it is likely more expensive, harder to implement and maintane and thus very likely to be inefficient.

Like farming?

I'm an anarchist and I love shoving my way onto a bus.

Besides, queuing is a very Anglo-Saxon concept.In Soviet Russia, line gets on YOU!

Well we are talking in analogies here, so there is no point in continuing this chain of arguments. My point is that history has shown us that whenever you try to implement something incredibly complex to a society, especially without the help of a centralised authority, it just falls apart.You mean like the MST movement in Brazil? Nope, still going strong. And the Anarchist system implemented in Catalonia in the 30's? That was going fine, until it was physically crushed with German, Italian and Russian military hardware.

Anarchism, at least in a sense, does not have to be that complex. In fact, it could be relatively simple. The government could handle creating electricity, building highways, and the like. Small communities could handle things like city planning and public transportation, perhaps even through direct democracy. I really don't see how that is terribly complex.

I believe, to quote Hobbes, that life in a state of nature, a state of anarchy, is "Nasty, brutish and short".

You mean like the MST movement in Brazil?


Thats not anarchism, thats just redistribution of some areas of farm land in brazil, and a view school buildings etc... Nothing major, and they are not trying to implament anything like that in developed cities which would be absolute failure. And even that movement has some form of centralised control.


And the Anarchist system implemented in Catalonia in the 30's? That was going fine

Actually, it wasn't great. Also, things were very different back then.

I believe, to quote Hobbes, that life in a state of nature, a state of anarchy, is "Nasty, brutish and short".

yeah, um, we're a lot closer to hobbes' commonwealth than we are to hobbes' state of warre

I believe, to quote Hobbes, that life in a state of nature, a state of anarchy, is "Nasty, brutish and short".

Self-interest prescribes that we avoid the 'beastly, brutal, and short' state of nature and seek a peaceful co-existence

I don't think anarchism had even been thought of by Western political philosophers in the 17th century??

yeah, um, we're a lot closer to hobbes' commonwealth than we are to hobbes' state of warre

I'd argue that the development of an organized state of anarchy would not last for an extended period of time, rapidly devolving into a state of war.

I hear there was this book entitlede The Anarchists Cookbook about making bombs which would imply anarchists bring chaos. After that article it seems not so much, in fact it seems like anarchists aremore like hippies than semi-terrorists.

PS: I'd like to know where you got that article.

Thats not anarchism, thats just redistribution of some areas of farm land in Brazil, and a view school buildings etc... Nothing major, and they are not trying to implement anything like that in developed cities which would be absolute failure. And even that movement has some form of centralized control.I do not claim that it is Anarchism. But the communal direct democracies (on a vast territory of seized land no less) that is generally practiced in MST communities shines a light on what is possible in the world in terms of local self governance and egalitarianism. For such systems in developed cities, see Barcelona in the 1930's.

Actually, it wasn't great.A bizarre and unqualified value judgment. Also, things were very different back then.a meaningless platitude that is often used in place of actual reasoning.

I hear there was this book entitlede The Anarchists Cookbook about making bombs which would imply anarchists bring chaos. After that article it seems not so much, in fact it seems like anarchists aremore like hippies than semi-terrorists.

PS: I'd like to know where you got that article.The article that I posted was distributed in New York prior to the RNC. It was meant to clear up popular misconceptions that were current in the press about 'the Anarchist menace.'

The 'Anarchist Cook Book' on the other hand was written by some half-baked Nazi, not an anarchist. Not to mention the fact that most of the bomb recipes in it are more likely to kill the preparer then the intended 'victim.' The drug recipes will poison you, and the ingredients will put you on various federal watch lists.

The dictionary defines anarchist as:

1-one who rebels against any authority, established power , or ruling power.
2-one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy;esp:one who uses violent means to to overthrow the establised order



Just thought I'd tell you for a complete understanding of how Webester sees anarchists

It was distributed in New York prior to the RNC. It was meant to clear up popular misconceptions that were current in the press about 'the Anarchist menace.' The 'Anarchist Cook Book' was written by some half-baked Nazi, not an anarchist. Not to mention the fact that most of the bomb recepies in it are more likely to kill the preparer then the intended 'victim.' The drug recepeis will poison you, and the ingredients will put you on various federal watch lists.

I know you get put ona special list for taking it , or any other book on bomb making for that matter, for years. But now thanks to the Patriot Act they can tap your calls, see your internet history, see what books you took out from the library , read your mail, ect.

The dictionary defines anarchist as:

1-one who rebels against any authority, established power , or ruling power.
2-one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy;esp:one who uses violent means to to overthrow the establised order



Just thought I'd tell you for a complete understanding of how Webester sees anarchistsOh I know it well. This is why I posted the article, and why it was written in the first place. It is of course a very convenient definition for those in power.

Well we are talking in analogies here, so there is no point in continuing this chain of arguments. My point is that history has shown us that whenever you try to implement something incredibly complex to a society, especially without the help of a centralised authority, it just falls apart.

The National Health Service in the UK

The Imperial Civil Servant exams in China

Numerous cathedrals dotted around the place that have lasted longer than one would expect.

There are plenty of examples of complex systems being introduced and not failing.

Oh I know it well. This is why I posted the article, and why it was written in the first place. It is of course a very convenient definition for those in power.

Then again the dictionary is copywrited 1985

The National Health Service in the UK

The Imperial Civil Servant exams in China

Numerous cathedrals dotted around the place that have lasted longer than one would expect.

There are plenty of examples of complex systems being introduced and not failing....or in some cases failing for reasons other then their mere complexity ;)

I hear there was this book entitlede The Anarchists Cookbook about making bombs which would imply anarchists bring chaos. After that article it seems not so much, in fact it seems like anarchists aremore like hippies than semi-terrorists.

PS: I'd like to know where you got that article.

Anarchist Cookbook....no s...

It was distributed in New York prior to the RNC. It was meant to clear up popular misconceptions that were current in the press about 'the Anarchist menace.' The 'Anarchist Cook Book' was written by some half-baked Nazi, not an anarchist. Not to mention the fact that most of the bomb recepies in it are more likely to kill the preparer then the intended 'victim.' The drug recepeis will poison you, and the ingredients will put you on various federal watch lists.

It was published in 1971...so I am not sure I understand your RNC reference...

ISBN 0-9623032-0-8.

And yeah....I would not touch any of those recipes with a 100ft bargepole!

Let's start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?


i know that there are times when i dont wait my turn. i generally stay in line, but not always.


* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?


i have been a member of a group where once the rules are decided on, everyone is expected to follow them. not everyone does.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

no. i believe that most PEOPLE are selfish egotistical swine who dont care about public interest. i believe that our economic system is as fair as can be expected.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

believe in what way? i certainly never taught my son to expect such behavior out of other people.

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

i believe that there are enough corrupt and evil people to make it necessary for the police to exist. i also believe that there is more than enough variety of interests and opinions that rules need to be established and enforced so that everyone knows where they stand.


those are all well and good, but the devil is in the details eh? its not "who gets on the bus first" that makes an anarchy.

Anarchist Cookbook....no s...



It was published in 1971...so I am not sure I understand your RNC reference...

ISBN 0-9623032-0-8.

And yeah....I would not touch any of those recipes with a 100ft bargepole!

I mean that the essay by Graeber was published before the RNC.

...or in some cases failing for reasons other then their mere complexity ;)

Yar....pretty much...look at what happened to the Toltecs!

Christ, what a bunch of simplistic crap. While I understand the need to inform people what the concept of anarchism actually is (even if all anarchists don’t agree on what it is), this whole essay is ridiculous.

To prove its point, it asks the reader simple yes or no questions, ones that should come to a definite answer to most people, and then informs them ‘gee, you’re an anarchist!’. Hell, I could play that game too.

---------------------------------------------------------

Are You a Statist? I bet you are, and you don’t even know!

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

Well, of course you do. All responsible citizens of the state will follow the principles and morals that our great nation was founded upon. All responsible citizens also know, that eventually, poor treatment of fellow citizens will be reported to the proper authorities. Fear of punishment is part of the glue that holds society together. While most of us can agree to work together in harmony, there will always be troublemakers who refuse to follow some basic principles.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If so, you are a member of a group that has created a set of rules and a body that makes decisions on behalf of the entire group. Most likely, this club or sports team has monetary contributions as requirement to keep this group running. A democratic state is very similar. We create a set of rules to live by, and choose a group of people to interpret those rules and enforce them when necessary. If you go to a gym, and you make a habit of exercising naked, you may be asked to leave the membership. This is what we refer to as ‘general consent’. Because generally, people don’t want to see you exercise naked, and the rules have been established beforehand. Much like that group membership, statehood will enforce the rules of membership, and collect the membership fees to keep the group running smoothly.


* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

‘A penny earned, is a penny saved’, ‘put your nose to the grindstone’, ‘break the rules and you will be grounded’, etc.

Perhaps we should be telling ourselves whether or not we are lying to our children when we tell them that always following the rules will get them by. Families struggle with challenges everyday. But every family has rules, and most functional societies do as well. If you believe that a family should have rules, and that parents should be adhered to, then you’re already thinking like a statist!

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

Clearly, anarchists would like you to think that if you answered no to this question, you must therefore be an anarchist! This is of course nonsense. Statists don’t necessarily believe that people are corrupt or evil, or that certain groups are ‘inferior specimens’. Statists believe that people will often disagree, and they will not always do so in a friendly fashion. Maintaining civility often requires a set of rules and a set of punishments to keep disparate arguing forces from hurting each other, and their fellow members of the community. This is why statists choose people amongst them to create these rules (which are most often drawn upon the basic rules we all instinctively know), and to enforce them.



Okay, you see where I'm going. I understand the anarchist position, and I'm deliberately exaggerated my point, but such simplistic tripe is condescending and moronic at best.

I mean that the essay by Graeber was published before the RNC.

ahh...I see...cheers...

I'm an anarchist and I love shoving my way onto a bus.

Besides, queuing is a very Anglo-Saxon concept.

Was in Dublin some years back with an English girlfriend I had while living in the UK. We were having fun for the weekend getting just pissed(drunk). At about 3 or 4 am everyone starts to head home from the bars. People line up at the taxi stands waiting their turns. My gf was mad that we had to wait in line. So I told her to just follow me and be quiet. I marched right up to the front of line when a taxi pulled up. This group started to get in and I said "Sorry this taxi is taken." They just looked stupid standing there and my gf and I were off to the hotel. I can't tell you how many times we did that. No one ever challenged us or said anything bad. I guess that makes me an asshole but sometimes waiting like sheep just doesn't cut it for me.

I hear there was this book entitlede The Anarchists Cookbook about making bombs which would imply anarchists bring chaos.
To quote one of my favoritest Wikipedia passages of all time:
Despite the name, the book contains no food recipes, has no connection to the anarchist movement, and is, in fact, criticized by many anarchists.
That's right, the Anarchist Cookbook has nothing to do with anarchists OR cooking. Madness, I know, but that's just how people rolled in the 70's.

I'm not an anarchist, not by a long shot.

And I'm not surprised at this answer.

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

All responsible citizens also know, that eventually, poor treatment of fellow citizens will be reported to the proper authorities. Fear of punishment is part of the glue that holds society together. The question implicitly asks one about one's motivations. Your reason for not trampling old ladies may be your fear of the police, but this is not the case for most people. I don't think that your leaflet would be as popular as David Graeber's ;)



* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If so, you are a member of a group that has created a set of rules and a body that makes decisions on behalf of the entire group. Most likely, this club or sports team has monetary contributions as requirement to keep this group running. A democratic state is very similar. We create a set of rules to live by, and choose a group of people to interpret those rules and enforce them when necessary. If you go to a gym, and you make a habit of exercising naked, you may be asked to leave the membership. This is what we refer to as ‘general consent’. Because generally, people don’t want to see you exercise naked, and the rules have been established beforehand. Much like that group membership, statehood will enforce the rules of membership, and collect the membership fees to keep the group running smoothly. While this is what a state claims to be, it is very far from it's actual nature. I've never heard of one Gym bombing another or putting a member into a cell for a decade and then murdering him.


* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?this question simply establishes that we all have SOME anarchist principles.


* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?[

Clearly, anarchists would like you to think that if you answered no to this question, you must therefore be an anarchist! Not necessarily. But if you answered 'yes', then you are most certainly NOT an Anarchist.

The question implicitly asks one about one's motivations. Your reason for not trampling old ladies may be your fear of the police, but this is not the case for most people. I don't think that your leaflet would be as popular as David Graeber's ;)



While this is what a state claims to be, it is very far from it's actual nature.


this question simply establishes that we all have SOME anarchist principles.


Not necessarily. But if you answered 'yes', then you are most certainly NOT an Anarchist.

My point is that I don't necessarily believe everything I just stated, I find this leaflet kind of simplistic and stupid. It reminds me of the leaflets that religious people hand out.

I think it's good to explain to people what political scientists mean by anarchism. However, I find this particular method of 'Question with obvious answer; Answer is You're an Anarchist' rather insulting.

My point is that I don't necessarily believe everything I just stated, I find this leaflet kind of simplistic and stupid. It reminds me of the leaflets that religious people hand out.

I think it's good to explain to people what political scientists mean by anarchism. However, I find this particular method of 'Question with obvious answer; Answer is You're an Anarchist' rather insulting.No, it simply establishes that the majority of the fundamental anarchist principles are actually adhered to by most people. These principles are in fact rather common sense and not particularly controversial. The essay's goal is to explain this to a population that has been inundated with over a century of lies and misinformation about it's subject.

The leaflets that religious people hand out irritate me because every point is 'proven' with scripture. What I like about this essay is precisely that it is less like a Chick tract than most political essays.

No, it simply establishes that the majority of the fundamental anarchist principles are actually adhered to by most people. These principles are in fact rather common sense and not particularly controversial. The essay's goal is to explain this to a population that has been inundated with over a century of lies and misinformation about it's subject.

The leaflets that religious people hand out irritate me because every point is 'proven' with scripture. What I like about this essay is precisely that it is less like a Chick tract than most political essays.

Anarchist doctrine may as well be scripture. It portrays a promised land that will never come.

Anarchist doctrine may as well be scripture. It portrays a promised land that will never come.Maybe this is just me, but I would not be at all annoyed with a Christian pamphlet that told me that I was already a Christian because I am not a complete bastard. I'm actually fine with that.

The essay doesn't have any references to Bakunin 1:15 by the way. It does promote some ideas. If that makes you cringe, then I really don't know what to say. It talks of contemporary human relations and attitudes and how they can make the world better. I don't see anything of the 'skypilot' in that.

No, it simply establishes that the majority of the fundamental anarchist principles are actually adhered to by most people. These principles are in fact rather common sense and not particularly controversial. The essay's goal is to explain this to a population that has been inundated with over a century of lies and misinformation about it's subject.

The leaflets that religious people hand out irritate me because every point is 'proven' with scripture. What I like about this essay is precisely that it is less like a Chick tract than most political essays.

pffft. its trying to convince people that anarchism isnt scary after all. that anarchists just want to play nice but no one will let them.

maybe if anarchists hadnt been blowing things up and assassinating people for those hundred or so years....

Maybe this is just me, but I would not be at all annoyed with a Christian pamphlet that told me that I was already a Christian because I am not a complete bastard. I'm actually fine with that.

The essay doesn't have any references to Bakunin 1:15 by the way. It does promote some ideas. If that makes you cringe, then I really don't know what to say. It talks of contemporary human relations and attitudes and how they can make the world better. I don't see anything of the 'skypilot' in that.

i certainly would be annoyed at a christian pamphlet that suggested that i was already a christian because im not a complete bastard. i would consider that "false advertising".

maybe if anarchists hadnt been blowing things up and assassinating people for those hundred or so years....
Because statists during the 20th Century were soooo well behaved.

Because statists during the 20th Century were soooo well behaved.

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Maybe this is just me, but I would not be at all annoyed with a Christian pamphlet that told me that I was already a Christian because I am not a complete bastard. I'm actually fine with that.

The essay doesn't have any references to Bakunin 1:15 by the way. It does promote some ideas. If that makes you cringe, then I really don't know what to say. It talks of contemporary human relations and attitudes and how they can make the world better. I don't see anything of the 'skypilot' in that.

It just reeks of simplistic propaganda to me. It's not like its promoting fascism or something, I just don't like the style.

pffft. its trying to convince people that anarchism isnt scary after all. that anarchists just want to play nice but no one will let them.

maybe if anarchists hadnt been blowing things up and assassinating people for those hundred or so years....you mean during the course of a few decades 100 years ago? Even in the so-called heyday of 'anarchist terror,' the anarchists were no more violent then any other group. And looking at the list of butchers, tyrants and mass murderers who were the 'victims' of these 'crimes', you would have trouble finding worthier candidates for such a fate. The executions of war criminals are never raised as examples of the crimes of capitalism and the state, but such acts are the only 'atrocities' that anyone can attribute to anarchists.I just don't like the style.fair enough :)

what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
If killing a hand full of functionaries and bombing the occassional public building makes anarchists nasty and mean, then where does that leave statists, who have two world wars and countless "minor" conflicts to their credit?
Besides, it isn't likely that any government is going to be willing to let whole segments of its population detach peacefully.

If killing a hand full of functionaries and bombing the occassional public building makes anarchists nasty and mean, then where does that leave statists, who have two world wars and countless "minor" conflicts to their credit?
Besides, it isn't likely that any government is going to be willing to let whole segments of its population detach peacefully.

i dont give a damn where it leaves statists. the violent history of anarchism is the reason people are afraid of it. a few "who gets on the bus first" analogies are not going to change that.

anarchy would leave a power vacuum all too easily exploited by the unscrupulous, just like the rise of communism did. all those people playing nice are not ready for the selfish bastard who will do anything to gain power.

If killing a hand full of functionaries and bombing the occassional public building makes anarchists nasty and mean, then where does that leave statists, who have two world wars and countless "minor" conflicts to their credit?
Besides, it isn't likely that any government is going to be willing to let whole segments of its population detach peacefully.

War, migration and violence all predate the creation of states. States organize it much more efficiently is all. If you do it properly, you won't have to worry about the war, migration and violence.

The trashy tract in the OP is imbecilic at best.

By listing questions which have answers obvious to any decent person, and neglecting to really mention what separates anarchism from say, conservatism, liberalism, hinduism, buddhism, capitalism, communism, &c, it is merely trivial.

I don't cut in line waiting for a bus and I'm not a racist, this does not mean I think we don't need a government.

If you buy into this sophomoric garbage, get a grip.

I hear there was this book entitlede The Anarchists Cookbook about making bombs which would imply anarchists bring chaos. After that article it seems not so much, in fact it seems like anarchists are more like hippies than semi-terrorists.
The 'Anarchist Cook Book' on the other hand was written by some half-baked Nazi, not an anarchist. Not to mention the fact that most of the bomb recipes in it are more likely to kill the preparer then the intended 'victim.' The drug recipes will poison you, and the ingredients will put you on various federal watch lists.

I own a copy of William Powell's book The Anarchist Cookbook. I know a fair bit about it's history. Powell was neither an Anarchist nor a Nazi. He was a bit of a hippy, however. The book was the product of a 19 year old high school graduate with absolutely no training in the areas of bomb making and firearms, and little experience in drug use or manufacturing, and it is obvious to anyone who does have even some small experience in those areas.

About the only thing it's good for is as an interesting bit of publishing history.

Mr. Powell has aparently disavowed the ideas and requested the publish stop publishing it. Unfortunately, he didn't know any better when he was 19, and the copyright is in the publishers name. [1 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962303208/o/qid=969043537/sr=8%20-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/102-3706331-0011367)]

As to the safety of the book a good FAQ has this to say:
Is the Anarchist Cookbook safe and accurate?

No. According to people who know explosives, it contains many dangerous errors and formulas that are likely to hurt you. People strongly advise to stay away from it if you enjoy having your limbs.

If you want to read it just for entertainment or to impress friends with it, however, go ahead. I thought it was rather silly and contained a lot of tedious 60's political rhetoric. I'd suggest saving your money, but buy it if you want.

Also note that kids regularly blind, maim, deafen, or kill themselves or their friends by playing around with pipe bombs and other explosives. Please avoid this, as it will not only mess up your life and upset your parents, but also motivates laws against the Internet and professional pyrotechnicians.

A few safety tips to think about: a) Constantly ask yourself: what would happen to me if this mixture blew up _right_now_, say from static electricity? b) Look at a .22 and consider that the fraction of a gram of gunpowder in this could kill you thousands of feet away. Admittedly a gun is a special case, but the point is that a little bit of explosive can fling deadly bits of metal long distances at you. c) You don't need high explosives to hurt yourself; people get themselves killed with match heads, gasoline, or gunpowder.
[2 (http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html)] (A note to the mods regarding that last link: as I understand it, that link should be board safe. If not, my apologies and feel free to remove it.)

Anarchist Cookbook....no s...

Actually, if you're going to be pedantic, it would be The Anarchist Cookbook. ;)

It was published in 1971...so I am not sure I understand your RNC reference...

ISBN 0-9623032-0-8.

And yeah....I would not touch any of those recipes with a 100ft bargepole!

Correct, correct, and correct. A good review that touches on the safety issues is "Recipes for Nonsurvival" (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/godot.html)

To quote one of my favoritest Wikipedia passages of all time:
Despite the name, the book contains no food recipes, has no connection to the anarchist movement, and is, in fact, criticized by many anarchists.
That's right, the Anarchist Cookbook has nothing to do with anarchists OR cooking. Madness, I know, but that's just how people rolled in the 70's.

And just for everyone's easy infotainment, here's the link for that too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook.

I don't cut in line waiting for a bus and I'm not a racist, this does not mean I think we don't need a government.
It does suggest that you might not need one to keep you from beating up old ladies though. Which is the point.

It does suggest that you might not need one to keep you from beating up old ladies though. Which is the point.

That actually seems like oversimplification. If I'm not a jerk because the government tells me not to, what happens if you have someone who is naturally violent and deranged who might be a jerk and cause problems? Anarchism may well have a solution for that, but the article quoted in the OP doesn't exactly explain it. If people here are really interested in anarchist philosophy they would do well to research beyond this article. It's a cute introduction, but it's akin to attempting to become a Christian just by reading a Chick tract.

It does suggest that you might not need one to keep you from beating up old ladies though. Which is the point.

It isnt me I'm worried about, it is whatever mercenary army / "private security firm" dominates the place I live and ether kills me or disarms me and throws my lifestyle back to feudalism.

That actually seems like oversimplification. If I'm not a jerk because the government tells me not to, what happens if you have someone who is naturally violent and deranged who might be a jerk and cause problems? Anarchism may well have a solution for that, but the article quoted in the OP doesn't exactly explain it. If people here are really interested in anarchist philosophy they would do well to research beyond this article. It's a cute introduction, but it's akin to attempting to become a Christian just by reading a Chick tract.The essay was written to explain the basics of a misunderstood idea, not to convert anyone. And I certainly encourage everyone who is interested to read up on Anarchist philosophy. This is a good place to start is: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/index.html
the article also operates under the assumption that people know what they are and are not doing at gunpoint. This is not a very far-out assumption to make.


It isnt me I'm worried about, it is whatever mercenary army / "private security firm" dominates the place I live and ether kills me or disarms me and throws my lifestyle back to feudalism.Damned right. And they don't really need to get rid of the state to do it. In fact, states are generally responsible for such things. We should really do something about those as soon as possible.

Damned right. And they don't really need to get rid of the state to do it. In fact, states are generally responsible for such things. We should really do something about those as soon as possible.


Wrong and wrong.

The state's laws and the state's monopoly of force are the only things protecting my rights from the stronger and better armed.

the violent history of anarchism is the reason people are afraid of it.

since there is no such history, that cannot be the reason.

The state's laws and the state's monopoly of force are the only things protecting my rights from the stronger and better armed.

so now that your state has decided they don't really have to respect your rights, and can in principle disappear you at any point, how's that working out for you?

since there is no such history, that cannot be the reason.Rewriting history FS? :p

Anarchist history is plenty bloody. In fact, I don't know of any ideology more consistently persecuted, defamed and jumped up & down on for good measure, than anarchism - and by extension; anarchists.

Even Nazis are more popular than we are.

I suppose there's a lesson there. Don't ever express a desire to be left alone. It's potentially lethal, and about as well received everywhere, as chainsaw-wielding paedophile is in a maternity ward.

Rewriting history FS? :p

Anarchist history is plenty bloody. In fact, I don't know of any ideology more consistently persecuted, defamed and jumped up & down on for good measure, than anarchism - and by extension; anarchists.

Even Nazis are more popular than we are.

I suppose there's a lesson there. Don't ever express a desire to be left alone. It's potentially lethal, and about as well received everywhere, as chainsaw-wielding paedophile is in a maternity ward.

now that you mention it, i have seen a disproportionate number of anarchists bloodied by violence - often merely by standing somewhere without permission, no less.

so now that your state has decided they don't really have to respect your rights, and can in principle disappear you at any point, how's that working out for you?

This may have happened to a few people here in the US, and is despicable if it has, but it is not a widespread and more likely than not it won't be.

Hopefully, with a change in government following the next election, this will be relegated along with other american mistakes to the ash-heap of history.

This may have happened to a few people here in the US, and is despicable if it has, but it is not a widespread and more likely than not it won't be.

Hopefully, with a change in government following the next election, this will be relegated along with other american mistakes to the ash-heap of history.So... Your argument is the state keeps you safe, if the people running the state feels like it.

Wouldn't it make slightly more sense to become the state yourself, so you can be sure it doesn't suddenly decide to snuff you?

Anarchist doctrine may as well be scripture. It portrays a promised land that will never come.

Just like all the other doctrines out there, including the one your country (and my country, and everyone else's country) was founded on.

So... Your argument is the state keeps you safe, if the people running the state feels like it.

Wouldn't it make slightly more sense to become the state yourself, so you can be sure it doesn't suddenly decide to snuff you?

The state keeps us safe if the people in the country are willing and able to keep the state right.

An armed society, strong institutions, &c are the best means to do this

It is impossible and childishly foolish to pretend to "become the state myself" - I cannot protect myself from an army or a mob, only another army can. This army, be it the police or the actual armed forces, is why the state, the leviathan, is a good thing for me and for you.

Good laws protect me, bad laws are a stand-in for mere anarchy, the domination of the weak by the strong.

When the state ceases to protect people's right from one another, it may as well be mere anarchy - the domination by force of the weak by the strong.

The state keeps us safe if the people in the country are willing and able to keep the state right.

An armed society, strong institutions, &c are the best means to do this

It is impossible and childishly foolish to pretend to "become the state myself" - I cannot protect myself from an army or a mob, only another army can. This army, be it the police or the actual armed forces, is why the state, the leviathan, is a good thing for me and for you.

Good laws protect me, bad laws are a stand-in for mere anarchy, the domination of the weak by the strong.

When the state ceases to protect people's right from one another, it may as well be mere anarchy - the domination by force of the weak by the strong.You're not describing an absence of authority, you're describing the presence of multiple authorities. That authorities kill and maim isn't an argument against anarchism, it's an argument against authorities.

I meant what I said about becoming the state. It's what anarchism is about - all of us becoming the state, rather than a handful of us, who may or may not wish to kick subjects around.

A power vacuum isn't anarchy. It's just the absence of a monopoly on authority. Anarchy is absence of authority, be it warring factions or a monopoly. It's possible because you and your peers assume the place of authority, which means would be authorities will have to go through the lot of us, not just you, to assume power over us.

The state keeps us safe if the people in the country are willing and able to keep the state right.

An armed society, strong institutions, &c are the best means to do this

It is impossible and childishly foolish to pretend to "become the state myself" - I cannot protect myself from an army or a mob, only another army can. This army, be it the police or the actual armed forces, is why the state, the leviathan, is a good thing for me and for you.

Good laws protect me, bad laws are a stand-in for mere anarchy, the domination of the weak by the strong.

When the state ceases to protect people's right from one another, it may as well be mere anarchy - the domination by force of the weak by the strong.

so the state is good in so far as the state doesn't act like a state, and might as well not be the state when it does?


and could you please use terms in the proper sense for the context? i know it's difficult, but it makes things easier for everyone.

so now that your state has decided they don't really have to respect your rights, and can in principle disappear you at any point, how's that working out for you?

This may have happened to a few people here in the US, and is despicable if it has, but it is not a widespread and more likely than not it won't be.

Hopefully, with a change in government following the next election, this will be relegated along with other american mistakes to the ash-heap of history.

Actually, New Granada, you've got that backwards. It's much more likely that a person will be forcibly disappeared in the US than it is in South America, the Middle East, Africa, or a number of Asian nations.

Actually, New Granada, you've got that backwards. It's much more likely that a person will be forcibly disappeared in the US than it is in South America, the Middle East, Africa, or a number of Asian nations.I bet you're glad you're in Japan right now...

:p

I know you get put ona special list for taking it , or any other book on bomb making for that matter, for years. But now thanks to the Patriot Act they can tap your calls, see your internet history, see what books you took out from the library , read your mail, etc.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if even googling "Anarchist's Cookbook" will have them do all the above to you.

As for the bus-queuing - guess no Chinese are anarchists, then:
China to eradicate queue-jumping

China has launched a campaign to try to eradicate queue-jumping in the capital ahead of the Olympic games in Beijing next year.

Thousands of volunteers have been out on the streets trying to persuade people to wait in line in order to present a better image to visitors.

The campaign was launched under the slogan: "It's civilised to queue, it's glorious to be polite."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6351667.stm

You ppl have no idea of what queue-jumping is like until you've been to Mainland China. For anything, it's literally a choatic insane stampede towards the doors. Can be enjoyable at times - especially if you're my size (6'3" and 240lbs). It's like playing that old school game, 'Bullrush'.:p

Quaint little piece, but as others have said, it's insufficient. That said, it's preaching to the choir, sort of.


Even Nazis are more popular than we are.
Yep, you're more likely to be seen as a 'sensible' person if you declare you're fascist/ Nazi than if you're some sort of anarchist.

I bet you're glad you're in Japan right now...

:p

Well the Japanese government hasn't disappeared anyone in a while (not since the US gave them this little present...). But People have been disappeared others - DPRK for example, or the yaks. (There's also the yonige (http://p090.ezboard.com/ftheotherkubasakidragoncommunityfrm7.showMessage?topicID=106.topic), or "midnight run", in which people disappear themselves, usually to avoid the legal loan sharks.)

As for the States, with the exception of some rather hard to believe conspiracy theories, the only people forcibly "disappeared" are certain *ahem* "ghosts" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62801-2004Oct25.html)...

Quick! To consensus politics! Get the bourgeoisie to agree to their own downfall!

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if even googling "Anarchist's Cookbook" will have them do all the above to you.

Nah, the government's too busy looking for (looking, mind you) real trouble to go after all the teenyboppers who're after The Anarchist Cookbook (no apostrophe, no "s" ;)). Plus they know it's worthless.

As for the bus-queuing - guess no Chinese are anarchists, then:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6351667.stm

You ppl have no idea of what queue-jumping is like until you've been to Mainland China. For anything, it's literally a choatic insane stampede towards the doors. Can be enjoyable at times - especially if you're my size (6'3" and 240lbs). It's like playing that old school game, 'Bullrush'.:p

Heheh. That's one of the things I like about Osaka. The people here are much less passive than those in Tokyo. You haven't had a real "Osaka" experience until you've been queus jumped and snaked out of a seat on the train by a crafty little Osaka Obachan (auntie). :)

One of my old friends compared riding a rush-hour Midosuji subway train (that's the busiest subway line in Japan, and rumored to be the busiest in the world) to a game of gridiron.

I do not claim that it is Anarchism. But the communal direct democracies (on a vast territory of seized land no less) that is generally practiced in MST communities shines a light on what is possible in the world in terms of local self governance and egalitarianism.

No it isn't, not in the least. It's just un densely populated land being redistributed, it's not going from a heavily populated and rich capitalist society and converting it into any sort of complicated and pointless forced redistribution as such a thing would be imposssible.


For such systems in developed cities, see Barcelona in the 1930's.


Again things were very different back then. There was no sufficient middle class and the society was not well developed, it was merely a step up from feudalism which is why people would more easliy accept this at the time, anything was better then the pre war fascism they had encountered. Barcelona was only developed in a working class sense, there was no thriving economy.


A bizarre and unqualified value judgment. a meaningless platitude that is often used in place of actual reasoning.

No, it's much more irrational to assume that anything (not just anarchism) can work whatever the current ecenomic situation is. This is just simply not true.