NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are some anarchists on Nationstates, and I just wanted to ask, what led you to "convert" to anarchism? What led you to believe in it? What made you think that life without government is better for a society?
I consider myself a conservative, leaning towards libertarianism in some ways, but I find anarchism quite fascinating as an ideology.

Come on, I know there's at least a few anarchists on here......

Come on, I know there's at least a few anarchists on here......
Have some bloody patience.

I'm not answering this question, because you don't have any authority over me to make me :p

I'm not answering this question, because you don't have any authority over me to make me :p

Ha ha, who said I was going to make you? ;)

Anarchists hold delusional beliefs.

Anarchists hold delusional beliefs.

Well, yes, that could be said, but I find the whole concept of an anarchist society quite fascinating.....

Well, yes, that could be said, but I find the whole concept of an anarchist society quite fascinating.....

Ive never been one for prepetual gang warfare.

Ive never been one for prepetual gang warfare.

Yes, anarchy would be a criminals dream, I know that anarchists believe that a peaceful, functioning society can be created w/o a government, but let's face it, it would be chaotic and violent at least.....

Ive never been one for prepetual gang warfare.

You're no fun.

Can we actually wait until they post to rip the piss out of them? No?

The Internet goes against Anarchists beliefs by its authoritive requirement for TCP/IP data packet transfer. Thus no Anarchists on teh interwebs.

Can we actually wait until they post to rip the piss out of them? No?

OK, I'll wait and see if any anarchists show up. I just stated my opinion of anarchism, I just find the ideology interesting.......

Well, as the leader of all anarchists, I can answ... oh... eh... goodbye!

Based on the few that I've known, your average anarchist is either a 15 yr. old who's mad at his parents, or someone who never grew out of that.

Well, as the leader of all anarchists, I can answ... oh... eh... goodbye!

If you have an opinion on the issue, please stick around if you like...

If you have an opinion on the issue, please stick around if you like...

Of course I have an opinion about the issue, but then, it's about bed time in this completely anarchistic household of mine, so my aroundsticking time is just about up. :tongue:

You posted under half an hour ago. Could it not be possible that most people who are likely to answer your question don't spend their days obsessively refreshing the forums, waiting for someone to ask for information about anarchism?

As a first step, why don't you go do some reading, inform yourself about the ideology and the typical philosophical beliefs of anarchists. I would recommend Defending the Impossible as an excellent history of the development of anarchist thought. More simply, try Anarchy by Malatesta, a clear and concise defense of anarchy. It has aged somewhat, but is an excellent starting point.

I personally fall somewhere in the left-wing anarchist corner of things, so I can give some attempt at an answer. The main thing I don't like is coercion, having one entity impose its will on another. This is what the state is founded on, hence I am not a fan of the state. Please note that this doesn't mean I reject authority - I follow instructions, and recognise that other people are likely to have better ideas and more experience in many cases, so I defer to their suggestions.

Just out of interest, how old are you, Heinleinites?

You posted under half an hour ago. Could it not be possible that most people who are likely to answer your question don't spend their days obsessively refreshing the forums, waiting for someone to ask for information about anarchism?

As a first step, why don't you go do some reading, inform yourself about the ideology and the typical philosophical beliefs of anarchists. I would recommend Defending the Impossible as an excellent history of the development of anarchist thought. More simply, try Anarchy by Malatesta, a clear and concise defense of anarchy. It has aged somewhat, but is an excellent starting point.

I personally fall somewhere in the left-wing anarchist corner of things, so I can give some attempt at an answer. The main thing I don't like is coercion, having one entity impose its will on another. This is what the state is founded on, hence I am not a fan of the state. Please note that this doesn't mean I reject authority - I follow instructions, and recognise that other people are likely to have better ideas and more experience in many cases, so I defer to their suggestions.

Just out of interest, how old are you, Heinleinites?

I just figured that there was enough anarchists on here that responses would come rather quickly, a little impatient, sure. Thanks for your answer on the subject....

I know there are some anarchists on Nationstates, and I just wanted to ask, what led you to "convert" to anarchism?
Being brought up in a Presbyterian church contributed a lot, what with its communitarian spirit, lack of top-down authority and general unhierarchiness. Around age 14-15, as I was becoming politically aware, I read a bit of Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, which advocates an egalitarian, liberatory Christianity, and became interested in Christian anarchism which, very generally, sees God as the only true non-epistemological authority in the universe.

From that I started reading different anarchist (mainly anarcho-syndicalist) writers, such as Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky. This coincided with growing up in the midst of the Scottish punk scene, which is hoaching with anarcho's.

Moreover, I grew up with the loss of hope in parliamentary politics. The year I started school, Tony Blair was elected. I can still distinctly hear Things Can Only Get Better, the song played at the Labour victory party, and remember the smiling faces of my parents and their friends as the Tories were ousted from government. The entire memory I have of UK (EU, US worldwide...) parliamentary politics is of dashed hopes, broken promises, outright lies, spin, spin and more spin; ultimately, little genuine effort by politicians to represent and be accountable to those who voted for them.

Although my views have changed quite a bit from when I was a wee punk kid, my sentiments remain much the same.


Anarchists hold delusional beliefs.
Such as?

Being brought up in a Presbyterian church contributed a lot, what with its communitarian spirit, lack of top-down authority and general unhierarchiness. Around age 14-15, as I was becoming politically aware, I read a bit of Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, which advocates an egalitarian, liberatory Christianity, and became interested in Christian anarchism which, very generally, sees God as the only true non-epistemological authority in the universe.

From that I started reading different anarchist (mainly anarcho-syndicalist) writers, such as Emma Goldman, Rudolf Rocker and Noam Chomsky. This coincided with growing up in the midst of the Scottish punk scene, which is hoaching with anarcho's.

Moreover, I grew up with the loss of hope in parliamentary politics. The year I started school, Tony Blair was elected. I can still distinctly hear Things Can Only Get Better, the song played at the Labour victory party, and remember the smiling faces of my parents and their friends as the Tories were ousted from government. The entire memory I have of UK (EU, US worldwide...) parliamentary politics is of dashed hopes, broken promises, outright lies, spin, spin and more spin; ultimately, little genuine effort by politicians to represent and be accountable to those who voted for them.

Although my views have changed quite a bit from when I was a wee punk kid, my sentiments remain much the same.



Such as?

Christian anarchism, interesting, maybe I'll look into the writings of Tolstoy, thanks for your reply to the thread....

You posted under half an hour ago. Could it not be possible that most people who are likely to answer your question don't spend their days obsessively refreshing the forums, waiting for someone to ask for information about anarchism?

Of course not! Everyone on here does nothing but constantly refresh the forums on here waiting for questions about their ideology! :p

Christian anarchism, interesting, maybe I'll look into the writings of Tolstoy, thanks for your reply to the thread....
Just to note, I no longer share Tolsty's beliefs; I'm an athiest.

Though still an anarchist.

I just figured that there was enough anarchists on here that responses would come rather quickly, a little impatient, sure. Thanks for your answer on the subject....

You're welcome.

Off the top of my head I can't think of many more than half a dozen people here who fall into the 'anarchist' category (or very similar ones). You would have probably got a more rapid response on a forum dedicated to that sort of political leaning.

Just out of interest, how old are you, Heinleinites?

I'm in my thirties, why?

Off the top of my head I can't think of many more than half a dozen people here who fall into the 'anarchist' category (or very similar ones). You would have probably got a more rapid response on a forum dedicated to that sort of political leaning.
I dunno, there's a fair few on here, and many who're on the right/individualist anarchist wing.

I'm in my thirties, why?

Just wondering, what with the dig at 15 year olds and suchlike.

I dunno, there's a fair few on here, and many who're on the right/individualist anarchist wing.

Hmm, true, but not many I can think of off the top of my head - you would be one, Trotskylvania is one, I'm around here. Who am I obviously missing? However you slice it, we're definitely outnumbered by the social democrats and liberal centrists.

(Discounting the right wingers for a minute...)

I think last time there was a poll on this sort of thing, anarchists made up about 15% of the NSG population.

Such as?

The notion that without some sort of law and enforcement of said law, humans would still get along peacefully and not rape, steal, and kill at random.

Basically, the notion that anarchy would not degenerate into prepetual gang warfare rather quickly.

Anarchy requires a lot of faith in humanity that I frankly find a bit naive.


Out of curiosity, what is the difference between right wing and left wing anarchism?

Hmm, true, but not many I can think of off the top of my head - you would be one, Trotskylvania is one, I'm around here. Who am I obviously missing? However you slice it, we're definitely outnumbered by the social democrats and liberal centrists.

(Discounting the right wingers for a minute...)

Free Soviets and Soheran...

By the way, a good starting point for finding out about some general anarchist beliefs would be: http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/

It doesn't include the anarcho-capitalist strain, but it does provide arguments as to why it shouldn't be considered "true" anarchism. I'm sure you can find arguments detailing the opposite quite easily though (Murray Rothbard might be a good start for that side of things IIRC).

There are a lot of different types of anarchism. They don't all have that much in common.

How about I spur an argument:

I think the whole idea that anarcho-communism is truly anarchistic is nonsensical sophistry. Whenever such ideas are probed, you always end up with details of people (however directly elected they are) who are able to make decisions on an area greater than their immediate commune. As soon as this happens, you have a governmental administration, you have areas of power, and you thus have a state.

A good starting point for finding out what anarchists believe would be...
I'd stress caution here, I don't think a good way of understanding what anarchism 'is' results from being thrown head-first into a (mainly) anarcho-syndicalist site.

If you're serious about study, I'd start with either George Woodcock or David Miller's books on the subject, both called Anarchism. They cover the spectrum of thought well, and discuss both philosophical anarchism and anarchist practice.


Hmm, true, but not many I can think of off the top of my head - you would be one, Trotskylvania is one, I'm around here. Who am I obviously missing?
I was going to say Trots as well...

Is Soheran not an anarchist, or at least has anarchist leanings? And wossname... often debates philosophy on here. Has a short, two-word username, begining with an A... EDIT: Agenda07

Anyhoo, you're right, there's not many of us.

The notion that without some sort of law and enforcement of said law, humans would still get along peacefully and not rape, steal, and kill at random.
The lack of a top-down, coercive government does not necessarily equate to a lack of any legal structure or censuring of behaviour.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a serious anarchist who advocates the lack of any social structure whatsoever, and not all anarchists belive humans are all good or 'naturally' good.

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between right wing and left wing anarchism?
Very briefly, left wing or social anarchism is communitarian in spirit, advocating unhierarchial communities, as opposed to the right wing, egotistical or individualist anarchism, which is an extension of the Nozickian right-libertarianism you often see on here.

The lack of a top-down, coercive government does not necessarily equate to a lack of any legal structure or censuring of behaviour.


If you have an institution with legal authority over all areas of the land, then you have a state. If you don't have a consistent, universal legal system, then your legal system is very very bad.

If you have an institution with legal authority over all areas of the land, then you have a state.
Once again though, this isn't a binary choice between coercive state and complete lack of any social nicities. And various anarchists have various things to say on the matter of laws, from collectively decided legal systems to virtual ostracism. (You're not going to get very far betraying people in a mutualist system, especially a non-capitalist one; murderers don't get invited to many parties.)

If you don't have a consistent, universal legal system, then your legal system is very very bad.
When has there ever been a consistent, universal legal system?

I'm too disorganised to be anything but an anarchist.

I'm too disorganised to be anything but an anarchist.
Lollers.

I'm too disorganised to be anything but an anarchist.

Oh, come now, I'm not sure about that. I am utterly disorganised and prone to procrastination to a quite spectacular degree, but doesn't stop me being absolutist :D

*wanders off to find some tea*

And various anarchists have various things to say on the matter of laws, from collectively decided legal systems

Which is just a massive parliament.


to virtual ostracism. (You're not going to get very far betraying people in a mutualist system, especially a non-capitalist one; murderers don't get invited to many parties.)


I don't see what you're getting at, how does the punishment decide who has legal power or not?


When has there ever been a consistent, universal legal system?

Ok, there is no 100% purely universal system of law, but in most countries, the vast majority of laws are universal, especially the important ones, which don't change just because you go to another city.

Also, you'll need a meta-system of law, one that prevents one commune from taking over another one for instance, that requires central authority.

Also, you'll need a meta-system of law, one that prevents one commune from taking over another one for instance, that requires central authority.

Hence prepetual gang warfare.

My nation recently descended into anarchy....And I wasnt even trying, lol...

On the bright side however, my Economy got much better, lol...Just gonna have to make some more dictatorial decisions to counterbalance this...

I came from a Labor Party family. When I was 14 I read George Orwell's 1984. This book had a permanent effect on me...... I learnt to be suspicious of parties - especially authoritarian ones. I also became aware of propaganda and political manipulation.

By the time I was 17, in 1970 - my last year of school, I was an anti-war activist who edited and distributed a broadsheet called "the angel of death" at my high school. University activists opposed to the Vietnam War (Students for a Democratic Society) helped me to publish it.
When I got to university I joined the Monash Uni Labour Club. It was dominated by Maoists whose organisation and militancy impressed me but whose authoritarian, hardline beliefs and practices repelled me. The little red book and their slogans were amusing.
I left the Labour Club when they made me publications officer but wouldn't let me publish my own ideas. By this time I had met anarchists in inner Melbourne who ran "The Free Store". I finally made the transition and went back to Monash and set up the Monash Anarchists.
I also helped to found the Federation of Australian Anarchists (which needs to be refounded.)
Thus my "conversion" to anarchism was steady but gradual. It was case of sampling the reformist and 'revolutionary" parties and seeing them as essentially flawed - they all wanted to put their power elite at the helm.
Every anarchist is different. I believe in working with individuals, groups and organisations for positive social change. Things have to be truthful and fair for me to want to be involved.
Ironically, I usually vote in elections.

I know there are some anarchists on Nationstates, and I just wanted to ask, what led you to "convert" to anarchism?

short answer: ratm and chomsky

I guess I'm an AnCap-leaning Libertarian. *points to link in sig* Read that. It'll at least offer an introduction to one branch the libertarian/anarchist views on illegitimate authority.

Very briefly, left wing or social anarchism is communitarian in spirit, advocating unhierarchial communities, as opposed to the right wing, egotistical or individualist anarchism, which is an extension of the Nozickian right-libertarianism you often see on here.

So,

1.) We can all get along without any sort of social structure or overseers, or

2.) I can take care of myself, I am not going to listen to someone tell me what to do; screw the world!


Am I interpreting these right?

Am I interpreting these right?

No. But simply reading the thread would tell you that already.

I came from a Labor Party family. When I was 14 I read George Orwell's 1984. This book had a permanent effect on me...... I learnt to be suspicious of parties - especially authoritarian ones. I also became aware of propaganda and political manipulation.

You mind if I tell my English teacher this? He's advocating the idea of an actively oppressive versus a self-destructive society (Dystopian one created by a system, IE 1984, and one that simply dissolves from massive human error and presumption, IE Oryx and Crake). Just wanna connect my IB classes to the world at large before I move onto something more important than school -- MORE SCHOOL!!1

Anyhoo, you're right, there's not many of us.

some others have stopped coming around. like rpp, for example. though every time i mention bwo, he shows up quoting "i dreamed i saw joe hill last night".

and foe was around pretty recently.

No. But simply reading the thread would tell you that already.

The only person who answered the question about the difference was CW, and he/she did it using an answer which I wish to clarify. Or, if you can point me to an elaboration on left- vs right-wing anarchism that appeared here, I would appreciate it.

The only person who answered the question about the difference was CW, and he/she did it using an answer which I wish to clarify.

In the very post you quoted:

"You'd be hard-pressed to find a serious anarchist who advocates the lack of any social structure whatsoever, and not all anarchists belive humans are all good or 'naturally' good."

Individualist anarchists (and anarcho-capitalists) advocate a social structure founded on private market relations. Social anarchists advocate a social structure founded on small-scale communities or workers' associations run through direct democracy. Neither are opposed to the notion of social organization or social rules as such, though both oppose their present forms.

So there are no anarchists which believe in the complete abolition of social order, then? Not trying to goad, just asking a question.

So there are no anarchists which believe in the complete abolition of social order, then? Not trying to goad, just asking a question.

Well, I think youd be hard pressed to find serious people that want to go back to Neanderthal times......But, I guess even then there were Tribal Systems in place, lol...

So there are no anarchists which believe in the complete abolition of social order, then?

Well, there probably are. But if you're talking about the actual serious political theories of anarchism, no, I don't think so.

So, as a whole, anarchy is the belief in removing the large, mistake-prone accident that is a massive central government, and make society more social and individualized instead of systematic?

Mutualists are indivisualist anarchists, and they are not capitalists. I myself am an anarchist without adjectives. I do not perfer one school of thought over another. I don't even oppose anarcho-capitalism altogether, and have voted Libertarian before too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives I first became an anarchist after reading about it, in my studies of political science. And also I've noticed the corruption, and aggression, within the state schools. Under our current socio-political system there is violence commited by both governments, and criminal gangs, with as far as I'm concerned there isn't all that much difference between the two. I also have developed an independent, do it yourself, attitude. I've been homeschooled officialy since fourth grade, and have taught myself about subjects that interest me, especially politics. I think therefore that we should all be enabled to be self governing, and self relient.

capitalist anarchist here. jsut figured since government has been run by business for the last 100 years no point hiding the matter any longer and simply officially announce the form of government we really have.

See we are in an Anarchist society already and you didn't even know it.

capitalist anarchist here. jsut figured since government has been run by business for the last 100 years no point hiding the matter any longer and simply officially announce the form of government we really have.

See we are in an Anarchist society already and you didn't even know it.

Funny, I see a lot of police around for an anarchist society.

Funny, I see a lot of police around for an anarchist society.

in corporate anarchism police are provided by corporations to protect the consumer and cover their insurance cost.
If you doubt me cease buying/working/owning anything and see if the police protect you or harass you. Don't want to take a vow of poverty? just ask the homeless what they think of the police.

in corporate anarchism police are provided by corporations to protect the consumer and cover their insurance cost.
If you doubt me cease buying/working/owning anything and see if the police protect you or harass you. Don't want to take a vow of poverty? just ask the homeless what they think of the police.

Fair point, but I've seen cops defending the homeless here. I suppose it depends on location.

Fair point, but I've seen cops defending the homeless here. I suppose it depends on location.

Those homeless might have been getting ready to buy alcohol hence temporarily putting them in society. once they have no money and their bottles are empty they will likely be beaten and arrested.

Those homeless might have been getting ready to buy alcohol hence temporarily putting them in society. once they have no money and their bottles are empty they will likely be beaten and arrested.

Okay, I was willing to see your point, but you're veering into generalization and paranoid conspiracy ranting now.

Okay, I was willing to see your point, but you're veering into generalization and paranoid conspiracy ranting now.

okay i was going a bit over board.

okay i was going a bit over board.

Thank you.

I've witnessed the disparity in response times when you call from one address versus another, so you do have a point. The ritzier neighborhoods get faster responses in my experience.

Thank you.

I've witnessed the disparity in response times when you call from one address versus another, so you do have a point. The ritzier neighborhoods get faster responses in my experience.

We are not totally there yet. we need to get rid of the facade government and we would all be better off if we were honest that we simply buy our services.

If you have an institution with legal authority over all areas of the land, then you have a state.

only if it exists as a centralized entity in which a relatively small group holds power over those areas and uses coercion to enforce compliance with its dictates whether the people there agree to it all or not. if they are fully participating and freely associating together, the fact that the people have voluntarily agreed to abide by a set of standards is just an expression of freedom rather than an instance of the state.

only if it exists as a centralized entity in which a relatively small group holds power over those areas and uses coercion to enforce compliance with its dictates whether the people there agree to it all or not. if they are fully participating and freely associating together, the fact that the people have voluntarily agreed to abide by a set of standards is just an expression of freedom rather than an instance of the state.

I can only imagine people getting lazy and letting these degrade into the afore-described group.

You mind if I tell my English teacher this? He's advocating the idea of an actively oppressive versus a self-destructive society (Dystopian one created by a system, IE 1984, and one that simply dissolves from massive human error and presumption, IE Oryx and Crake). Just wanna connect my IB classes to the world at large before I move onto something more important than school -- MORE SCHOOL!!1

Be my guest Tiger! (In Australia, we sometimes say, "Go for it Tiger!":D

Other books that are good for anarchist consciousness:
Huxley's Brave New World
Other Orwell novels
Catch 22
captain Maryatt's "Children of the New Forest".
Steal this Book by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin

Histories:
Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower"
Hugh Thomas' "The Spanish Civil War" (Thomas is fairly conservative but he discusses the Spanish anarchists, the FAI and the anarcho-syndicalists, the CNT)
Happy anarchising

only if it exists as a centralized entity

If it's one entity, then of course it's centralized.


in which a relatively small group holds power

I don't think that the amount that holds it is relevant.


over those areas and uses coercion to enforce compliance with its dictates whether the people there agree to it all or not.

So what other way can you have compliance, without coercion?


if they are fully participating and freely associating together, the fact that the people have voluntarily agreed to abide by a set of standards is just an expression of freedom rather than an instance of the state.

I find the idea of no oversight a horrific idea. I would never support a system where there is NOTHING regulating the various communes, if there is no reason for a commune to respect human rights and dignity for instance, other than merely if they choose to voluntary respect them or not.

I find the idea of no oversight a horrific idea. I would never support a system where there is NOTHING regulating the various communes, if there is no reason for a commune to respect human rights and dignity for instance, other than merely if they choose to voluntary respect them or not.

Member vote by leaving an entity with no members is defunct.

I think some good old fashioned chaos would be good for society as a whole. Weeding people out and the like, only the strong survive, blahblahblah.

I always thought it would be nice to go back to the barter system as well.

These are just ideas though, and will stay that way.:)

If it's one entity, then of course it's centralized.

not really, no. the distinction is between centralized and decentralized power. the fact that there is an 'assembly of assemblies' tells us nothing of the power relations between it and its constituent parts.

I don't think that the amount that holds it is relevant.

of course it is. it is one of the key dimensions on which we can distinguish between various sorts of political organizations, with the endpoints being 'one guy' on the one hand, and 'everybody equally' on the other.

(for example, mad maxian biker gangs fall closer to the 'one guy' end of the spectrum, while representative democracy falls more towards the opposite end)

So what other way can you have compliance, without coercion?

mutual agreement, with coercion only applied in so far as it was agreed to as an enforcement mechanism.

I find the idea of no oversight a horrific idea. I would never support a system where there is NOTHING regulating the various communes, if there is no reason for a commune to respect human rights and dignity for instance, other than merely if they choose to voluntary respect them or not.

there isn't nothing regulating the various communes. there are their agreements with each other and the requirements of freedom and equality internally, and the fact that if shit goes bad somewhere there isn't a way to force people to put up with it. now if some group opts out of the whole system, well, that is their right (to a certain extent), but then they are either some relatively harmless group off by themselves or our old enemies back again and to be treated as such.

Hence prepetual gang warfare.

Heheh seems quite a few people here just do not understand the word Anarchy.

the fact that there is an 'assembly of assemblies' tells us nothing of the power relations between it and its constituent parts.


That's because it tells us nothing at all, it's incredibly vague, basically meaningless.


mutual agreement, with coercion only applied in so far as it was agreed to as an enforcement mechanism.


A state then. Just because everyone agrees to what the rules will be, doesn't mean that body of power is now non existent.


now if some group opts out of the whole system, well, that is their right (to a certain extent), but then they are either some relatively harmless group off by themselves or our old enemies back again and to be treated as such.

Again, there is nothing to stop a huge organisation of mobsters breaking off from an 'agreement' and creating their own system of oppression. Got it. Edit: and what's this about treating them like enemies? Sounds just like enemies of the state, I see no meaningful difference. If by treating someone like enemies, you 'fight' them or destroy their regime, you again have a body of power that can enforce compliance on people who don't want it.

Anarchy appears to work for a smaller entity say maybe even a city or as big as one state but when you get larger you start to breakdown. The military has to protect all states under your umbrella. You needs a cohesive foreign policy. You need cohesive approach to: economics, printing money, banking several other things. If one state doing their own thing it spirals out of control. If you force everyone to vote on everything it breaks down because people have jobs and because that is why we have leadership in the first place. We give up a little control / say for piece of mind.

A state then. Just because everyone agrees to what the rules will be, doesn't mean that body of power is now non existent.

doesn't sound much like the state to me. certainly not any state that has ever existed. but if you want to call it the state, then sure, that is the state that anarchists propose. no problem.

anyway, the distinction is that it isn't a body of power above the people, but rather the method of implementing the power of the people. the people can directly change the rules or change affiliations at will (though, of course, there will obviously be consequences for doing so, including means to prevent problematic free-riding). in the state as the term is normally used, this is fundamentally not the case, though some of them come closer than others.

Again, there is nothing to stop a huge organisation of mobsters breaking off from an 'agreement' and creating their own system of oppression. Got it. Edit: and what's this about treating them like enemies? Sounds just like enemies of the state, I see no meaningful difference. If by treating someone like enemies, you 'fight' them or destroy their regime, you again have a body of power that can enforce compliance on people who don't want it.

the mobsters can leave, but if they try to enforce their system on the unwilling, then self defense and the defense of others kicks in.

Sometimes I think anarchism is a good idea until you apply actual people to it.

And then I think about how fascism and genocide are good ideas.

Oh anarchists....sorry I thought it said antichrists.

Oh anarchists....sorry I thought it said antichrists.

*Sings*

I am an anarchist
An antichrist
An asterisk
I am an atheist
An acolyte
An alcoholic...

Anyway, having interrupted things with the Dresden Dolls, I return you to the normal thread. (That's a wonderful song, by the way)

(That's a wonderful song, by the way)
Meh. The Dresden Dolls are a bit weak.

the people can directly change the rules or change affiliations at will

Well, I see no feasible way of implementing such a system, without representation, and it's impossible for reps to represent everyone. Also, not everyone is going to agree on every issue, not 'everyone' will be able to change the rules, only the majority.


the mobsters can leave, but if they try to enforce their system on the unwilling, then self defense and the defense of others kicks in.

Further justifying me claiming your system to be having a state.

Well, I see no feasible way of implementing such a system, without representation, and it's impossible for reps to represent everyone. Also, not everyone is going to agree on every issue, not 'everyone' will be able to change the rules, only the majority.

firstly, anarchists almost uniformly support representation in one form or another (though we often talk of delegates rather than representatives, but that's just semantics, really). for example, the faq (http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci53) says things such as:
However, face-to-face meetings of the whole population are impractical at this size. Therefore, the decision making body at this level would be the confederal council, which would consist of mandated, recallable, and rotating delegates from the neighbourhood assemblies. These delegates would co-ordinate policies which have been discussed and voted on by the neighbourhood assemblies, with the votes being summed across the district to determine district policy by majority rule. The issues to be discussed by these confederal meetings/assemblies would be proposed by local communes, the confederal council would collate these proposals and submit them to the other communes in the confederation for discussion. Thus the flow of decision making would be from the bottom up, with the "lowest" bodies having the most power, particularly the power to formulate, suggest, correct and, if need be, reject decisions made at "higher" levels in the confederation.

and we don't need total agreement on everything, just agreement enough, such that staying together and abiding by the decisions reached within the confederation (or whatever) is still worthwhile for us. when those decisions strike us as so out of line as to undermine the entire point of working together, then we are free to disassociate. even as individuals.

Further justifying me claiming your system to be having a state.

defending yourself and others from oppression and exploitation is definitionally 'the state'? weird, considering the history of the state is almost entirely made up of doing the opposite.

firstly, anarchists almost uniformly support representation in one form or another (though we often talk of delegates rather than representatives, but that's just semantics, really). for example, the faq (http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secI5.html#seci53) says things such as:


I know, which was what I was leading to. Having delegates decide for you is not YOU deciding, it's just them, delegates. All it is, is a massive parliament. The only difference is how democratic it is, but that doesn't negate the existence of the state.


and we don't need total agreement on everything, just agreement enough, such that staying together and abiding by the decisions reached within the confederation (or whatever) is still worthwhile for us.

Eh? That didn't make any sense.


when those decisions strike us as so out of line as to undermine the entire point of working together, then we are free to disassociate. even as individuals.

Except you're not free, if you disassociate and do something that the 'confederation' doesn't like, your system will be destroyed. What you seem to be advocating is an extreme minimal government, that lets people collectivise in any manner they choose, but if any commune decides to seriously exploit or whatever, the government (as in the administrative coordinated powers of the 'confederation') will intervene.


defending yourself and others from oppression and exploitation is definitionally 'the state'?

If there is a body (however large it is) that has legitimate power to do so, then yes.

I know, which was what I was leading to. Having delegates decide for you is not YOU deciding, it's just them, delegates. All it is, is a massive parliament. The only difference is how democratic it is, but that doesn't negate the existence of the state.

except that the delegates are more like coordinators. they don't decide shit, the local assemblies do. if the delegates try to enact something that a local assembly strenuously objects to, that assembly can disassociate.

but yeah, i'm fine with you calling our system, which is entirely unlike any existing state ever seen, 'a state'. doesn't matter to me. i'm an anarchist that advocates the 'mainline' anarchist set of institutions, no matter what we call them.

Eh? That didn't make any sense.

i can freely agree to abide by decisions, even if no particular issue is decided the way i want. that is all the agreement we need, and we don't need it always and forever.

Except you're not free, if you disassociate and do something that the 'confederation' doesn't like, your system will be destroyed.

only if the 'not liking' rises to the level of them holding people against their will or the like.

If there is a body (however large it is) that has legitimate power to do so, then yes.

everyone has the legitimate power to do so.

Hmm, true, but not many I can think of off the top of my head - you would be one, Trotskylvania is one, I'm around here. Who am I obviously missing? However you slice it, we're definitely outnumbered by the social democrats and liberal centrists.

(Discounting the right wingers for a minute...)

You rang? :tongue:

What brought me to anarchism? Well, in many ways it's a similar tale to Chumblywumbly. It began with a complete disillusionment with the current sociopolitical system. The Iraq War, the obvious farce that it was, completely shattered my belief in the righteousness of the American system.

At first, I gravitated to democratic socialism and the Third Camp Trotskyism of Michael Harrington and Max Schactman. Basically, it was an anti-authoritarian, anti-Stalinist sector of the radical left. I started looking into anarchist thinkers as part of this. They were "allies" on the anti-Stalinist sector of the left, so it was a natural move to make.

I didn't consider myself an anarchist, but I subconsciously absorbed and applied the ideas without even realising it. People started mistaking me for an anarchist in political discussion, which led to a sort of realisation. After that, I started consciously calling myself an anarchist.

Anarchism is silly. There exists no people who don't organize themselves, and for very good reasons.

Anarchism is silly. There exists no people who don't organize themselves, and for very good reasons.

come on, the thread isn't that long

come on, the thread isn't that long

I don't get it.

I guess a question from a non-anarchist is: What is missing would you say from your current Democracy/Government that you think you might have in Anarchy?

What does the individual gain that one could not have in Democracy?

Explain how it would work. Are you in favor of a City-State model? A collection of groups/gangs. Let's spell it out somewhat.


We have perfect testing ground for your theories as well. The country Somalia. How will anarchy benefit the ordinary citizen in Somalia?

I guess a question from a non-anarchist is: What is missing would you say from your current Democracy/Government that you think you might have in Anarchy?

What does the individual gain that one could not have in Democracy?

freedom and equality. a full say in decision-making, with power centered around the levels where this is most possible, and the ability to reshape our social, political, and economic ties without permission from our 'betters'.
any democratic state that really took such things seriously would itself be anarchistic, or at least approaching it.

Explain how it would work. Are you in favor of a City-State model? A collection of groups/gangs. Let's spell it out somewhat.

the basic model almost always proposes that the fundamental unit of organization (beyond the individual) is that of the participatory face-to-face community/workplace assemblies, with relations freely established between them forming horizontal networks rather than hierarchical power structures.

see: Section I - What would an anarchist society look like? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html) from the big-ass anarchist faq, specifically I.3, I.4, and I.5

We have perfect testing ground for your theories as well. The country Somalia. How will anarchy benefit the ordinary citizen in Somalia?

i don't see what makes somolia all that good of a testing ground. looks like a sort of shitty one, to me. conditions where failure seems fairly likely, really. any benefit would depend on there being enough people who want to take part and having the actual capacity to hold off the warlords and islamists and, well, ethiopia. but given that, the benefits are the benefits of most any stable structure over the condition of war, plus that freedom and equality stuff i was talking about before.

I don't get it.

He means that anarchism doesn't reject organisation, just coercion. There is a very important difference.

This has been the subject of most of the thread so far.

Am I interpreting these right?
Not at all.

Soheran said it well (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14454089&postcount=51), and I'd want to stress the point he made that anarchists, no matter their stripe, only very rarely advocate the complete disbandement of any social structure.

So, as a whole, anarchy is the belief in removing the large, mistake-prone accident that is a massive central government, and make society more social and individualized instead of systematic?
Broadly, yes.

It's about removing hierarchial modes of dominance.



though every time i mention bwo, he shows up quoting "i dreamed i saw joe hill last night".
:P



Having delegates decide for you is not YOU deciding, it's just them, delegates.
But these delegates, unlike current parliamentary 'representatives' would be genuinely accountable, doing what the people delegate them to do. They would be recallable, replaceable, would probably not hold very long terms, and all decisions made by them would, too, be subject to scrutiny, protest and veto by non-delegates.

Except you're not free, if you disassociate and do something that the 'confederation' doesn't like, your system will be destroyed.
Why, necessarily?

what i find weird is not just the number of anarchists that have hung out here, but how many of them have done advanced study in philosophy.

Not me - I prefer to dabble in philosophy with my mates on Nation States!
I'm about as profound as a puddle!

what i find weird is not just the number of anarchists that have hung out here, but how many of them have done advanced study in philosophy.

Espescially since it's tied to a game called "NationStates" :p