NationStates Jolt Archive

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS! 8)

This thread is for you. Come and say hello, debate and discuss, organise, meet one another here, even role-play if you like... :P

Everyone is welcome... non-anarchists come and debate! Note - if the thread veers off topic it might be steered back! :shock:

Spiritual Anarchist


* - * - *


This first post will contain lots of info and links to anarchist things - individual nations and regions on NationStates, offsite websites and forums, books, anything else we can think of. If you want your anarchist nation or region to be listed, or you know some good anarchist websites, please post them in this thread or telegram me with them and I'll put them in.


Anarchist nations on NationStates (alphabetical order)

Anarchio (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=anarchio)
Dischordiac (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=dischordiac)
Free Soviets (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=free_soviets)
Neo-Anarchos (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=neo-anarchos)
Revolushia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=revolushia)
Spiritual Anarchy (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=spiritual_anarchy)
Utopio (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=utopio)

related:
Pinochio (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=pinochio) [Minarchist]


Anarchist regions on NationStates (alphabetical order)

Anarchy (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=anarchy)
Anarchy Island (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=anarchy_island)
Anticapitalist Alliance (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=anticapitalist_alliance)


Anarchist websites

General
An Anarchist FAQ - there are many copies distributed around the net: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ www.anarchistfaq.org www.anarchismfaq.org www.anarchyfaq.org
DMOZ Anarchism http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Anarchism/
flag.blackened.net http://flag.blackened.net/
Infoshop.org http://www.infoshop.org/
Anarchy Archives http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/
Spunk Library http://www.spunk.org/
Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills, and Ideas http://www.radio4all.org/aia/
Anarcho-Syndicalism http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/
Anarchist Youth Network: Britain & Ireland http://www.enrager.net/ayn/index.php

Specific kinds
Alexander Berkman - What Is Communist Anarchism? http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

Magazines
Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed http://www.anarchymag.org/
Total Liberty magazine http://mysite.freeserve.com/total_liberty1/index.jhtml

Books
AK Press (US) http://www.akpress.com/
AK Press (European) http://www.akuk.com/
Black Rose Books http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/
Freedom Press http://vega.soi.city.ac.uk/~louise/freehome.html

Technical
riseup.net http://www.riseup.net/

Other
Anarchist Action Network http://www.zpub.com/notes/aadl.html
CrimethInc. http://www.crimethinc.com/
Raise the Fist http://www.raisethefist.com/
Onward :: Newspaper of Anarchist News, Opinion, Theory, and Strategy of Today http://www.onwardnewspaper.org/
Anarchist People of Color http://www.illegalvoices.org/apoc/


Anarchist-related websites

Anti-Capitalist
Anti-Capital Web http://www.webcom.com/maxang/
CorpWatch http://www.corpwatch.org/
Peoples' Global Action http://www.agp.org/
World Social Forum http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/
There must be more anti-cap websites! Please tell me them

Anti-War
Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/
Refuse & Resist! http://www.refuseandresist.org/altindex.html
International A.N.S.W.E.R. http://www.internationalanswer.org/ (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism!)
Disobedience Against War http://riseup.net/ourmayday/dis/
Stop The War Coalition http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

Activist
Indymedia http://www.indymedia.org
Calendar of upcoming protests http://www.protest.net/
Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/
Movement of the People http://www.movementofthepeople.org/
Organization for Autonomous Telecommunications http://www.tao.ca/
Reclaim the Streets http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/
Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org/
Z Communications - http://www.zmag.org/
EZLN/Zapatistas http://www.ezln.org/
Landless Workers' Movement (MST) http://www.mstbrazil.org/
SQUALL Magazine Online http://www.squall.co.uk/
Schnews - http://www.schnews.org.uk/
Isole Nella Rete ("Islands on the Net") http://www.ecn.org/ (Italian) http://www.ecn.org/multilang/ (English & other languages)
Ya Basta! - http://www.yabasta.it/
The Mark Thomas Product http://www.fnord.demon.co.uk/mt/
The Mark Thomas Product (Channel 4 site) http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/M/mark_thomas/
CND - http://www.cnduk.org/

Other radical
Disinformation http://www.disinfo.com/ (has many alternative/underground subjects)
Robert Anton Wilson http://www.rawilson.com
The Nation magazine http://www.thenation.com/
The Progressive magazine http://www.progressive.org/
AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/
Michael Moore http://www.michaelmoore.com/
Free Mumia Abu-Jamal http://www.mumia.org/freedom.now/
International Journal of Community Currency Research http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/ijccr/

Communes
Intentional Communities http://www.ic.org/

Punk
Profane Existence http://www.profaneexistence.com/
Chumbawamba http://www.chumba.com/

Anarcho-capitalist
Anarchism.net http://www.anarchism.net/
anti-state.com - market anarchism online http://www.anti-state.com/
DMOZ directory http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism/

Libertarian
Libertarian Alliance (UK) http://www.libertarian.co.uk/
Advocates for Self-Government http://www.self-gov.org/
The Free State Project http://www.freestateproject.org/
DMOZ directory http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Liberalism/Libertarianism/
Innovism: A Primer http://www.mega.nu:8080/innovism.html


Books

Avrich, Paul, ed., - The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution
Bakunin, Michael - God and the State
Barclay, Howard - People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchism
Berkman, Alexander - What is Anarchism (ABCs of Anarchism + What is Anarchist Communism)
Dolgoff, Sam - The Anarchist Collectives
Dulles, John - Anarchists and Communists in Brazil 1900-1935
Goldman, Emma - Anarchism and Other Essays
Guerin, Daniel - Anarchism
Guerin, Daniel, ed., - No Gods, No Masters: Books 1 & 2
Kropotkin, Piotr - Fields, Factories, and Workshops
Kropotkin, Piotr - Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Kropotkin, Piotr - The Conquest of Bread
Le Guin, Ursula - The Dispossessed (fiction)
Zerzan, John - Running On Emptiness

Non-anarchist but related:

Aronson, Elliot - The Social Animal
Cordingly, David - Under the Black Flag: The Romance and Reality of Life Among the Pirates
Ember, Carol and Melvin, - Anthropology
Heinlein, Robert A - Stranger in a Strange Land
Klein, Naomi - No Logo
Mauss, Marcel - The Gift
McCleod, Ken - The Stone Canal
Orwell, George - Homage To Catalonia
Palast, Greg - The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution
Wilson, Robert Anton - The Illuminatus Trilogy

Well - I was going to kick off by reposting a little piece I wrote for our offsite forum, but I can't seem to get in there. It'll have to wait till tomorrow. In the meantime let's bow out with a couple of old-time slogans:

Don't vote, it only encourages them

and

No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in

hello, i am a born anarchist, Solitary cos groups become zombies. i like to think and be different......We all got it wrong....so why join a group of wrongs......I GOT IT ALL WRONG TOO, but its nice to think what i like....like your name spiritual anarchy....wish i thought of that....ahime i am just solitary,,,but proud of it.

If you really want anarchy so much go live in Antartica

antarctica hey... hmmm

i am a born anarchist
technically we are all born anarchists

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS!

This thread is for you. Come... organise...*hmmm* This reminds me of the time a few days ago when the leader of an anarchist group came on Fox News.... why do these both seem like oxymorons?

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS!

This thread is for you. Come... organise...*hmmm* This reminds me of the time a few days ago when the leader of an anarchist group came on Fox News.... why do these both seem like oxymorons?

LOL, I always thought that was strange, an organisation of people who don't believe in organisations. I'm a natural anarchist, I suppose - well a misanthropist...I prefer to be alone and to do things my own way.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

Anarchy is based on the theory that everyone is natuarly good, fraid to say this isn't so.
If you have absolute anarchy there will always be a band of men who organise with weapons and create a government. It's the way it has always happened, and the way it always will happen. (Just think, we started out in absolute anarchy and look what happened there)

I also notice that anarchists say they will not "lock up" criminals, but instead treat them as mentally ill, this would involve locking them up anyway, so whats their point.

In short, anarchy is the best ideology around, but is the least likely to work, with a chance of zero.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

No it's not, Anarchy is a lack of government. I'm a non-Anarchist, but I do believe that if all human beings knew, and practiced, right from wrong, then Anarchy would probably be the best form of government. But, we aren't perfect, so hey; whatcha gonna do?

Count me in as one.

It is not true that anarchists don't believe in organisations. Anarchists believe in non-hierarchical organisations, or where a hierarchy becomes necessary or convenient, one where those in the upper echelons act as delegates or representatives for the others, and are directly answerable to them.

Sure, 90% of anarchist history is based around collectives, which qualify as organisations.

Anarchy is not the absence of organisation but the abscence of a centralised state government. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean being against people joining together for a cause. And as for EU-topia's point, don't know about you but I'd much rather criminals were helped, re-educated and re-habilatated than locked up in a box with other criminals.


Long Live Anarchy - Don't give up the fight.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

Anarchy is not the absence of organisation but the abscence of a centralised state government. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean being against people joining together for a cause. And as for EU-topia's point, don't know about you but I'd much rather criminals were helped, re-educated and re-habilatated than locked up in a box with other criminals.


Long Live Anarchy - Don't give up the fight.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

That last statement you put in capitals, how does that work? What does it mean exactly? Just out of curiosity, how does suffering of some other person directly affect me?

And about criminals, I agree that they do need to be re-habilitated, but shouldn't there also be punishment involved? If someone murders, is that adequete?

I know anarchy means no centralised government, as much as I'd like it, it's not going to happen. You get billions of people in the world, you're gonna get governments popping up.

There is a type of anarchists who claim that nations do not need states.

National Anarchism
http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/articles/SUMMER2003NAintro.html

Has there ever been an anarchist state,of whatever size, in history, recent or ancient? I'm asking because I don't know.

While, on one level, anarchy might seem overly naive, presuming that all people are basicaly good, I think the point is in making people deal with their own problems instead of expecting some greasy career-politician to do so, and then simply cribbing when it doesn't happen.

I am an Anachist, (check out the flag), but on a global scale anachy is not the end dream, it is the means to the end. All major changes in goverment, ways of political thinking have grown out of chaos. Nobody who has ever started a revolution has achieved at the end exactly what they set out to achieve. Therefore I believe it is time to destroy this evil system we have in the west, burn it back to it's scorched earth, all parties, institutions everything. Then we can cultivate some new fair roots of civilisation in the west.

I must point out this is an extreme view fueled by a hangover.

Anarchy is not the absence of organisation but the abscence of a centralised state government. Being an Anarchist doesn't mean being against people joining together for a cause. And as for EU-topia's point, don't know about you but I'd much rather criminals were helped, re-educated and re-habilatated than locked up in a box with other criminals.


Long Live Anarchy - Don't give up the fight.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

That last statement you put in capitals, how does that work? What does it mean exactly? Just out of curiosity, how does suffering of some other person directly affect me?

Well, if you take a hard look at this screwed-up world you'll see that the problems that ravege us - war, poverty, pollution, diasese, hate, xenophobia etc, all stem from us living in states crontrolled by people who - while they all may not have 'evil' intentions - are looking out for whats best for them/their country. States squabble over land and resources and some lose out. 25% of the Earth's population controls and eats 75% of the food. (A fair proportion of that 75% is wasted - thrown away as scraps.) To me, something down inside says that - and many other things - just ain't fair.

I believe that ALL humans are equal, and that the suffering of one person effects me, you, our progress as a species. Untill we are all free no-one can stand up and be proud of being human. Do that now and your mind will flick to images of the problems listed above. I personally believe that the human race is advancing past a time of leaders, politicians, states and countries, and we can and will live in a much more tolerant and peaceful community.

We are NOT civilised - yet.
We are NOT a great species - yet.
We are still squabbling hairless apes - for now

Has there ever been an anarchist state,of whatever size, in history, recent or ancient? I'm asking because I don't know.

While, on one level, anarchy might seem overly naive, presuming that all people are basicaly good, I think the point is in making people deal with their own problems instead of expecting some greasy career-politician to do so, and then simply cribbing when it doesn't happen.

In Spain, during the Civil War: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

So what are anarchists doing to bring the world closer towards anarchism?

So what are anarchists doing to bring the world closer towards anarchism?

Select Members are getting themselves elected into office in various countries as standard members of political parties and giving governmnet a bad name. After successfully infiltrating many public offices including yet another President of the United States, and a nearly successful presidential run in France, the Anarchists are slowly but surely approaching their goal of undermining the political process. :D

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS!

This thread is for you. Come... organise...*hmmm* This reminds me of the time a few days ago when the leader of an anarchist group came on Fox News.... why do these both seem like oxymorons?

who was on fox news? that could have been pretty stupid of them, given fox's known problem with lying and distortion. whoever it was probably wasn't a leader in any sense you are thinking of. more likely the spoke for some collective.

There is a type of anarchists who claim that nations do not need states.

National Anarchism
http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/articles/SUMMER2003NAintro.html

fuk fascism. we saw through its "left-wing" smoke screen before and we see through it now.

LOL, I always thought that was strange, an organisation of people who don't believe in organisations. I'm a natural anarchist, I suppose - well a misanthropist...I prefer to be alone and to do things my own way.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

anarchism is organization. anarchists believe wholeheartedly in organization of a certain kind. all anarchists are socialists, though not all socialists are anarchists.

There is a type of anarchists who claim that nations do not need states.

National Anarchism
http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/articles/SUMMER2003NAintro.html

Yay, more fascist propaganda. :roll:

Anarchy is based on the theory that everyone is natuarly good, fraid to say this isn't so.
If you have absolute anarchy there will always be a band of men who organise with weapons and create a government. It's the way it has always happened, and the way it always will happen. (Just think, we started out in absolute anarchy and look what happened there)

anarchism isn't based on the inherent goodness of people. in fact it is the only political ideology that seems to have meanigfully and consistently thought out human nature. if humans are so prone to be evil, what is the wisdom in allowing a small group of them so much power over the lives of the rest?

as for organized groups who want to reestablish the state, i figure that if we've taken it down already we won't be fooled again. not to mention that we would have organizations to defend the revolution. what got us into this mess of states originally was a technological and demographic difference between states and non-state cultures. new groups trying to create states won't have that this time around.

So what are anarchists doing to bring the world closer towards anarchism?

organizing. working to fight neoliberalism. fighting the state. talking and discussing with other people. unionizing. forming collectives and co-ops and federations. taking over factories and abandoned buildings. feeding people. protesting. building communication networks. writing. and more.

NO-ONE IS FREE IF BUT ONE IS OPRESSED.

That last statement you put in capitals, how does that work? What does it mean exactly? Just out of curiosity, how does suffering of some other person directly affect me?

if someone is oppressed that means that there is some institution that allows for that oppression. if there is an institution that allows for oppression then people are not free. if people are not free then you are not really free, because the tools of your oppression are already in place.

*gives the anarchists a big hug* :D

Don't forget about us, comrades! Although we don't fully agree with you, we have the same goals as you do.

LOL, I always thought that was strange, an organisation of people who don't believe in organisations. I'm a natural anarchist, I suppose - well a misanthropist...I prefer to be alone and to do things my own way.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

anarchism is organization. anarchists believe wholeheartedly in organization of a certain kind. all anarchists are socialists, though not all socialists are anarchists.

All anarchists are socialist? Where did you get that from or what exactly do you mean with socialist/anarchist?

anarchism is organization. anarchists believe wholeheartedly in organization of a certain kind. all anarchists are socialists, though not all socialists are anarchists.

All anarchists are socialist? Where did you get that from or what exactly do you mean with socialist/anarchist?

the quote itself comes from adolph fischer, one of the haymarket martyrs (side note - anarchists fought and died for your 8 hour workday).

anarchism is one of the various branches of the river of socialism. anarchists argue that the state is just as big a problem for the real emancipation of humantiy as capitalism and that the only solution is libertarian socialism/communism.

liberty without socialism is privilege and exploitation. socialism without liberty is tyranny and oppression.

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS!

This thread is for you. Come... organise...*hmmm* This reminds me of the time a few days ago when the leader of an anarchist group came on Fox News.... why do these both seem like oxymorons?

LOL, I always thought that was strange, an organisation of people who don't believe in organisations. I'm a natural anarchist, I suppose - well a misanthropist...I prefer to be alone and to do things my own way.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll:

Anarchists do believe in organizations. At least all the ones i have talked to do. They just don't believe in rulers. Or leaders for that matter, so that anarchist leader on fox news does strike me as a pair of oxy morons as well.

Anarchy is based on the theory that everyone is natuarly good, fraid to say this isn't so.
If you have absolute anarchy there will always be a band of men who organise with weapons and create a government. It's the way it has always happened, and the way it always will happen. (Just think, we started out in absolute anarchy and look what happened there)

I also notice that anarchists say they will not "lock up" criminals, but instead treat them as mentally ill, this would involve locking them up anyway, so whats their point.

In short, anarchy is the best ideology around, but is the least likely to work, with a chance of zero.

Anarchists don't assume people are naturally good. we simply reailze that bad people are drawn to power. If there is one bad person in a society that is the person most likely to be leading.

So what are anarchists doing to bring the world closer towards anarchism?

In my opinion the best thing for an anarchist to do is simply to fight oppression in whatever way it appears to that person. Grand talk of worldwide revolution, building a grand Anarchist Society, all of this is mostly wind in sails. the best thing that we, as anarchists, can do now is simply to fight the million oppressions that currently plague the world. wether this is by working with Communists, Capitalists, Rednecks, Hippies, Queers, Witches, Atheists, Fundamentalists, Amish or whoever.

(side note - anarchists fought and died for your 8 hour workday)
That is correct. But please don't forget to mention that communists did the same. We fought alongside our anarchist and trade unionist comrades, and it is thanks to our combined efforts that workers in the first world no longer have to toil in sweatshops 12 hours a day.

(side note - anarchists fought and died for your 8 hour workday)
That is correct. But please don't forget to mention that communists did the same. We fought alongside our anarchist and trade unionist comrades, and it is thanks to our combined efforts that workers in the first world no longer have to toil in sweatshops 12 hours a day.

Unfortunately the communists are going to have to work really hard to gain much trust from the Anarchists, we still remember the Spanish Civil war.

Hmmm...sounds good. The only problem is that rhetoric is often different to actual motives *cough Bush.*

I also don't really agree with violence to make political points since you have democracy. Obviously you must with anarchism.

Also if you have no government....how are you going to have social welfare, international transport etc.

Also if you mean anarchists as in May day, the problem is they're not very organised. If you really want to break through the police lines etc you should fight like the armies facing shield walls (with non-lethal weapons) etc, and have proper regiments etc.

Anarchy is based on the theory that everyone is natuarly good, fraid to say this isn't so.
If you have absolute anarchy there will always be a band of men who organise with weapons and create a government. It's the way it has always happened, and the way it always will happen. (Just think, we started out in absolute anarchy and look what happened there)

anarchism isn't based on the inherent goodness of people. in fact it is the only political ideology that seems to have meanigfully and consistently thought out human nature. if humans are so prone to be evil, what is the wisdom in allowing a small group of them so much power over the lives of the rest?

as for organized groups who want to reestablish the state, i figure that if we've taken it down already we won't be fooled again. not to mention that we would have organizations to defend the revolution. what got us into this mess of states originally was a technological and demographic difference between states and non-state cultures. new groups trying to create states won't have that this time around.

I don't think it's a case of being "fooled", I think it's a case of a group of people building weapons and forcing a dictatorship. "not to mention that we would have organizations to defend the revolution", you mean like......a government?

And it does assume people are natuarlly good. Because it assumes people will do jobs for the good of mankind instead of personal gain.

Unfortunately the communists are going to have to work really hard to gain much trust from the Anarchists, we still remember the Spanish Civil war.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those "communists" acting under orders from Stalin?

The stalinist betrayal hit us hard... Especially since the stalinists continued to call themselves "communists" and gave us a horribly bad name.

as for organized groups who want to reestablish the state, i figure that if we've taken it down already we won't be fooled again. not to mention that we would have organizations to defend the revolution. what got us into this mess of states originally was a technological and demographic difference between states and non-state cultures. new groups trying to create states won't have that this time around.

I don't think it's a case of being "fooled", I think it's a case of a group of people building weapons and forcing a dictatorship. "not to mention that we would have organizations to defend the revolution", you mean like......a government?

no, if enough people want libertarian socialism then would-be kings would have to fight their way through them and their organizations. and mutual defense organizations =/= the state. the state is a centralized hierarchical institution of power and control. an anarchist mutual defense organization or militia would be more of a decentralized horizontal network for protection and defense. against dangerous authoritarians, for example.

And it does assume people are natuarlly good. Because it assumes people will do jobs for the good of mankind instead of personal gain.

no. first off, working for the good of your community/collective/commune is working for your own benefit and vice versa.

the only "assumption" anarchism requires of people is that people are not inherently evil. and since no society would be possible if they were this isn't an assumption but a conclusion based on all the available evidence. the full conclusion is that people are on the whole mostly ok with each other though with the capacity for doing terrible things. and therefore the only proper solution is to make sure that no one has more power than you so that they would have a much harder time doing those terrible things when they try. could stalin have committed genocide without the instruments of the state? no. it is the state that allows and encourages enormous amounts of violence and evil.

I'd like to breifly make it known that Anarchism does not mean a lack of orginization, it means a lack of heirarchical orginization. Pure Democracy would fit Anarchist ideals (or many ideals anyway) as would the eventual result of Communism. Anarchism isn't individualism, Anarchism is the removal of the haves and have nots, the above and the below from the social equation. Of course it is slightly more complicated than that because people are not equal in all ways, but the concept is to have no preset institutions endangering any persons chance of reaching their potential.

anarchism is organization. anarchists believe wholeheartedly in organization of a certain kind. all anarchists are socialists, though not all socialists are anarchists.

All anarchists are socialist? Where did you get that from or what exactly do you mean with socialist/anarchist?

the quote itself comes from adolph fischer, one of the haymarket martyrs (side note - anarchists fought and died for your 8 hour workday).

anarchism is one of the various branches of the river of socialism. anarchists argue that the state is just as big a problem for the real emancipation of humantiy as capitalism and that the only solution is libertarian socialism/communism.

liberty without socialism is privilege and exploitation. socialism without liberty is tyranny and oppression.

I'm sorry if I'm somewhat confused, but I never had an 8 hour work day and the only ones (as far as I know) that have fought for that is union people along with syndicalists, whom both hate personal freedom and does everything to prohibit such influenses amongst it's members and others that don't want to join (for various reasons). The socialist state itself has been the main target for anarchists as it constantly and ever increasingly limits the personal freedom. There is no more regulated society today than the (non communistic) socialistic society. Libertarian, yes. Socialism/communism, oh no!

If Fischer was a martyr, I'm sure he's happy were he is now. What did he die for?

There are two major factions within "Anarchy" they are Anarcho-Communism (Syndicalism, Unions, Socialism, eventual Communism, and everything Free Soviets thinks of) and Anarch-Capitalism (Fascism sometimes although rarely, Pure lassez faire Capitalism, extreme Libertarianism). The main difference is economic, but the governmental system, either Democratic or truely nonexistent is the same.

*gives the anarchists a big hug* :D

Don't forget about us, comrades! Although we don't fully agree with you, we have the same goals as you do.

Given the history of the communists shooting anarchists, I'll politely shuffle out of the hug and be careful not to sit with my back to the door, thank you very much.

*gives the anarchists a big hug* :D

Don't forget about us, comrades! Although we don't fully agree with you, we have the same goals as you do.

Given the history of the communists shooting anarchists, I'll politely shuffle out of the hug and be careful not to sit with my back to the door, thank you very much.

You must mean Stalinists. Most Communists are very peaceful people. Stalinists however, are some of the most violent people in the history of civilization. Don't blame all Communists for what Stalin did, mourn with them for the loss of millions under the false banner of their ideals.

Stalinists have given communism a bad name. Nowadays, its evil if you're a communist, all because the actual evil people, the Stalinists, called themselves communists.

Again, ANARCHY IS NOT THE LACK OF ORGANIZATION. I can't stress that enough.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

LOL, well great thread developing, I don't know where to jump in - too many posters, too many issues! Many thanks to all the people who've come on and made good points or asked good questions, whatever their views.

What I'm going to do is edit the first post so that it contains lots of info and links to anarchist things - individual nations and regions on NationStates, offsite websites and forums, anything else we can think of. If you want your anarchist nation or region to be listed, or you know some good anarchist websites, please post them in this thread or better still telegram me with them and I'll put them in.

Spiritual Anarchist

I'm sorry if I'm somewhat confused, but I never had an 8 hour work day and the only ones (as far as I know) that have fought for that is union people along with syndicalists, whom both hate personal freedom and does everything to prohibit such influenses amongst it's members and others that don't want to join (for various reasons). The socialist state itself has been the main target for anarchists as it constantly and ever increasingly limits the personal freedom. There is no more regulated society today than the (non communistic) socialistic society. Libertarian, yes. Socialism/communism, oh no!

If Fischer was a martyr, I'm sure he's happy were he is now. What did he die for?

where are you from?

fischer was one of the anarchists executed by the state of illinois for instigating some one to throw a bomb at police when the cops attacked a labor rally for the 8 hour day. the case was obviously a sham and a later governor pardoned the remaining three anarchists, but 5 had already been killed.

Big mad Vikings is from Austria, Free Soviets.

OK, picking just one of the topics already discussed - what exactly is socialism and how does it relate to anarchism?


In my opinion, the word "socialism" has several different meanings. Not only are they different, but they differ also in 'size', i.e. how general or particular they are. Taking the most general first and moving down to the specific:

Socialism #1: Any politics based around redistribution of wealth - what I call "economic egalitarianism" - the principle that wealth and related things should be shared out equally among people, rather than allowing inequalities. In effect this is the whole of the left wing of politics. It includes anarchist and statist versions, 'democratic' and dictatorial.

Socialism #2: Specifically statist socialism, not anarchist. A state redistributes wealth and organising people - including employing people, welfare, etc. It includes democratic and dictatorial kinds.

Socialism #3: Specifically non-democratic statist socialism, such as the model from Marx - the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or such is the theory.

Socialism #4: Specifically democratic statist socialism, often called "social democratic", such as has been advanced by many 20th century European parties committed to democracy.


In what way is anarchism socialist? It has the general kind, #1. It mixes that with other principles that other forms of socialism don't have - libertarianism, for instance. If people believe socialism is essentially statist, the largest sense of the word they accept is #2.

In a similar situation, some people restrict the word to only social democracy, and insist on keeping "communism" for non-democratic socialism. Other people (it's a usage I particularly notice in American and some European right-wingers) tend to use the word socialism for exactly that: the states of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, for example.


A word about "Anarcho-Capitalism" or "Right-Wing Anarchism": it is generally agreed among left-wing anarchists that so-called anarcho-capitalism is not genuinely a form of anarchism. It is more connected to libertarianism, which is minimal-statist, but still statist. I go along with this, except to note that if you define an anarchy as a society without authority but still with organisation and social order, if you set up such a society with a capitalist economy, then you've got an anarcho-capitalist society. I just don't think this is possible in practice, because capitalism will automatically involve a power hierarchy and hence a kind of authority. But - if you define anarchism as I do more in terms of positive principles, like the three principles of the French revolution, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, you don't have the same problem: since you have equality in there it automatically excludes any capitalist society, or in fact any other society with a power hierarchy.


I could argue in favour of anarchist socialism and against the others but maybe I'll leave that for another post! :wink:


Spiritual Anarchist

CALLING ALL ANARCHISTS!

This thread is for you. Come... organise...*hmmm* This reminds me of the time a few days ago when the leader of an anarchist group came on Fox News.... why do these both seem like oxymorons?

LOL, I always thought that was strange, an organisation of people who don't believe in organisations. I'm a natural anarchist, I suppose - well a misanthropist...I prefer to be alone and to do things my own way.

Anarchy as a form of government though :roll: Not anarchy, but Anarchism. Whoever told you that anarchists do not beleive in organization knows nothing about this social theory.

i am a born anarchist
technically we are all born anarchists
then TECHNICALLY what went wrong afterwards? or right ? or whatever?

Big mad Vikings is from Austria, Free Soviets.

No, that's not exactly correct. :D But I live in Austria now. I'm from Sweden.

i am a born anarchist
technically we are all born anarchists
then TECHNICALLY what went wrong afterwards? or right ? or whatever?

Inculcation of external traditions which recognize power but not authority?

Well, if you take a hard look at this screwed-up world you'll see that the problems that ravege us - war, poverty, pollution, diasese, hate, xenophobia etc, all stem from us living in states crontrolled by people who - while they all may not have 'evil' intentions - are looking out for whats best for them/their country. States squabble over land and resources and some lose out. 25% of the Earth's population controls and eats 75% of the food. (A fair proportion of that 75% is wasted - thrown away as scraps.) To me, something down inside says that - and many other things - just ain't fair.

I believe that ALL humans are equal, and that the suffering of one person effects me, you, our progress as a species. Untill we are all free no-one can stand up and be proud of being human. Do that now and your mind will flick to images of the problems listed above. I personally believe that the human race is advancing past a time of leaders, politicians, states and countries, and we can and will live in a much more tolerant and peaceful community.

We are NOT civilised - yet.
We are NOT a great species - yet.
We are still squabbling hairless apes - for now

That's where we differ. I don't belive all humans are equal, its just one of the cruel facts of nature. All animals are not equal, so what puts us above the animals in the great Darwinian rush to survive?

I don't believe humans are naturally compassionate either. Compassion is learned, that's why kids are very cruel to each other. I can't pretend to care very much about some-one who isn't close to me either.

I remember September the 11th, everyone went on and on about how terrible it was, and I agree, it was a tragedy. But I just couldn't pretend that it effected me emotionally.

Plus, everyone wants to have a bit more than everyone else. We all live in our own self-contained worlds.

OK, here is a piece I wrote for the Anarchy region's forum. This is an interesting question about exactly how anarchist structure society, and how much closeness people want to one another. I think it has some bearing on things that have already been discussed.

---

Individualist/Collectivist/Communist Anarchism?
-------------------------------------------------------

As an anarchist, are you an individualist, collectivist or communist? These words can be defined various ways, but there is a piece of anarchist theory I have read which defines them in terms of three different forms of anarchism. The issue centres around the degree to which individuals in an anarchy have close relations with one another.

Individualist Anarchism only specifies freedom for the individual, and wants no social constraints. The best exponent of this is Max Stirner, as in "Egoism". Individualist anarchism has connections with libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism/right-wing anarchism. Individualists stress the freedom aspect of anarchism, and downplay the equality and especially fraternity aspects. They are keen to ascertain their power in their own circumstances, and less concerned to establish good social and economic relations between people.

Communist Anarchism specifies communal living for all people in an anarchy - in effect no true independence or privacy for individuals but rather an extreme and unavoidable interdependence. It seems to me that to communist anarchists you are not supposed to have any individual self-importance, including pride or distinguishing characteristics, instead people are supposed to aspire to being the epitome of the good worker/member of the community. This attitude is evident in Soviet/Chinese communism. The benefit of communistic arrangements are the ensuring of economic and labour co-operation for common benefit, rather than social conflict, competition and duplication of effort. Communists stress the community/fraternity/equality aspects of anarchism and downplay the freedom aspect.

Collectivist Anarchism, in the terms of the essay I read, is intended to be a position between the other two. It allows for both individual privacy and independence, and social and communitarian relations and organisation. Thus it is intended to avoid the excesses of the other two: social separation and potential conflict and selfishness, and stifling suppression of individual will. In effect, collectives are formed by individuals coming together voluntarily, and those individuals always have the freedom and power to disassociate and reassociate elsewhere. There is definite social organisation, which involves constraints, but it is loose and flexible. Collectivists try to balance the freedom of individuals with their equality, and with the principle of community and fraternity between them.

I am a collectivist anarchist (and to be honest I have probably shown my bias in the above definitions). In my opinion individuality and sociality are both essential aspects of human make-up, and a society which doesn't allow for both will end up being sick. The two extreme forms of anarchism will in my opinion not work for long, since 'human nature' will reassert itself.

Of course, there are many kinds of people, and some are keener on associating with other people than others. In effect in a working anarchy there may be hermits, who are the ultimate Individualist Anarchists, and some communities that are very close communes. I think the majority of people though will be living in communities that are somewhere in between.

What do you think?

Spiritual Anarchist

25% of the Earth's population controls and eats 75% of the food. (A fair proportion of that 75% is wasted - thrown away as scraps.) To me, something down inside says that - and many other things - just ain't fair.

I believe that ALL humans are equal, and that the suffering of one person effects me, you, our progress as a species. Untill we are all free no-one can stand up and be proud of being human.
That's where we differ. I don't belive all humans are equal, its just one of the cruel facts of nature.
Humans are certainly not all equal in skills, interests, levels of energy and motivation, intelligence, physical strength, etc. In a way, it would be a boring world if we were. But this inequality is not the same inequality that there is in our present societies. There, there is inequality on account of accident of birth, or because some fight harder and nastier to get to the top and others have compassion and care about others and so don't want to fight others like that.

But we don't have to have that inequality. And there is one way we are all equal: we are all equally human beings. We are fellows. Our lives all have the same worth. There is no reason any one person should accept other people's overlordship over them, as if it is inherent.

All animals are not equal, so what puts us above the animals in the great Darwinian rush to survive?
In my opinion we are not just animals - we have a soul existence and are at a higher (spiritual) stage of evolution.

I don't believe humans are naturally compassionate either. Compassion is learned, that's why kids are very cruel to each other.
Where is it learned from? It must be in the human race somewhere, or it could not be learned. And kids are not always cruel! Some are naturally quite nice. Cruelty can be learnt too. I think some people show such compassion so apparently naturally over such a long period of time they must be naturally comapssionate.

I can't pretend to care very much about some-one who isn't close to me either.
OK, that's how you are, and there are quite a lot of people like that. But you are still linked to and in fact dependent on people not close to you. For instance, millions of people who contribute to producing goods you consume. Suppose they all rebel and say "we aren't going to supply you with any more products until you agree to enter into an equitable economic relationship." However you feel inside, you are going to have to change your attitude in practice. You are going to have to start caring in practice about other people, what they want, how they feel, what upsets them and what makes them feel confident and friendly.

The attitude you have got presently depends on a privileged relationship in which economic relations are distanced, impersonalised and disassociated. So you can benefit from the labour and resources of others at their expense and say "I don't really care about people not close to me". It's all too convenient. In an anarchy, nobody would be able to adopt this position. They'd have to care about others, because otherwise they wouldn't get any benefit from the society. And why should they deserve it?

Plus, everyone wants to have a bit more than everyone else. We all live in our own self-contained worlds.
Well I don't. The latter statement up to a point, yes, but I don't want more than anyone else. I am quite satisfied with equality. I am not greedy, and it is not some kind of race or competition with other people. I just ask that I have a place in the society and the company of my fellow human beings, that I be treated fairly and with respect and inclusion. I don't expect to get more than anyone else, I don't expect other people to accept that since there's no reason why they should. And more than anything else, I just don't care that much about material conditions. All I ask is the material support of life is fair, convenient, efficient; what I am really interested in is spirituality, investigating the unknown, the search for truth, knowledge, philosophy and science, the arts, culture, travel, exploration, fun, games, socialising, love and sex...

I don't believe humans are naturally compassionate either. Compassion is learned, that's why kids are very cruel to each other. I can't pretend to care very much about some-one who isn't close to me either.


Would you not at least allow that, following from Aristotle, man is a social animal? If not why are you wasting time in this discourse? Surely the interest in this debate shows that compassion for your fellow humans exists within you, no?

Collectivist Anarchism, in the terms of the essay I read, is intended to be a position between the other two. It allows for both individual privacy and independence, and social and communitarian relations and organisation. Thus it is intended to avoid the excesses of the other two: social separation and potential conflict and selfishness, and stifling suppression of individual will. In effect, collectives are formed by individuals coming together voluntarily, and those individuals always have the freedom and power to disassociate and reassociate elsewhere. There is definite social organisation, which involves constraints, but it is loose and flexible. Collectivists try to balance the freedom of individuals with their equality, and with the principle of community and fraternity between them.

That sounds like what I believe, although I doubt it will be possible any time soon.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?

the state does not require the right to rule others to exist. just the power to rule others and maybe the ability to convince them that they have the right. just because the right to rule others doesn't exist doesn't mean that people aren't ruled. just like the fact that there is no right to own other people didn't protect generations of people from being slaves.

or is this one of those "so much the worse for perception" arguments?

Right, just updated the first post, lots of new info, check it out, need to eat, I'll join in the jawing later... see you soon!

Goodevening. Very nice thread Spiritual.

Oh yeah, I am an anarchist.

In effect in a working anarchy there may be hermits, who are the ultimate Individualist Anarchists
Well after reading all these complicated ideas on anarchy.....i think i will become a Hermit and live in antartica as suggested......You dear spiritual have given the best ideas on anarchy types...a lot have written too much political theory for my taste.....all these left ...right...up ...down...wing groups..GROUPS make lazy minds

In effect in a working anarchy there may be hermits, who are the ultimate Individualist Anarchists
Well after reading all these complicated ideas on anarchy.....i think i will become a Hermit and live in antartica as suggested......You dear spiritual have given the best ideas on anarchy types...a lot have written too much political theory for my taste.....all these left ...right...up ...down...wing groups..GROUPS make lazy minds
OK, you're one kind of anarchist then, Folletti. But you realise many other anarchists are exactly the opposite? They love their fellow man/woman, and want to be with them. They get a great thrill from solidarity with others in a common cause. They believe co-operation in a joint enterprise makes things possible that one person alone could never achieve.

I have often wanted to be a hermit... get away from society and be on my own, have minimal if any contact with other people, appreciate nature and be with my own thoughts etc. I would prefer this in the context of a surrounding anarchy because it is more likely everyone else would leave me alone.

But I also feel massive empathy for the whole human race. I want to see it prosper, and lose its pain and oppression. So I have to care, and direct my energies again towards trying to change things for the better for everybody. And one way or another that means groups.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?
all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?
Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?
I think where you're coming from, Anarchist Humans, is a position I sort of held myself once. It is that authority is not morally wrong, but illusory. It is not that governments have it and shouldn't, it's that they don't have it, but people are bamboozled into thinking they do.

What I think the truth is is that there are two senses of "authority" - the "de jure" one, which is to do with whether there is any moral right to authority, and the "de facto" one, which is to do with what is the case in fact. The kind of authority you are talking about is "de jure", and I agree with you that it doesn't exist. There is no moral right to exercise one's will over other people.

But it is a fact that authorities have power. That power does partly rest in the fact that people 'believe' in authority, in the moral right to command, and so they obey. And if everyone saw thru the illusion, all that power would be gone. But unfortunately the illusion is too solid. The whole world is not going to see thru the illusion tomorrow. It is going to take time to break down this submissive thinking. So, effectively, authorities have real power. And so in that sense, "authority" really does exist.

By the way, do you get your ideas from Lysander Spooner?

Communist Anarchism specifies communal living for all people in an anarchy - in effect no true independence or privacy for individuals but rather an extreme and unavoidable interdependence. It seems to me that to communist anarchists you are not supposed to have any individual self-importance, including pride or distinguishing characteristics, instead people are supposed to aspire to being the epitome of the good worker/member of the community. This attitude is evident in Soviet/Chinese communism. The benefit of communistic arrangements are the ensuring of economic and labour co-operation for common benefit, rather than social conflict, competition and duplication of effort. Communists stress the community/fraternity/equality aspects of anarchism and downplay the freedom aspect.

Collectivist Anarchism, in the terms of the essay I read, is intended to be a position between the other two. It allows for both individual privacy and independence, and social and communitarian relations and organisation. Thus it is intended to avoid the excesses of the other two: social separation and potential conflict and selfishness, and stifling suppression of individual will. In effect, collectives are formed by individuals coming together voluntarily, and those individuals always have the freedom and power to disassociate and reassociate elsewhere. There is definite social organisation, which involves constraints, but it is loose and flexible. Collectivists try to balance the freedom of individuals with their equality, and with the principle of community and fraternity between them.

I am a collectivist anarchist (and to be honest I have probably shown my bias in the above definitions). In my opinion individuality and sociality are both essential aspects of human make-up, and a society which doesn't allow for both will end up being sick. The two extreme forms of anarchism will in my opinion not work for long, since 'human nature' will reassert itself.


Ignoring individualist anarchy since it is a bunch of ape, I always saw anarcho-communism as a branch of collectivist anarchism. Communism is certainly a form of collectivism and it does not have to involve any lack of individual freedom. Indeed there is no need for any compromise as you describe in your description of collectivist anarchy, there is no reason why that description cannot apply to anarcho-communism. Communism is based on a belief that much of what capitalists think of as "human nature" can be shaped by society, so put simply in a collectivist society there is nothing forcing people not to be self centered, greedy or whatever, there is no restriction on freedom, these things simply do not happen because they are a result of capitalist society. In a collectivist society the individuals best interests are served in working collectivly for the common good.

Ignoring individualist anarchy since it is a bunch of ape...

at least the actual individualists did recognize that for their system to have any hope at all it would have to be socialist in some sense. unlike the anarcho-capitalists, who either just don't get it or actively desire a nightmare. of course, the individualist anarchists also had this habit of becoming "libertarian bolsheviks" or straight-up goons who shot workers while robbing banks.

I'd like to breifly make it known that Anarchism does not mean a lack of orginization, it means a lack of heirarchical orginization. would fit Anarchist ideals (or many ideals anyway) as would the eventual result of Communism. Anarchism isn't individualism, Anarchism is the removal of the haves and have nots, the above and the below from the social equation. Of course it is slightly more complicated than that because people are not equal in all ways, but the concept is to have no preset institutions endangering any persons chance of reaching their potential.
Well said, the Swiss have a form of democracy that would come very close to fitting in with the ideals of Anarchy. 8)

can a socialist style economy be anywhere near anarchist? no...

Hmmm...sounds good. The only problem is that rhetoric is often different to actual motives *cough Bush.*

I also don't really agree with violence to make political points since you have democracy. Obviously you must with anarchism.

Also if you have no government....how are you going to have social welfare, international transport etc.

Also if you mean anarchists as in May day, the problem is they're not very organised. If you really want to break through the police lines etc you should fight like the armies facing shield walls (with non-lethal weapons) etc, and have proper regiments etc.

I generally mean Anarchists as in the Spanish Civil war, and they had a real army, and successfully fought off the Fascists, until they were stabbed in the back by their Communist Allies.

And it does assume people are natuarlly good. Because it assumes people will do jobs for the good of mankind instead of personal gain.

That is Communism. There are certainly Anarcho-Communists, but there are also those of us who think that there should be rewards for working harder than your neighbor. Actually, it is kind of unavoidable that there will be, in the form of respect.

Unfortunately the communists are going to have to work really hard to gain much trust from the Anarchists, we still remember the Spanish Civil war.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those "communists" acting under orders from Stalin?

The stalinist betrayal hit us hard... Especially since the stalinists continued to call themselves "communists" and gave us a horribly bad name.

Not directly no. They were Spanish Communists, who were Allied with Stalin, they turned on their own Trotskyist Comrades, who ended up siding with the Anarchists. They were authoritarian Communists, which, unfortunately, are still quite common.

But it is a fact that authorities have power. That power does partly rest in the fact that people 'believe' in authority, in the moral right to command, and so they obey. And if everyone saw thru the illusion, all that power would be gone. But unfortunately the illusion is too solid. The whole world is not going to see thru the illusion tomorrow. It is going to take time to break down this submissive thinking. So, effectively, authorities have real power. And so in that sense, "authority" really does exist.

What your talking about here reminds me of a movie i saw several months ago, where a type of mind control was being used over peolpe via some kind of transmitters. Only 1 person saw thru this and fought at considerable pain & distress to themselves. This persistence of thiers led eventually to the destruction of the transmitter system and the awakening of many people.Unfortunatelly a lot of people still believed the crap they had been fed, & thought that they were watching tv, for instance, like this guys parents who had obviously been exposed for 2 long.
The point is this, until we as a race wake up we as societies are going to believe the crap we are fed. Authority is a permission given to some one/other entity to rule over you, if you dont give the permission there is no authority.O.k. so now someone with a gun is telling me or you to do something if we refuse they will shoot. Personally it would depend on what they were going to force me to do as to whether i would or not but for some things i wouldnt care how much they tortured/threatened/hurt or if they killed me i would not do. Later i would try to hit back in some way though as retribution is also in our nature. :wink:

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?

Ah, a natural law sort. the right to rule comes from the consent of the people. Whether we Anarchists like it or not, most people consent to be ruled by the government in most ways.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?
all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?
Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?
I think where you're coming from, Anarchist Humans, is a position I sort of held myself once. It is that authority is not morally wrong, but illusory. It is not that governments have it and shouldn't, it's that they don't have it, but people are bamboozled into thinking they do.

What I think the truth is is that there are two senses of "authority" - the "de jure" one, which is to do with whether there is any moral right to authority, and the "de facto" one, which is to do with what is the case in fact. The kind of authority you are talking about is "de jure", and I agree with you that it doesn't exist. There is no moral right to exercise one's will over other people.

But it is a fact that authorities have power. That power does partly rest in the fact that people 'believe' in authority, in the moral right to command, and so they obey. And if everyone saw thru the illusion, all that power would be gone. But unfortunately the illusion is too solid. The whole world is not going to see thru the illusion tomorrow. It is going to take time to break down this submissive thinking. So, effectively, authorities have real power. And so in that sense, "authority" really does exist.

By the way, do you get your ideas from Lysander Spooner?

What your talking about here reminds me of a movie i saw several months ago, where a type of mind control was being used over peolpe via some kind of transmitters. Only 1 person saw thru this and fought at considerable pain & distress to themselves. This persistence of thiers led eventually to the destruction of the transmitter system and the awakening of many people.Unfortunatelly a lot of people still believed the crap they had been fed, & thought that they were watching tv, for instance, like this guys parents who had obviously been exposed for 2 long.
The point is this, until we as a race wake up we as societies are going to believe the crap we are fed. Authority is a permission given to some one/other entity to rule over you, if you dont give the permission there is no authority.O.k. so now someone with a gun is telling me or you to do something if we refuse they will shoot. Personally it would depend on what they were going to force me to do as to whether i would or not but for some things i wouldnt care how much they tortured/threatened/hurt or if they killed me i would not do. Later i would try to hit back in some way though as retribution is also in our nature. :wink:

A word about "Anarcho-Capitalism" or "Right-Wing Anarchism": it is generally agreed among left-wing anarchists that so-called anarcho-capitalism is not genuinely a form of anarchism. It is more connected to libertarianism, which is minimal-statist, but still statist. I go along with this, except to note that if you define an anarchy as a society without authority but still with organisation and social order, if you set up such a society with a capitalist economy, then you've got an anarcho-capitalist society. I just don't think this is possible in practice, because capitalism will automatically involve a power hierarchy and hence a kind of authority.

i do think it would be possible to have a functioning "anarcho-cap" society. it just would function in a way that we would find scary and grossly unfair. it wouldn't be anarchism, because of the power hierarchies they explicitly support and call for, but their society seems possible. and it has been seeming to me that if they ever pulled it off (with the free state project (http://www.freestateproject.org/) or something) it could serve as a kind of transition state to anarchism. with no government to provide social welfare and justice being handled for profit by the capitalists, anarchists could be quite effective at helping people organize for their own survival against the total power of the capitalists.

Ignoring individualist anarchy since it is a bunch of ape, I always saw anarcho-communism as a branch of collectivist anarchism. Communism is certainly a form of collectivism and it does not have to involve any lack of individual freedom. Indeed there is no need for any compromise as you describe in your description of collectivist anarchy, there is no reason why that description cannot apply to anarcho-communism. Communism is based on a belief that much of what capitalists think of as "human nature" can be shaped by society, so put simply in a collectivist society there is nothing forcing people not to be self centered, greedy or whatever, there is no restriction on freedom, these things simply do not happen because they are a result of capitalist society. In a collectivist society the individuals best interests are served in working collectivly for the common good.

Here is the original set of definitions:

Communist-anarchists reject all that attaches to exchange economies: money, markets and the concept of ownership. Some reject even bartered exchanges because, like the market, they too involve value judgements. Economic regulation is through the exercise of individual responsibility and social controls exercised by the community.
Collectivist-anarchists accept money and markets, but want an egalitarian society in which ownership and control of the economy is spread as widely as possible through the use of federations etc.
Individualist-anarchists are also happy with the market, but dislike federal structures. Each would require a directly controllable stake in the economy, which would be wholly redeemable at any time.

This is from: "Communism and Deconstruction", by John Griffin, in the magazine Total Liberty: A Journal of Evolutionary Anarchism, vol. 2 no. 2, Spring 2000. The magazine is available from The Owl Press, 47 High Street, Belper, Derby DE56 1GF (United Kingdom). Its current website seems to be http://mysite.freeserve.com/total_liberty1/index.jhtml .

In an earlier part of the essay, Griffin introduces these definitions:

For those who may be confused over terminology, the brief notes below should make clear the nasic differences between communist, collectivist and individualist approaches to economics. These terms are of course used elsewhere, and sometimes confusingly, in relation to the social characteristics generally. ...

So, this essay and these distinctions he makes are particularly to do with how an economy would work in an anarchy, rather than social issues. Later on he calls economics "the most under-theorised facet of anarchism", and I think from my experience this is true. I am not sure I am really a collectivist on his definitions, since he includes "markets" as something they are supposed to accept, and that word just makes me think of Adam Smith :? . But I do believe in federations and an egalitarian society. Finally, let me demonstrate my own sense of the terms thus:

Suppose we have a certain community of people in an anarchy, who are all going to farm a certain amount of local land.

Individualists would each have a piece of land individually, and probably wouldn't have much reason or motivation to avoid competing or trying to gain some of the land of their neighbours if that was profitable. They would not have any collective body thru which to organise fairness or distribution, rectify problems etc.

Communists would all be one mass all farming the same land. No-one would have individual plots; everyone would be doing pretty much the same work, as on many kibbutzes and communes of the types already seen.

Collectivists would divide up the land as fairly as possible, according to whatever precise principles the community agreed to. Mistakes and problems could be rectified so that the distribution changes, thru the collective body of the community. No-one has to do exactly the same work as everyone else, but if people don't pull their weight they don't receive the same in return from others.

Those are my definitions, not necessarily John Griffin's... but it's these differences that I was trying to highlight in my original piece.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?

Ah, a natural law sort. the right to rule comes from the consent of the people. Whether we Anarchists like it or not, most people consent to be ruled by the government in most ways.

Okay, lemme get this straight...

Since some harebrained morons came up with the notion that they wanted someone to order them around, steal from them (via extortion, commonly AND incorrectly referred to as taxation) and make arbitrary scribblings on pieces of paper (laws), that means the slimeball politicians (mobsters) have the right to rule ME, even if I haven't consented to the idiotic scheme? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't see how one person (or millions, for that matter) "consenting" to be ruled is tantamount to there being a "right to rule" those that don't consent. In fact, the entire idea of "consent of the governed" is patently absurd. The thugs don't need anyone's consent when they've got guns and the ability to escalate to deadly force when compliance is not gained. Paying up to the United States Mafia for fear of having their posessions "reposessed" (i.e. stolen) and being locked in a cage doesn't exactly sound like "consent" to me

Sounds more like coercion and violence.

What makes you think "government" exists in the first place?

all those cops and taxes and presidents and such?

Cops. Taxes. Presidents. And such. Oh boy...

"Government" needs a thing called "authority" (the right to rule others) in order to exist.

If this "right to rule others" thing really exists, could you tell me where it comes from?

the state does not require the right to rule others to exist. just the power to rule others and maybe the ability to convince them that they have the right. just because the right to rule others doesn't exist doesn't mean that people aren't ruled. just like the fact that there is no right to own other people didn't protect generations of people from being slaves.

or is this one of those "so much the worse for perception" arguments?

Well, that saved me some time. And you didn't use that filthy "g" word, either. So, you realize that what most people consider to be "government" is no more than a mob operating under a protection racket? I don't think I have any obligation to obey the Mafia...

Oh, to clarify my position...

There's a major difference between "governments" and states. This is no mere exercise in semantics. The difference is in that one is nonexistent, the other is real (a gang).

By the way, do you get your ideas from Lysander Spooner?

No. I figured out more than half of my ideas for myself. Bill Malloy's book made extremely useful additions, and helped solidify them into a nice, neat and convenient package.

Visit http://nogov4me.net to check out his book.

bump

BUMP

BUMP

Anyone read the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson?

('Red Mars' 'Green Mars' and 'Blue Mars')

I ask the question because one of the reasons I support anarchism is because I believe in the ineffiency of large national governments; local control is more exact and much less likely to be corrupted.

If anarchy takes hold anywhere, for one, how will law and order be maintained? For another, who'll organise food supply? That was the original reason for government, you know.

If anarchy takes hold anywhere, for one, how will law and order be maintained?

Why should they be? (not an entirely rhetorical question)

For another, who'll organise food supply? That was the original reason for government, you know.

I'll pass on debating the original reason for government, but the people that enjoy organising food supply will do it.

If anarchy takes hold anywhere, for one, how will law and order be maintained?

Why should they be? (not an entirely rhetorical question)

For another, who'll organise food supply? That was the original reason for government, you know.

I'll pass on debating the original reason for government, but the people that enjoy organising food supply will do it.
It'll technically be a form of government, any way. And about law and order, what will you do with a murderer on the lose? Just lock your doors and hope he stops?
Anyhow, like I said, a form of government, or in anyway organisation, is unescapable. The only way to escape it is if we become nomads from the Old Stone Age again. Even they had a form of government. A mixture of despotism and communism as best as we can tell.

RE: food distribution, as capitalists people pursue different career paths & interests. why would an Anarchist society b any different. As to law & order, well i believe that the same would apply as for the other parts of society such as garbage collection - there are a lot of people who hate to see rubbish lying all over the place that would ,gladly(?), do this task - vigilanty/security minded citizen would be inclined to keep the community safe & ordered. The main difference between the two forms of society would be that without money's necessity an Anarchist state would have less crime problems due to thefts & issues of rich/poor/class as all people would be equally treated & free of superficial substructure, while industry, equiptment, and inventions would be available to all equally, have no brand competitiveness as any improvements would be included in the next version of items giving all citizens the same benefits. Take cars for eg. if a citizen needed a car of any given type , not brand but type such as sedan or 4x4, they would not own this vehicle directly (but would collectively) & would have access to it as required, if a different car eg. a ute was needed they would have access to this aswell. These would possibly be housed in some sort of communal garage . The fact that there were no competing brands would not mean the end of improvements, because the sattisfaction at having contributed to the general betterment of all would still cause people to strive to make better equiptment/methods/technologies, rather it would mean less waste-due to better products designed to last longer & not break down after 12mths( as many things are in our societies today to increase profits), more equallity, less environmental damage and less crime.

And about law and order, what will you do with a murderer on the lose? Just lock your doors and hope he stops?

Shoot him

Anyhow, like I said, a form of government, or in anyway organisation, is unescapable

You will need some governemnt, but one designed not to control people as much as destroy all other potential government

Excuse me, just to point out the obvious, how can you be both anti-cap and anarchist? Isnt that a bit of an oxymoron? Besides, capitalism helps protect against authoritarianism and socialism/liberalism, two big enemies of liberetarialism/anarchism

And about law and order, what will you do with a murderer on the lose? Just lock your doors and hope he stops?

Shoot him

Anyhow, like I said, a form of government, or in anyway organisation, is unescapable

You will need some governemnt, but one designed not to control people as much as destroy all other potential government

Excuse me, just to point out the obvious, how can you be both anti-cap and anarchist? Isnt that a bit of an oxymoron? Besides, capitalism helps protect against authoritarianism and socialism/liberalism, two big enemies of liberetarialism/anarchism
I'm neither of the two. I'm pro capitalism and pro government. Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.

Excuse me, just to point out the obvious, how can you be both anti-cap and anarchist? Isnt that a bit of an oxymoron? Besides, capitalism helps protect against authoritarianism and socialism/liberalism, two big enemies of liberetarialism/anarchism

all anarchists are socialists. anarchism is a socialist theory/body of theories about how to arrange a free society. it is one of the original branches of socialism.

it seems like i said this a few weeks ago in this very thread, but here (http://infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html) is some suggested reading (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html).

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.

an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.

an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.

Anthrus wrote "I'm neither of the two. I'm pro capitalism and pro government. Also, why callyourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive."
Indeed i would love to live in a nation that had the true freedom of Anarchist society with no government and no law bar "an harm none, do as thou will." to quote the wiccan rede. Just because there r no laws does not mean that people will actively seek to harm one another (excluding a minority of individuals) generally & the absensce of government does not mean the absensce of co-operation & organization. What most people fail to see (due to thier current lifestyle/situation) is that in the initial stages of Anarchist revolution there probably will be a lot of confusion & crime as you have suggested, but within a short time, at most two or three generations, the type of society whatever it is that the new Anarchist society sprung up from will be a forgotten way of life replaced by one thats much better & that makes us as we were meant to be FREE!!! :wink:

Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.

"... in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Karl Marx - The German Ideology

(referring to when the state has eventually whithered away after the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaving an anarchist society)

Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.

"... in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Karl Marx - The German Ideology
(referring to when the state has eventually whithered away after the dictatorship of the proletariat, leaving an anarchist society)

True but the problem with marxism is that dictatorships rarely give up power without a coup of some form and usually are replaced by another dictatorship corrupted by power and backed up by militant force causing oppression & taking the goal of anarchy further away from grasp than it was originally.

Just like to say hi and all. I myself am an anarchist but I don't RP one here.

Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.

a communist society is a classless and stateless society. according to communist theory, they aim for anarchism eventually. anarchists think that the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing is a really bad idea.

Just like to say hi and all. I myself am an anarchist but I don't RP one here.
Hi! I don't RP in the forums either - just discuss real world stuff in General. We have lots of kinds of anarchists on NS - let's all feel free to get together and discuss stuff here.

By the way, do you get your ideas from Lysander Spooner?

No. I figured out more than half of my ideas for myself. Bill Malloy's book made extremely useful additions, and helped solidify them into a nice, neat and convenient package.

Visit http://nogov4me.net to check out his book.
I meant to get round to replying to this earlier, but didn't. Basically the site is very interesting, and has many good points, but it seems to be anarcho-capitalist, or individualist at best. It seems to still believe in businesses and companies, and competition.

Anyone read the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson?

('Red Mars' 'Green Mars' and 'Blue Mars')

I ask the question because one of the reasons I support anarchism is because I believe in the ineffiency of large national governments; local control is more exact and much less likely to be corrupted.

I haven't read that trilogy, but I keep seeing it quoted, so I'll get round to it. Do you know "The Dispossessed" by Ursula Le Guin? Best fictional description of a working communist anarchy I've ever seen.

I believe in federation of communities to provide a stable structure of organisation bridging the local scale with the regional/national/international.

If anarchy takes hold anywhere, for one, how will law and order be maintained?
Why should they be? (not an entirely rhetorical question)
For another, who'll organise food supply? That was the original reason for government, you know.
I'll pass on debating the original reason for government, but the people that enjoy organising food supply will do it.
It'll technically be a form of government, any way. And about law and order, what will you do with a murderer on the lose? Just lock your doors and hope he stops?
Anyhow, like I said, a form of government, or in anyway organisation, is unescapable. The only way to escape it is if we become nomads from the Old Stone Age again. Even they had a form of government. A mixture of despotism and communism as best as we can tell.
Anthrus, I already tackled the question of what happens if someone attacks you in an anarchy in this thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1532845&highlight=#1532845

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Excuse me, just to point out the obvious, how can you be both anti-cap and anarchist? Isnt that a bit of an oxymoron? Besides, capitalism helps protect against authoritarianism and socialism/liberalism, two big enemies of liberetarialism/anarchism
I think Free Soviets said it already, I just wanted to add that what you are is some kind of anarcho-capitalist perhaps. What gets me is that you use the word "anarchist" as tho a right-wing, capitalist version is the default. While we (left-wing, socialist) anarchists recognise anarcho-capitalism is a possible doctrine, we see it as a departure from the default sense of "anarchism", which is our own, left-wing kind. Being anti-capitalist and anarchist is not synonymous, since there are statist anti-capitalists, but it's certainly not an oxymoron - and it seems to me anarchists are the backbone of the movement.

I might add that capitalism does *not* help protect against authoritarianism - it helps create and sustain it in many ways, since with an economic hierarchy you have a power hierarchy, and therefore the powerful telling the powerless what to do.

I agree with SA in many ways, as capitalism even in anarcho-cap. society breeds greed. Greed breeds poor/rich /class problems & power lust ,which ultimately would colapse a anarcho-cap. system, in my opin..
BTW, anyone else hav probs. logging in at NS to view thier nations?

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.
Actually fascism is really the direct opposite of anarchism, and libertarianism is the direct opposite of 'communism', by which you mean authoritarian socialism (e.g. Stalinism).

To reinforce Free Soviets' point - what civilisation needs is for things to be organised, e.g. trade, production, distribution, land use, housing, infrastructure, environment. Authority, or rule, including the state or government, is more than just organisation - it's the imposition of will of some people on the general population by presumption, intimidation or force. We do not need that for civilisation to be maintained. What is needed is a model of organisation that does not involve authority and rule in that way. This is basically that people organise themselves as individuals as much as they can, then co-operate in a local community on the smallest scale of social interaction, then your community co-operates with other communities in a 'federation' which is a voluntary non-hierarchical structure.

BTW, anyone else hav probs. logging in at NS to view thier nations?
Yes EE, the main server is down. There's a thread about it in the Moderation forum.

Welcome back by the way! :D

By default, I want a society in which people generally agree to live in freedom and peace in respect of one another and organise and co-operate together for common good, on a totally voluntary basis. Any variance from "respect, no force/coercion" must be for special circumstances only. And as long as it is, it's still an anarchy.
It is easy to say you want a society where "people generally agree to live in freedom and peace" but how will you guarantee that this actually will exist for an extended period of time?
Well, I think my short answer would appeal once again to evolution. I see a lot of the qualities that we see as common in our society as ones that evolved gradually, until they are so powerful and basic they are not just going to go away.

An example is individualism, which has risen in the West in the last 1000 years. The very fact of the state, of established religions, of kingship or republicanism, of urban living, of agriculture, these are general tendencies that are unheard of at earlier phases of human history, then arise, take a while to build as a force within society, and eventually become established and entrenched.

I think the principle - and then the practice - of communism, of communal, collective living, of seeing one's existence as an individual as being a part of a shared human fellowship, and living accordingly rather than purely selfishly is another such force that is arising now and will gradually build until it is established and basic to the way people live.

Before that happens, people will be more cut off from one another and may be more inclined to be selfish, conflicting, un-co-operative etc. But such behaviour is not profitable long-term, certainly not for the society, so it will be 'evolved out' :) That is how *Fraternity*, the third principle of the French Revolution, will endure for an extended period. *I* cannot guarantee it, and it's not a case of 'making it happen' by instituting a particular structure.

Thanks & thanks again SA .

Thanks & thanks again SA (r u 2b o/l 4 long? if so wish 2 speak with u - via akheva)
Sure yeah, I'm not going anywhere right now. I'll go along to Akheva...

It is easy to say you want a society where "people generally agree to live in freedom and peace" but how will you guarantee that this actually will exist for an extended period of time?

same way any other system maintains itself. setup institutions that run in a certain way - working to maintain freedom and equality in our case - and getting enough people to believe in them. those are the elements required to make any system stable and self-perpetuating. worked in ancient egypt, works in canada. where those conditions don't hold you get civil wars and break downs in society.

the specific institutions usually proposed by anarchists are directly democratic assemblies in workplaces and communities; and voluntary federated structures for anything beyond that with power remaining almost entirely in the hands of the individuals and their local organizations. essentially anarchism is an entire system designed to level hierarchy as much as possible and give everyone as much control over the running of their lives and communities and workplaces as possible.

*clicks on 'next'*

"There are no posts on this page"

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.
Actually fascism is really the direct opposite of anarchism, and libertarianism is the direct opposite of 'communism', by which you mean authoritarian socialism (e.g. Stalinism).

To reinforce Free Soviets' point - what civilisation needs is for things to be organised, e.g. trade, production, distribution, land use, housing, infrastructure, environment. Authority, or rule, including the state or government, is more than just organisation - it's the imposition of will of some people on the general population by presumption, intimidation or force. We do not need that for civilisation to be maintained. What is needed is a model of organisation that does not involve authority and rule in that way. This is basically that people organise themselves as individuals as much as they can, then co-operate in a local community on the smallest scale of social interaction, then your community co-operates with other communities in a 'federation' which is a voluntary non-hierarchical structure.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.
Actually fascism is really the direct opposite of anarchism, and libertarianism is the direct opposite of 'communism', by which you mean authoritarian socialism (e.g. Stalinism).

To reinforce Free Soviets' point - what civilisation needs is for things to be organised, e.g. trade, production, distribution, land use, housing, infrastructure, environment. Authority, or rule, including the state or government, is more than just organisation - it's the imposition of will of some people on the general population by presumption, intimidation or force. We do not need that for civilisation to be maintained. What is needed is a model of organisation that does not involve authority and rule in that way. This is basically that people organise themselves as individuals as much as they can, then co-operate in a local community on the smallest scale of social interaction, then your community co-operates with other communities in a 'federation' which is a voluntary non-hierarchical structure.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

That last group you mentioned have thier own political movement, 'Anarchist-Primitivism' (check out the info-shop link provided by SA on page 1).

As Free Soviets said earlier...
"an archos - no rulers, not no rules"

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!

...which shows how little you know about the difference between 'anarchy' and 'anarchism.' Anarchism was/is a major socialist stream of thought.

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!
'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'. is this a book or some other form of info? or just a lot of bs like communism which the first part of your statement seems to refer to?

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!
'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'. is this a book or some other form of info? or just a lot of bs like communism which the first part of your statement seems to refer to?

No, nothing of my statement is linked to communism. The quote is from Leviathan (Hobbes). Can't remember the page.

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!

...which shows how little you know about the difference between 'anarchy' and 'anarchism.' Anarchism was/is a major socialist stream of thought.


OK! My dear Prince Kropotkin!

'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861

What follows?

Lenin:

'an infantile disorder.'

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).


I'm sorry for my sophism!

____________
(s. V. Lenin, 'Left-Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder', 1920, reprinted in Marx, Engels, Lenin: Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, International Publishers, 1972, p. 304.)

If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my younger readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." -- "Well! you are a democrat?" -- "No." -- "What! you would have a monarchy." -- "No." -- "A constitutionalist?" -- "God forbid!" -- "You are then an aristocrat?" -- "Not at all." -- "You want a mixed government?" -- "Still less." -- "What are you, then?" -- "I am an anarchist."

"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government." -- "By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."
...
There have been execrable kings, and very tolerable tyrants. Royalty may always be good, when it is the only possible form of government; legitimate it is never. Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. Whatever form it takes, -- monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, -- royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd.

-pierre joseph proudhon
"what is property"

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).


Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)

Sephardish Diaspora wrote:

"'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861"

Sorry, but that's not the idea mentioned or put forth by ANY mainstream pro-anarchism group. Why didn't you actually READ the links on the first page?!?!?!?

EDIT:
notice the use of and/or the difference between 'pro-anarch*I-S-M*' and 'pro-anarch*y*' ???

While I don't like governments a whole lot and think anarchism wouldn't be too bad of an idea, I have to wonder how you'd keep people from cheating and killing each other.

Sephardish Diaspora wrote:

"'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861"

Sorry, but that's not the idea mentioned or put forth by ANY mainstream pro-anarchism group. Why didn't you actually READ the links on the first page?!?!?!?

Oi, quit marginalising the fringes.

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.
Actually fascism is really the direct opposite of anarchism, and libertarianism is the direct opposite of 'communism', by which you mean authoritarian socialism (e.g. Stalinism).

To reinforce Free Soviets' point - what civilisation needs is for things to be organised, e.g. trade, production, distribution, land use, housing, infrastructure, environment. Authority, or rule, including the state or government, is more than just organisation - it's the imposition of will of some people on the general population by presumption, intimidation or force. We do not need that for civilisation to be maintained. What is needed is a model of organisation that does not involve authority and rule in that way. This is basically that people organise themselves as individuals as much as they can, then co-operate in a local community on the smallest scale of social interaction, then your community co-operates with other communities in a 'federation' which is a voluntary non-hierarchical structure.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

That last group you mentioned have thier own political movement, 'Anarchist-Primitivism' (check out the info-shop link provided by SA on page 1).

As Free Soviets said earlier...
"an archos - no rulers, not no rules"
That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Sephardish Diaspora wrote:

"'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861"

Sorry, but that's not the idea mentioned or put forth by ANY mainstream pro-anarchism group. Why didn't you actually READ the links on the first page?!?!?!?

Oi, quit marginalising the fringes.

Because they are mentioned and recognized as represenative of a whole group (without their support or consent) by a mainstream, recognized encyclopedia?

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).


Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)

More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Sometimes the term 'autonomist' is used to describe this, but more commonly in connection to groups, rather than individuals.

If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

What is to be the form of government in the future? I hear some of my younger readers reply: "Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican." "A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs -- no matter under what form of government -- may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans." -- "Well! you are a democrat?" -- "No." -- "What! you would have a monarchy." -- "No." -- "A constitutionalist?" -- "God forbid!" -- "You are then an aristocrat?" -- "Not at all." -- "You want a mixed government?" -- "Still less." -- "What are you, then?" -- "I am an anarchist."

"Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government." -- "By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me."
...
There have been execrable kings, and very tolerable tyrants. Royalty may always be good, when it is the only possible form of government; legitimate it is never. Neither heredity, nor election, nor universal suffrage, nor the excellence of the sovereign, nor the consecration of religion and of time, can make royalty legitimate. Whatever form it takes, -- monarchic, oligarchic, or democratic, -- royalty, or the government of man by man, is illegitimate and absurd.

-pierre joseph proudhon
"what is property"
Legitimacy, I feel, needs to sometimes take a backseat for benevolency. And this passage, btw, justifies theocracy, since technically, it is a higher order than man.

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).


Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)

More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

Ah, but surely the banding together of individuals into groups/gangs, whether they be statist or gangster means that it is not the "war of all against all", but instead war between two (or more) heirarchies?

That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Most anarchists do not want anarchy; they want anarchism. Organization without hierarchy.

*clicks on 'next'*

"No posts exist for this topic"

Anyone else have this problem/know a solution?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Most anarchists do not want anarchy; they want anarchism. Organization without hierarchy.
And wouldn't that be similar to Athenian style democracy?

That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Most anarchists do not want anarchy; they want anarchism. Organization without hierarchy.
And wouldn't that be similar to Athenian style democracy?

You mean only males who were not, nor had ever been, slaves, nor foreigners getting the vote?

It is easy to say you want a society where "people generally agree to live in freedom and peace" but how will you guarantee that this actually will exist for an extended period of time?

same way any other system maintains itself. setup institutions that run in a certain way - working to maintain freedom and equality in our case - and getting enough people to believe in them. those are the elements required to make any system stable and self-perpetuating. worked in ancient egypt, works in canada. where those conditions don't hold you get civil wars and break downs in society.

Again, it is easy for you to talk about these institutions but do you think they are even possible considering that humans will always differ on some thing or the other?

It would be ideal if every person believed in exactly the same goals and things but people are always going to differ later on in life (even if they are taught the same exact things as children). And Egypt is obviously not a self-perpetuating state because Pharonic egypt doesnt exist anymore and was destroyed by corruption and weakness. Canada is probably going to fall soon too, but thats just an American opinion.

Pharonic Eygpt fell to the Roman Empire, then to the Islamic expansion/renasance (DAMN, how DO you spell that?). What makes you think Canada will 'fall' soon?

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).


Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)

More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

Ah, but surely the banding together of individuals into groups/gangs, whether they be statist or gangster means that it is not the "war of all against all", but instead war between two (or more) heirarchies?

Absolutely. But if your living conditions due to the absence of central government (as someone put it in the beginning of this thread - sorry that I forgot who) decrease steadily - this war between many hierarchies becomes a "war of all against all". Under the absence of 'trust' and stability you have to take everyone as your enemy.
That also explains why Russians tend to go autocratic.

That is extremely weird. Anarchist, I bet, will end up being those distorted terms liberal and conservative. I'll just have to adjust. It doesn't seem like you don't want true anarchy, but just individual sovereignty.

Most anarchists do not want anarchy; they want anarchism. Organization without hierarchy.
And wouldn't that be similar to Athenian style democracy?

You mean only males who were not, nor had ever been, slaves, nor foreigners getting the vote?
No, I don't mean like that. I mean where everyone votes. Although Athens was pretty rigid, you must admit is was nearly democracy in the purest sense of the word. My point is that you want everyone to get an equal vote on all matters, am I correct?

*nods*

That's part of it.

And wouldn't that be similar to Athenian style democracy?

You mean only males who were not, nor had ever been, slaves, nor foreigners getting the vote?
No, I don't mean like that. I mean where everyone votes. Although Athens was pretty rigid, you must admit is was nearly democracy in the purest sense of the word. My point is that you want everyone to get an equal vote on all matters, am I correct?

Personally, I would rather have consensus decision making rather than the tyranny of the majority that democracy (as currently operated and equally in Athenian times) often produces.

(sorry buggered up the quoting function)

It is easy to say you want a society where "people generally agree to live in freedom and peace" but how will you guarantee that this actually will exist for an extended period of time?

same way any other system maintains itself. setup institutions that run in a certain way - working to maintain freedom and equality in our case - and getting enough people to believe in them. those are the elements required to make any system stable and self-perpetuating. worked in ancient egypt, works in canada. where those conditions don't hold you get civil wars and break downs in society.

Again, it is easy for you to talk about these institutions but do you think they are even possible considering that humans will always differ on some thing or the other?

It would be ideal if every person believed in exactly the same goals and things but people are always going to differ later on in life (even if they are taught the same exact things as children). And Egypt is obviously not a self-perpetuating state because Pharonic egypt doesnt exist anymore and was destroyed by corruption and weakness. Canada is probably going to fall soon too, but thats just an American opinion.

Pharonic Eygpt fell to the Roman Empire, then to the Islamic expansion/renasance (DAMN, how DO you spell that?). What makes you think Canada will 'fall' soon?
He may be thinking what I am. That if Quebec succeeds, the Federation of Canada may start separating. No doubt the US will get some of the crums from that. And I'd love to see a strip of our land from Washington to Alaska.

If you like absence of central government so much (Hobbes' state of nature), then there is plenty of space for you on our planet. Go to Russia or many parts of Africa and have fun with your anarchy!!!!!!!!

'Force and fraud are in war (read anarchy) two cardinal virtues'.

Don't be too theoretical. Enjoy anarchy in real life!

...which shows how little you know about the difference between 'anarchy' and 'anarchism.' Anarchism was/is a major socialist stream of thought.


OK! My dear Prince Kropotkin!

'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861

hmm, i don't remember that phrase in the copy of kropotkin's article (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html) i read. and i just checked and again didn't find it..


What follows?

Lenin:

'an infantile disorder.'

so a dictator claimed that all of his opponents who thought that the dictatorship of the party was not the way to socialism had an infantile disorder. fine. i think lenin was a totalitarian asshole. i'll keep my infantile disorder, thank you very much.

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).

hobbes argued that cooperation is impossible without authority. this is objectively false.

And wouldn't that be similar to Athenian style democracy?

You mean only males who were not, nor had ever been, slaves, nor foreigners getting the vote?
No, I don't mean like that. I mean where everyone votes. Although Athens was pretty rigid, you must admit is was nearly democracy in the purest sense of the word. My point is that you want everyone to get an equal vote on all matters, am I correct?

Personally, I would rather have consensus decision making rather than the tyranny of the majority that democracy (as currently operated and equally in Athenian times) often produces.[/quote]
So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?

So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?

Pretty much.

A caveat - my experience is working with small groups of people who share similar goals, and this is why they work together as anarchists.

A possible paradox - to set up the decision making process for an anarchist group prior to the formation of that anarchist group and their consent is seen by many anarchists as oppression.

"So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?"

Not quite.

This situation is semi-addressed in the third book in the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson.

The solution is polyarchy (the economic system there is what I think could be called 'mutualist socialism' with co-operatives, an inner and an outer market...), that is, the sharing of 'power' (in the federation [of regions] that makes the Martian government) between as many groups as possible. If something is going to pass, then a certain majority of the groups must agree.

So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?

Pretty much.

A caveat - my experience is working with small groups of people who share similar goals, and this is why they work together as anarchists.

A possible paradox - to set up the decision making process for an anarchist group prior to the formation of that anarchist group and their consent is seen by many anarchists as oppression.
You haven't converted me, but I understand now. Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age. But I could see its appeals. Human progress and free will without the government to interfere. Only a few rules created by consensus. Although it is a paradox, but hey, who cares?

So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?

Pretty much.

A caveat - my experience is working with small groups of people who share similar goals, and this is why they work together as anarchists.

A possible paradox - to set up the decision making process for an anarchist group prior to the formation of that anarchist group and their consent is seen by many anarchists as oppression.

Exactly. The 'similar goals' part is part of what makes it work

"So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?"

Not quite.

This situation is semi-addressed in the third book in the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson.

The solution is polyarchy (the economic system there is what I think could be called 'mutualist socialism' with co-operatives, an inner and an outer market...), that is, the sharing of 'power' (in the federation [of regions] that makes the Martian government) between as many groups as possible. If something is going to pass, then a certain majority of the groups must agree.
Bodies without Organs gave me a different answer. It shows an idealogical rift, a bit. Then again, though, that's anarchy at work?

My main interest in anarchism is praxis, not theory (that and the warm glow it gives inside when I whisper 'non serviam' under my breath). I prefer not to engage in debate about a 'pie in the sky' future anarchist state, instead to put the ideas into action, here and now.

(If that doesn't sound too big headed)

So let me see here. Whatever is done you want it to be done by the consensus of the people. And if one person says no, it won't be done. Am I correct in saying this?

Pretty much.

A caveat - my experience is working with small groups of people who share similar goals, and this is why they work together as anarchists.

A possible paradox - to set up the decision making process for an anarchist group prior to the formation of that anarchist group and their consent is seen by many anarchists as oppression.

Exactly. The 'similar goals' part is part of what makes it work
I see. So it'd require basically cities to the scale of ancient ones to form again, and instead of being ruled by a king, have it ruled by a modified version of Athenian democracy.

"Similar goals"

Yes. The same ends ("goals") for some shared and some different reasons.

same way any other system maintains itself. setup institutions that run in a certain way - working to maintain freedom and equality in our case - and getting enough people to believe in them. those are the elements required to make any system stable and self-perpetuating. worked in ancient egypt, works in canada. where those conditions don't hold you get civil wars and break downs in society.

Again, it is easy for you to talk about these institutions but do you think they are even possible considering that humans will always differ on some thing or the other?

It would be ideal if every person believed in exactly the same goals and things but people are always going to differ later on in life (even if they are taught the same exact things as children).

so people need to be dominated and crushed because they will disagree? scary.

disagreement doesn't mean that people need to be ruled. it actually is a good reason to be against rulers. people will disagree with their rulers all the time, but will be powerless to do anything to enact their desires. under anarchism each is as able to achieve her goals as everyone else. and infinitely more so than under any system of rulers.

And Egypt is obviously not a self-perpetuating state because Pharonic egypt doesnt exist anymore and was destroyed by corruption and weakness. Canada is probably going to fall soon too, but thats just an American opinion.

then nothing ever works because everything will fall eventually. that is just a fundamentally silly way to view the world. back on my planet, pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive. a self-perpetuating system doesn't have to live forever to be one. it just has to have the ability to do so barring outside factors. a species is a self-perpetuating thing but that hasn't stopped 99.99% of all species from going extinct.

I see. So it'd require basically cities to the scale of ancient ones to form again, and instead of being ruled by a king, have it ruled by a modified version of Athenian democracy.

Close. Try reading the 'Mars' trilogy I've spoken about before for a vivd example of the size of the city/community/commune/collective. 'The Limits of the City' by Murray Bookchin sort of gets to this, but I don't remember, it's a pretty short read.

I see. So it'd require basically cities to the scale of ancient ones to form again, and instead of being ruled by a king, have it ruled by a modified version of Athenian democracy.

Close. Try reading the 'Mars' trilogy I've spoken about before for a vivd example of the size of the city/community/commune/collective. 'The Limits of the City' by Murray Bookchin sort of gets to this, but I don't remember, it's a pretty short read.
I'll have to read it. However, everyone has similar goals. Democrats and Republicans have similar goals, to make this entire civilisation better. They just don't agree how to go about it.

pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive.

A major factor/reason for the longevity of pharonic egypt was its relative geopolitcal and physical isolation from the rest of the world.

pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive.

A major factor/reason for the longevity of pharonic egypt was its relative geopolitcal and physical isolation from the rest of the world.

Too easy!

Geopolitical isolation??? Not less than the US today!

pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive.

A major factor/reason for the longevity of pharonic egypt was its relative geopolitcal and physical isolation from the rest of the world.
And the fact that everyone believed the Pharoah was a god. Not to mention he shut the people up with monuments.
However, I'd like to add that there were thirty dynasties. China's empire lasted just as long, and I can name the dynasties.

pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive.

A major factor/reason for the longevity of pharonic egypt was its relative geopolitcal and physical isolation from the rest of the world.

Too easy!

Geopolitical isolation??? Not less than the US today!
Hey, at least we know other countries exist.

Seeing as how this topic has not been hijacked by various reactionary statists and/or laize-faire Randites, I will point out the following -- indeed, an anarchist has appeared on a FOX News talk show. The anarchist in question is none other than John Zerzan. Apparently, John was discussing the right for Ted Kacyzinski (the Unabomber) to receive and send mail. That is, until the right-wing on the show sufficiently annoyed him with their reactionary comments, prompting him to give the FOX News audience "da bird" and comment "you guys are assholes." So says anarchist lore...

Since several posters in this thread have brought up the question "what will you do with criminals?" I give you the anarchist solution to industrial capitalism's fortresses --Anarchist Alternative to Prisons (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/content/essays/articles/icarc/lee.html)

Personally, I believe that meaningful anarchy won't be able to function without some de-scaling of industrialism and agricultural domestication. In a free world with excess technological alienation and division of labor, a managerial elite inevitably forms. In an techno-anarchist society, the technocratic elite wouldn't hold power because they pull the levers of state violence, but because no one else knows how to operate "the machine." Direct democracy would simply have to fork over control over to the experts. It isn't to say that the average humyn being is too dumb to run a technologically-advanced society, but that no one wants to learn all the skills necessary to become an "expert" of all things technological.

Instead, I think we should use small-scale industrialism and agriculture, probably best laid out in the "permaculture" model.

Seeing as how this topic has not been hijacked by various reactionary statists and/or laize-faire Randites, I will point out the following -- indeed, an anarchist has appeared on a FOX News talk show. The anarchist in question is none other than John Zerzan. Apparently, John was discussing the right for Ted Kacyzinski (the Unabomber) to receive and send mail. That is, until the right-wing on the show sufficiently annoyed him with their reactionary comments, prompting him to give the FOX News audience "da bird" and comment "you guys are assholes." So says anarchist lore...

Since several posters in this thread have brought up the question "what will you do with criminals?" I give you the anarchist solution to industrial capitalism's fortresses --Anarchist Alternative to Prisons (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/content/essays/articles/icarc/lee.html)

Personally, I believe that meaningful anarchy won't be able to function without some de-scaling of industrialism and agricultural domestication. In a free world with excess technological alienation and division of labor, a managerial elite inevitably forms. In an techno-anarchist society, the technocratic elite wouldn't hold power because they pull the levers of state violence, but because no one else knows how to operate "the machine." Direct democracy would simply have to fork over control over to the experts. It isn't to say that the average humyn being is too dumb to run a technologically-advanced society, but that no one wants to learn all the skills necessary to become an "expert" of all things technological.

Instead, I think we should use small-scale industrialism and agriculture, probably best laid out in the "permaculture" model.
I have no objections to what it said about prisons except one. It's history. Prisons are as old as crime itself. And it seems to demonize them.

Prisons are as old as crime itself.

Incorrect.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

RE: food distribution, as capitalists people pursue different career paths & interests. why would an Anarchist society b any different. As to law & order, well i believe that the same would apply as for the other parts of society such as garbage collection - there are a lot of people who hate to see rubbish lying all over the place that would ,gladly(?), do this task - vigilanty/security minded citizen would be inclined to keep the community safe & ordered. The main difference between the two forms of society would be that without money's necessity an Anarchist state would have less crime problems due to thefts & issues of rich/poor/class as all people would be equally treated & free of superficial substructure, while industry, equiptment, and inventions would be available to all equally, have no brand competitiveness as any improvements would be included in the next version of items giving all citizens the same benefits. Take cars for eg. if a citizen needed a car of any given type , not brand but type such as sedan or 4x4, they would not own this vehicle directly (but would collectively) & would have access to it as required, if a different car eg. a ute was needed they would have access to this aswell. These would possibly be housed in some sort of communal garage . The fact that there were no competing brands would not mean the end of improvements, because the sattisfaction at having contributed to the general betterment of all would still cause people to strive to make better equiptment/methods/technologies, rather it would mean less waste-due to better products designed to last longer & not break down after 12mths( as many things are in our societies today to increase profits), more equallity, less environmental damage and less crime.

Sounds to me like you are talking more about Communism than Anarchy

Prisons are as old as crime itself.

Incorrect.
Well, not that old. But there were prisons in Rome. Paul was imprisoned, for crying out loud.

pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive.

A major factor/reason for the longevity of pharonic egypt was its relative geopolitcal and physical isolation from the rest of the world.
And the fact that everyone believed the Pharoah was a god. Not to mention he shut the people up with monuments.
However, I'd like to add that there were thirty dynasties. China's empire lasted just as long, and I can name the dynasties.

Well, Egyptian dynasties are easy to remember too... they are conveniently numbered from I to XXX. :)
Yes, but they don't have snappy names like Shang, Han, or T'ang.

By the way, do you get your ideas from Lysander Spooner?

No. I figured out more than half of my ideas for myself. Bill Malloy's book made extremely useful additions, and helped solidify them into a nice, neat and convenient package.

Visit http://nogov4me.net to check out his book.
I meant to get round to replying to this earlier, but didn't. Basically the site is very interesting, and has many good points, but it seems to be anarcho-capitalist, or individualist at best. It seems to still believe in businesses and companies, and competition.

I believe in competition. But competition as friendly rivals, not a duel to the economic death.

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.

as far as civilization goes, it needs organization no doubt. but there is no particular reason to think it requires rulers.
Communism and anarchy, the two opposite extremes. I really do wonder if you could get along. Although you'll say something about how they're similar, I bet.
Actually fascism is really the direct opposite of anarchism, and libertarianism is the direct opposite of 'communism', by which you mean authoritarian socialism (e.g. Stalinism).

To reinforce Free Soviets' point - what civilisation needs is for things to be organised, e.g. trade, production, distribution, land use, housing, infrastructure, environment. Authority, or rule, including the state or government, is more than just organisation - it's the imposition of will of some people on the general population by presumption, intimidation or force. We do not need that for civilisation to be maintained. What is needed is a model of organisation that does not involve authority and rule in that way. This is basically that people organise themselves as individuals as much as they can, then co-operate in a local community on the smallest scale of social interaction, then your community co-operates with other communities in a 'federation' which is a voluntary non-hierarchical structure.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.

Anarcho Socialists and Anarcho Syndicalists are ther majority. the Paleo Anarchists are a small minority, there is no reason they should have exclusive use of the name.

And Egypt is obviously not a self-perpetuating state because Pharonic egypt doesnt exist anymore and was destroyed by corruption and weakness. Canada is probably going to fall soon too, but thats just an American opinion.

then nothing ever works because everything will fall eventually. that is just a fundamentally silly way to view the world.

I am not claiming nothing will work. I even think that some system could come up that will never fall. But this ideal system is definitely not anarchy, and I do claim that anarchism definitely will not create the stable society as many anarchists think it will.

no. everything will fall eventually. nothing lasts forever. we know this with absolute certainty.

so what is it about a libertarian socialist society that would make it so inherently unstable?


back on my planet, pharonic egypt is one of the most successful set of institutions in the history of civilization - a several thousand year run is pretty damn impressive. a self-perpetuating system doesn't have to live forever to be one. it just has to have the ability to do so barring outside factors. a species is a self-perpetuating thing but that hasn't stopped 99.99% of all species from going extinct.

Actually a self-perpetuating system by definition has to be able to live a long time even if there are outside factors. Everything has the ability to live forever barring outside factors. But not everything is stable enough or adaptive enough to be considered 'self-perpetuating' - that is it can survive even under extraordinary outside and internal pressures. Anarchy definitely lacks the stability necessary. (The autocratic Egyptian system also lacks this stability, since it is susceptible to rampant corruption).

a long time, yes. forever, no. and no, nothing has the ability to live forever. i don't think you are really disagreeing with me. stability is one of the elements necessary for self-perpetuation. given ideal conditions, any stable system will keep itself going. but a stable system under generally unfavorable conditions or an unstable system even under ideal ones probably won't. this is why republics often fail, though they can work. you seem to be claiming that anarchism is inherently unstable. but i don't see any particularly glaring structural instabilities in the theory. all of its structures are known to work or are based off of other structures we know work. the only thing that could make it unstable is if people generally did not want it. but that is a problem that every possible system faces.

Ancient Egyptian culture was a long-lived one but that does not make the Egyptian nation self-perpetuating or stable. The cultural institutions such as religions/outlook survived for millenia but every few centuries the whole damn country collapses, war and plague breaks out, and a new dynasty assumes power. This happens even during times when there are no outside pressures. Cultural resilience does not predict a stable survival. Huge amounts of bloodshed and violence occur every few centuries. In the end its chaotic political system could not counter outside threats. A real self-perpetuating system would have an adaptable, stable government and society that doesn't buckle under a few revolts and a comparatively small invasion.

the dynasties changed but the institutions did not (at least not radically and not often). apparently the periodic fall of dynasties and power grabs and "intermediate periods" did not actually affect the stability of the system as a whole. hell, the old kingdom by itself lasted almost 1000 years, which is a might bit longer than much else out there, other than china and maybe one or two of the mesopotamian civilizations.

Prisons are as old as crime itself.

Incorrect.
Well, not that old. But there were prisons in Rome. Paul was imprisoned, for crying out loud.

there is a difference though. modern prisons were invented a couple hundred years ago as part of the enlightenment. previously prisons were holding cells for people to wait in until they got their punishment. modern prisons are the punishment themselves.

Prisons are as old as crime itself.

Incorrect.
Well, not that old. But there were prisons in Rome. Paul was imprisoned, for crying out loud.

there is a difference though. modern prisons were invented a couple hundred years ago as part of the enlightenment. previously prisons were holding cells for people to wait in until they got their punishment. modern prisons are the punishment themselves.
And what's so wrong about them?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The good self-perpetuating society shouldn't just be about preserving "the system as a whole". It should deliver happiness to its citizens as much as possible, as long as possible.

Heh. Then the 'World Government' described in "Brave New World" is for you, or at least meets your specifications. There, Happiness and Comfort reign supreme; Truth, Knowledge, and Beauty are forgotten and survive only in the primitve zones or on 'the islands (Iceland)'.

bump

Prisons are as old as crime itself.

Incorrect.
Well, not that old. But there were prisons in Rome. Paul was imprisoned, for crying out loud.

there is a difference though. modern prisons were invented a couple hundred years ago as part of the enlightenment. previously prisons were holding cells for people to wait in until they got their punishment. modern prisons are the punishment themselves.

I'm glad someone else took it on themselves to do a capsule summary of Foucault...

bump

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.
(Cutting some out of the pyramid)

The Greek word "archos" does not mean "order", it means "rule". "Rule" herein means "imposition of will" as I've said. "Order" I take to mean things forming a pattern, a system, rather than being in chaos and turmoil. It is a common statist/authoritarian opinion that a lack of rule would automatically mean a lack of order - thus that anarchy would be chaos. The assumption is that order is not possible without rule, without someone calling the shots and making other people do their will. This *is* just an assumption, and anarchists deny it outright.

"Anarchy Is Order" - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

http://www.ipl.org/div/labadie/australia.html

"Believing that government is the true source of chaos, this poster declares Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's immortal maxim "Anarchy is order." The message conveys the anarchist's belief that the only way to achieve real order in a society is through voluntary cooperation. Anarchists assert that everything now accomplished by the state can be done more efficiently by voluntary or associative efforts. They believe it is the natural tendency of people in a free society to respect the rights of the individual."

There *is* an issue, however, in that historically those who call themselves 'anarchist' have been left-wing, socialist in the broad sense, and that is not implied directly by the word 'anarchy' (lack of rule). Technically anarcho-capitalists can say "We also believe in no rule, we just believe in capitalism anyway, just because we don't want rulers doesn't mean we want to get rid of companies and private ownership" etc. etc.

'Anarchism is the belief that it is practicable and desirable to abolish all organised government, laws and machinery for law enforcement.' Encyclopaedia Britannnica, p. 861

What follows?

Lenin: 'an infantile disorder.'

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).

I'm sorry for my sophism!
____________
(s. V. Lenin, 'Left-Wing Communism - An Infantile Disorder', 1920, reprinted in Marx, Engels, Lenin: Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, International Publishers, 1972, p. 304.)
Be sorrier for your cynicism! Or your Leninism! Or your attempt to claim something without arguing for it but rather just quote someone we anarchists are hardly likely to follow and have no reason to respect!

Also, why call yourselves anarchists? It suggests you want no form of government whatsoever. You need government for a civilisation to survive.
an archos - no rulers, not no rules. it more or less means "contrary to, or the absence of, authority". if the name is a problem we can just use libertarian socialism instead.
If you're going to do this, find another name for yourselves. Anarchy is the absence of all order. A voluntary federation is a means of providing a bit of order. If your objective is more along the lines of individual sovereignty, as I see it being, find another name. Save anarchy for those who want to go back to the Paleolithic era.
(Cutting some out of the pyramid)

The Greek word "archos" does not mean "order", it means "rule". "Rule" herein means "imposition of will" as I've said. "Order" I take to mean things forming a pattern, a system, rather than being in chaos and turmoil. It is a common statist/authoritarian opinion that a lack of rule would automatically mean a lack of order - thus that anarchy would be chaos. The assumption is that order is not possible without rule, without someone calling the shots and making other people do their will. This *is* just an assumption, and anarchists deny it outright.

"Anarchy Is Order" - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

http://www.ipl.org/div/labadie/australia.html

"Believing that government is the true source of chaos, this poster declares Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's immortal maxim "Anarchy is order." The message conveys the anarchist's belief that the only way to achieve real order in a society is through voluntary cooperation. Anarchists assert that everything now accomplished by the state can be done more efficiently by voluntary or associative efforts. They believe it is the natural tendency of people in a free society to respect the rights of the individual."

There *is* an issue, however, in that historically those who call themselves 'anarchist' have been left-wing, socialist in the broad sense, and that is not implied directly by the word 'anarchy' (lack of rule). Technically anarcho-capitalists can say "We also believe in no rule, we just believe in capitalism anyway, just because we don't want rulers doesn't mean we want to get rid of companies and private ownership" etc. etc.
I don't nessesarily think there is a separation of order and rule.

no. everything will fall eventually. nothing lasts forever. we know this with absolute certainty.
so what is it about a libertarian socialist society that would make it so inherently unstable?

Anarchic societies fail because people have a natural urge to resent each other. Also some people will try to assume total power by taking advantage of others, and make society into another tyranny.

But I think a well-crafted society combining all the methods of rule (coercion, rewards, satisfying the masses) will someday bring a really really long stability. Not that I'm smart enough to actually conceive of the details of this government/society.

natural urge to resent each other? don't think i've come across that one before.

ok, so anarchism is unstable because some one will try to take power. now i have a question. how can any system be stable if some people will try to assume total power? why didn't bill clinton declare himself absolute monarch?

the only way is to have the institutions built with that danger in mind. clinton didn't do it because there are so many parties that would try to stop him and because people, including him, view the current system as legitimate. if they didn't and if there wouldn't be much opposition to him declaring himself "president-for-life" then there is no doubt in my mind that he (or anyone else) would do it. so if the institutions of anarchism were built in such a way that everyone's self-interest would be the preservation of the system against would-be tyrants and people generally viewed it as legitimate then i see no particular instablities. and luckily enough it would be in everyone's self interest to fight would-be tyrants (tyrants would make every single person besides themselves and their follwoers worse off in every sense). and i doubt there could be any other system that has a better basis for legitimacy than anarchism (legitimacy comes not from god's will, or abstract social contracts, but from you personally). so once we get started and people desire it, it could be the most stable system ever.


a long time, yes. forever, no. and no, nothing has the ability to live forever. i don't think you are really disagreeing with me. stability is one of the elements necessary for self-perpetuation. given ideal conditions, any stable system will keep itself going. but a stable system under generally unfavorable conditions or an unstable system even under ideal ones probably won't. this is why republics often fail, though they can work.

The USA is a rather stable nation. Under enormous pressures (Civil War, Great Depression, WWII) it survived the ordeals, in a relatively orderly fashion. So a stable system under unfavorable conditions can live, and it has been proven.

that's great. now how many republics haven't survived under similar unfavorable conditions, or more generally unfavorable ones? i don't mean that any time there is one condition that is unfavorable entire systems collapse. i mean that when the general set of conditions surrounding a set of institutions are unfavorable most systems don't stand much chance.


you seem to be claiming that anarchism is inherently unstable. but i don't see any particularly glaring structural instabilities in the theory. all of its structures are known to work or are based off of other structures we know work. the only thing that could make it unstable is if people generally did not want it. but that is a problem that every possible system faces.

You are probably not a power hungry dictator type person. I dont think I am either, but there are lots of people who will take advantage of anarchic situations to enrich themselves and not society. I like freedoms and everything but humans uncontrolled will be wicked and harmful to each other. And this control doesnt have to be a totalitarianism or anything; democratic laws can control people too.

uncontrolled? the only humans that are currently uncontrolled are the rulers. any system with a power hierarchy gives people who are power hungry and greedy and generally evil bastards a perfect place to go. these people then use their immense power to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us. anarchism makes the claim that the best way to deal with this is to get rid of the hierarchies of power. that way selfish greedy evil bastards will have to work much harder and against everyone else. it is harder to commit genocide when you can't command people to do it for you.

and your statement that democratic laws can control people too essentially surrenders all of the ground between us. anarchism is a system of direct self-rule with power resting in the individuals and their local communities. no rulers, not no rules. the rules governing society will be decided upon by everyone affected by them instead of imposed from above. anarchism doesn't mean no control. it means rules and arrangements made freely and fairly, under an egalitarian political and social system.

And also you claim that the anarchic theory is based on working solutions. What would these be? There have never been a large-scale stable, anarchic society. Maybe in primitive villages, but these people are like-minded and when you deal with any larger populations, trouble will happen.

anarchism is decision making at the local level. we know this can be done. for bigger things it is based on voluntary federations that don't make laws, they make suggestions. they only become rules when the local communities agree to them. we know that this sort of federated structure can work in some situations and i see no reason to think that i wouldn't work generally. decentralized decision making is actively encouraged in our society by delegating authority downwards so that the person at the top doesn't have to make every decision. they do this because it is more efficient. we would just reverse the circumstances. power wouldn't start at the top and be delegated downwards. it would be at the bottom and be delegated upwards for anything that absolutely required centralization.

The good self-perpetuating society shouldn't just be about preserving "the system as a whole". It should deliver happiness to its citizens as much as possible, as long as possible.

i agree roughly. good thing i wasn't talking about a good self-perpetuating system when i mentioned egypt. i was actually using it as an example for my theory of societies. it is just a useful example because it lasted so damn long.

Technically I'm an Anarchist, even though my UN-Category is "Left-Wing Utopia" But yeah I believe Anarchy is good.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55467)
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I don't nessesarily think there is a separation of order and rule.

if you and your friends go to play a game and you modify the rules, who does the modifying? does your group of friends have a king? or do you all collectively agree to change them? is it impossible to play because there is no ruler to declare how you should do things? or can you play in a somewhat orderly fashion even without the police watching your every move?

if you really want to say that order is intricately linked up with rulership, then perhaps we can look at it from a different angle. anarchism is where everyone is the ruler and no one is a subject.

there is a difference though. modern prisons were invented a couple hundred years ago as part of the enlightenment. previously prisons were holding cells for people to wait in until they got their punishment. modern prisons are the punishment themselves.

I'm glad someone else took it on themselves to do a capsule summary of Foucault...

heh, i even understood most of that book. wrote a paper on foucault and anarchism for my philosophy senior seminar, actually.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).
Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)
More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
I am actually very interested in the situation in Russia since the end of Soviet rule. But the kind of thuggery that you are talking about still requires a state to be going on in quite the way it does. If even that is lacking, you get a situation like in Somalia which I argued about with someone who was there in the UN presence in the early 90s:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1532845&highlight=#1532892

Either way, it's not anarchy. It's relative chaos, unpleasantness and undesirability, but it's not anarchy.

natural urge to resent each other? don't think i've come across that one before.


Check your Hegel.
The Phenomenology of Mind: Lordship and Bondage

"179. Self-consciousness has before it another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real, but sees its own self in the other.

180. It must cancel this its other. To do so is the sublation of that first double meaning, and is therefore a second double meaning. First, it must set itself to sublate the other independent being, in order thereby to become certain of itself as true being, secondly, it thereupon proceeds to sublate its own self, for this other is itself."

(Although I think he is wrong)

I'm glad someone else took it on themselves to do a capsule summary of Foucault...

heh, i even understood most of that book. wrote a paper on foucault and anarchism for my philosophy senior seminar, actually.

You are a better man than I - I produced little more than a garbled mess of an essay on Discipline & Punish in one exam. The fact that a voice inside my head kept saying "You have no idea what you are talking about" didn't help.

The one major thing you left out was that the apparatus of prison is used to create a class of criminals - as distinct from 'we' the good, docile, meek, righteous people who obey the law...

edited: I must stop mangling the quoting system.

I don't nessesarily think there is a separation of order and rule.

if you and your friends go to play a game and you modify the rules, who does the modifying? does your group of friends have a king? or do you all collectively agree to change them? is it impossible to play because there is no ruler to declare how you should do things? or can you play in a somewhat orderly fashion even without the police watching your every move?

if you really want to say that order is intricately linked up with rulership, then perhaps we can look at it from a different angle. anarchism is where everyone is the ruler and no one is a subject.
I understand your point for the last paragraph, for individual sovereignty. But I do not see it possible to separate order and rule. Even anarchy will find the need to have some system, mutually agreed, of course, to impose order. I'd really like to see an area of this anarchy prevail, and see how it works. I really do.

I'm glad someone else took it on themselves to do a capsule summary of Foucault...

heh, i even understood most of that book. wrote a paper on foucault and anarchism for my philosophy senior seminar, actually.

You are a better man than I - I produced little more than a garbled mess of an essay on Discipline & Punish in one exam. The fact that a voice inside my head kept saying "You have no idea what you are talking about" didn't help.

we'd just come off of nietzsche. i guess that helped.

The one major thing you left out was that the apparatus of prison is used to create a class of criminals - as distinct from 'we' the good, docile, meek, righteous people who obey the law...

and also (iirc) that this criminal class also serves as a tool for social control because they are turned into a network of informers and such.

for those of you taking notes, the prison system is designed - according to foucault - as part of a general system of social control that was implemented as the hidden power of the formally egalitarian republican systems.

Personally, I believe that meaningful anarchy won't be able to function without some de-scaling of industrialism and agricultural domestication. In a free world with excess technological alienation and division of labor, a managerial elite inevitably forms. In an techno-anarchist society, the technocratic elite wouldn't hold power because they pull the levers of state violence, but because no one else knows how to operate "the machine." Direct democracy would simply have to fork over control over to the experts. It isn't to say that the average humyn being is too dumb to run a technologically-advanced society, but that no one wants to learn all the skills necessary to become an "expert" of all things technological.

Instead, I think we should use small-scale industrialism and agriculture, probably best laid out in the "permaculture" model.

I agree - I certainly agree there's an issue here, which a lot of anarchists can't see. There are several possible alternatives. One is that somehow future humanity becomes generally able to handle complex technology, as opposed to only a few people today. Two, and linked with that, we turn tech to hi-tech which is less obtrusive and easier to manage. A non-wasteful alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source would be a good start.

ooc:Hi SA did u get my last email?
Q: As Anarchists are you Pro-active, RE-active, Passive, or Theorist-only.

I agree - I certainly agree there's an issue here, which a lot of anarchists can't see. There are several possible alternatives. One is that somehow future humanity becomes generally able to handle complex technology, as opposed to only a few people today. Two, and linked with that, we turn tech to hi-tech which is less obtrusive and easier to manage. A non-wasteful alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source would be a good start.
(hope i got quote right) As i stated prev. Anarchist society would be more inclined to incorporate new tech. + ideas for the betterment of all eg. the H2O driven engine that has been feasible for decades but is not used widely due to capitalist suppression - as it does not generate enough profits.In an Anarchist soc. it would have been used almost exclusive of other engines as it is relatively non-polluting & uses a renewable resource, with the main emissions being the same as the fuel (H2O) used.

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.

"Anarchy is order - Government is Chaos"

Offset lithography.
Height: 41.9 cm Width: 29.2 cm.
Australia, 1986.
http://www.ipl.org/div/labadie/images/aacc.jpg

Believing that government is the true source of chaos, this poster declares Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's immortal maxim "Anarchy is order." The message conveys the anarchist's belief that the only way to achieve real order in a society is through voluntary cooperation. Anarchists assert that everything now accomplished by the state can be done more efficiently by voluntary or associative efforts. They believe it is the natural tendency of people in a free society to respect the rights of the individual.

We Celebrate 100 Years

Offset lithography.
Height: 41.9 cm Width: 29.2 cm.
Australia, 1986.
http://www.ipl.org/div/labadie/images/aust.jpg

The sub-title of this poster reads "Build the New Society out of the Shell of the Old." The message expresses the simple desire for personal autonomy within a functioning, non-hierarchical cooperative society. The artwork in this poster illustrates the idea of individual responsibility over government rule through the actions of the characters represented. Anarchists do not believe in a society without order, but in a society which creates order out of voluntary association

Imagine, Imagine

Offset lithography.
Height: 41.9 cm Width: 29.2 cm.
Australia, 1986.
http://www.ipl.org/div/labadie/images/imagine.jpg

"Imagine, Imagine, equal decision-making power, equal distribution of wealth." This poster also conveys the vision of a cooperative world in which all people share the power to make decisions. It also expresses the idea that through shared wealth and resources, society will be better abled to achieve equality and cooperation. Central to the graphics in this poster is the symbol of the encircled A, the most common and recognizable representaion of Proudhon's maxim, "Anarchy is Order."

TO QUOTE TEXT TAKEN FROM :
Internet Public Library: Anarchist Images
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
What is Anarchism?
Anarchism, then really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth, an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

Emma Goldman

At its essence, anarchism is a political philosophy which embraces the simple idea of personal autonomy within a functioning, non-hierarchical, caring society. How this autonomy is to be realized has been the anarchists' greatest stumbling block to obtaining wider acceptance and understanding. The differences of opinions within anarchism concerning its form and its content have also contributed to it being a movement that has long been shrouded in misconception. This misunderstanding largely results from the fact that anarchism allows for myriad interpretations. It is more than a political philosophy, it is a way of life which cannot be held to a single definition, slogan, or party line.

One of the few widely-held tenets of anarchism is the belief that not only is hierarchical authority unnecessary, but it prevents individuals from obtaining their fullest potential. To an anarchist, power is innately corrupting. Whether the power be delegated by the state, church, or patriarchy, most anarchists believe that even the best intentioned authorities inevitably become more concerned with their own power than with serving their constituents. Most hold the notion that human beings are capable of voluntarily cooperating to meet everyone's needs, without bosses or rulers, and without sacrificing individual liberties.

Many anarchists also maintain that ethics are a personal matter; that they should be based on concern for others and the well-being of society and not on laws imposed by a legal or religious authority. When an authority delegates to itself the right to overrule the most fundamental personal and moral decisions of the individual, anarchists believe that human freedom becomes immeasurably diminished. However, anarchists do not ignore the advantages resulting from organizing, but stress that the purpose of doing so will be better served in a state of freedom.

Anarchism is not a new or isolated philosophy. It is a belief shared by many, regardless of sex, race, religion, or nationality. Anarchism has existed throughout history and has been key to revolutionary movements in all parts of the world, including France, Latin America, Mexico, The Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the United States. Some examples of movements which have been heavily influenced by anarchist thought are the civil wars in Spain and Russia, the labor and student rebellions witnessed throughout the world, feminism, pacifism, and the municipal and Green movements. "

Hopefully this will lead to better understanding by our confused & misinformed nationstate friends.
Thanks go to IPL for providing information.

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.
Didn't you already cover that statement of mine?

I agree totally that society should be based on all our petty self-interests balancing each other out. But this sort of simultaneous mass-balancing thing does not and cannot exist in a vacuum (anarchy) where someone can very easily overpower the checks and balances things. There has to be at least a framework such as a republic for it to work, since the framework also helps each little group fight the other little groups.
...
Also, compared to republics an anarchic system would be the first to be annihilated if there were some unfavorable condition, since a tyrant could take control.

oh, ok, i see the problem. anarchism does not propose a power vacuum. never has, never will. in fact, the structure of anarchism provides more checks and balances than any other system i know of. it has multiple political units that each have to work with the others. a sort of grand unified system of checks and balances. the basic levels are the neighborhood or communitiy assemblies and the workplace assemblies. it might be possible to become a tyrant with power over one or several of these assemblies. but this is where the federated structure and free association come in. a tyrant would have to hold power through force or threats. however it would be difficult to do this over numerous political bodies, especially when they didn't want to be coerced. and to take over any of the federation bodies he would have to already have taken over the locals. and the other locals would already be organizing against the tyrant. decentralized power means that there is no primary point of power that a tyrant could take over. they would have to subjugate every single person in every community and every workplace. as opposed to today where dictators mostly take advantage of the pre-existing power structures of a society.

and its not as though there wouldn't be anarchist militias and mutual defense networks to defend against crazy authoritarians if it came to blows.


anarchism is decision making at the local level. we know this can be done. for bigger things it is based on voluntary federations that don't make laws, they make suggestions. they only become rules when the local communities agree to them. we know that this sort of federated structure can work in some situations and i see no reason to think that i wouldn't work generally. decentralized decision making is actively encouraged in our society by delegating authority downwards so that the person at the top doesn't have to make every decision. they do this because it is more efficient. we would just reverse the circumstances. power wouldn't start at the top and be delegated downwards. it would be at the bottom and be delegated upwards for anything that absolutely required centralization.

Reading this, I am imagining a country of tiny little hamlets floating around. That is beautiful and perfect, but the keyword is perfect. How do you propose to set it up?

No one will realistically be able to set up the self-perpetuating "institutions" that you talk about, unless someone invents a chip that can cause everyone to agree on everything. It will also cause everyone to never trample on anyone elses' rights and interests. I think we should start experimenting with anarchism only when this brain control technology is invented, and leave it as a fantasy for now.

who needs perfection? i don't anticipate people agreeing all the time, nor do we require it (or even want it - anarchists, remember?). the us doesn't have a civil war everytime the political factions disagree. making people free and equal does not mean that everyone would have to agree or that everyone would always get exactly what they want. there would always have to be compromises on any issue. but under anarchism it would be you making those compromises and arguments about how things should be done. you position would be from freedom and equality; you would bargain as equals instead of being commanded like you are now. the people who are most able to trample on others' rights and interests now are those that do so from a position of power - bosses and rulers. if we take away their power, then they lose their special ability to trample people and are just like the rest of us.

brain control sure sounds pretty authoritarian. it would make no sense under anarchism - who would be doing the controlling? its only use that i can see would be for the state, who would love to be that secure in its power. no more messy discussion, everybody do what your told.
if we had "perfect" people then the state might be legitimate and worthwhile. but since we are stuck with "imperfect" people anarchism is the only sane and legitimate system on offer.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

However it is very likely that the charismatic dictator-to-be will convince the decentralized assemblies that joining him will benefit, since he can set up a new tyranny while giving special privileges to his supporters, and oppressing the common folk.

And don't tell me that it is the commonfolk who control the assemblies because no matter how hard you try to infuse civic duty there will always be enormous groups of people who don't care about politics or will blindly follow any tyrannical leader, so therefore these assemblies arent really representative.

What 'special priveleges' could they want? Power? To do what? In an authoritarian dictatorship like you're describing, there is room for only ONE dictator and his group of dedicated cronies; anyone else is under 'illusion of choice.'

As for your second paragraph I **AM** telling you it is the 'commonfolk' (what/who else is there?) who run the assemblies. Drafting representatives randomly from the populance of a community for a certain period would be one solution.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Hello, Im new here, i found this site yesterday, and I'm glad to see so many anarchist comrades.

They want Power to make their own lives better while oppressing others. People always try to benefit themselvse, and sometimes the worst people will harm others while doing so.

Yes I am describing totalitarianism - a dictator can easily take power in anarchy by convincing others to be his cronies. Through giving special privileges (money, power etc) to supporters he can convince a lot of local leaders to support him and oppress the others.

And I never said the common people have a choice once these events transpired; by then the dictatorship takes over in the anarchy and oppress all.

I'm afraid that such dictator will not be able to control anything, plus which power and money would he give to his cronies? What will he and his supporters do? Form a new state? Do you think the rest of the people (probably educated to be better people than what they are now) will let them form a new state? Where will that new state have its building and such things, if there wont be private property? That's stupid.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

antarctica hey... hmmm

You know what we should do, is we should block off some section of the earth that has a nice climate. Then, tell national governments to back the hell off and leave that section alone. Then anyone who wants anarchy can come here - without customs and visas and all that crap - and just live.

I know, fat chance of that ever happening, but wouldn't it be nice.

Hello, Im new here, i found this site yesterday, and I'm glad to see so many anarchist comrades.

Hey there,

Luckily no one has let slip our plans for sending people to 're-education camps' yet...

I think what'd be better for the anarchy movement in the long run is pick a country, infiltrate it, and demonstrate your program to the world. Communism and facism had their chance. You haven't yet.

oh, ok, i see the problem. anarchism does not propose a power vacuum. never has, never will. in fact, the structure of anarchism provides more checks and balances than any other system i know of. it has multiple political units that each have to work with the others. a sort of grand unified system of checks and balances. the basic levels are the neighborhood or communitiy assemblies and the workplace assemblies. it might be possible to become a tyrant with power over one or several of these assemblies. but this is where the federated structure and free association come in. a tyrant would have to hold power through force or threats. however it would be difficult to do this over numerous political bodies, especially when they didn't want to be coerced. and to take over any of the federation bodies he would have to already have taken over the locals. and the other locals would already be organizing against the tyrant. decentralized power means that there is no primary point of power that a tyrant could take over. they would have to subjugate every single person in every community and every workplace. as opposed to today where dictators mostly take advantage of the pre-existing power structures of a society.

and its not as though there wouldn't be anarchist militias and mutual defense networks to defend against crazy authoritarians if it came to blows.

You say that these small assemblies will gang up on any one assembly/person that tries to assume total control. However it is very likely that the charismatic dictator-to-be will convince the decentralized assemblies that joining him will benefit, since he can set up a new tyranny while giving special privileges to his supporters, and oppressing the common folk.

And don't tell me that it is the commonfolk who control the assemblies because no matter how hard you try to infuse civic duty there will always be enormous groups of people who don't care about politics or will blindly follow any tyrannical leader, so therefore these assemblies arent really representative.

your scenario for this tyrant's rise relies on very few people actively believing in the legitimacy of the libertarian socialist system. given that condition almost any system will fall. the only ones that might survive with little sense of legitimacy are well entrenched terror states. if almost all of the people in congress decided that a dictator would be ok then we would have a dictator. see also hitler and mussolini.

and it will be "the common folk" who control the assemblies. they are the assemblies. a workplace assembly would be the ultimate decision making body at any workplace, made up entirely of the people who work there. a community assembly is made up of the people who live there. of course, no one could force people to participate in the assemblies. but everyone would have the power to be a part of the direct running of their own lives and communities. i somehow suspect that this would affect people who say they don't vote now because their votes don't really matter and that they dislike all of the options. even if the assemblies did create a political elite of some sort, it couldn't be much of one. the institutions just can't support one very well.

if you want to argue that a tyrant could come to power, i don't think the assemblies are your best bet. assuming high levels of apathy, the assemblies will be filled by people who care the most about the running of the system and therefore would be less likely to support a radical change in favor of reinstating hierarchy and oppression. favors from an oppressor are not worth as much as freedom. and allowing yourself to be ruled pretty much means that you will be out of favor eventually and will be among the oppressed. it would be against every single person's self interest to allow anyone else to become a tyrant, even though it would be in your's to be one yourself. the collective self interest would outweigh the personal ambition.

What 'special priveleges' could they want? Power? To do what? In an authoritarian dictatorship like you're describing, there is room for only ONE dictator and his group of dedicated cronies; anyone else is under 'illusion of choice.'

They want Power to make their own lives better while oppressing others. People always try to benefit themselvse, and sometimes the worst people will harm others while doing so.

Yes I am describing totalitarianism - a dictator can easily take power in anarchy by convincing others to be his cronies. Through giving special privileges (money, power etc) to supporters he can convince a lot of local leaders to support him and oppress the others.

And I never said the common people have a choice once these events transpired; by then the dictatorship takes over in the anarchy and oppress all.

As for your second paragraph I **AM** telling you it is the 'commonfolk' (what/who else is there?)
A political elite who actually care about politics. Most common people dont care, so on a large scale you will never have a fully representative government.

Drafting representatives randomly from the populance of a community for a certain period would be one solution.
But these draftees might not care. You are forcing apathetic people to run a government, and theyll probably harm it more.

People may not care about large scale politics, but everyone cares about local politics, wether they realize it or not. local politics are about how you feed your children, wether your roads get repaired, who can use what land for what, who is teaching your children what. People do care about these things.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

More importantly, why does a site about nation-states attract so many anarchists? Personally, the nation-state is number three on my list of things to smash.

All in good fun, of course.

Edit - Whoops. Actually, the nation-state is number four of things to destroy. Pardon.

More importantly, why does a site about nation-states attract so many anarchists? Personally, the nation-state is number three on my list of things to smash.

All in good fun, of course.

Edit - Whoops. Actually, the nation-state is number four of things to destroy. Pardon.

capitalism, sexual oppression, and what else? ballpoint pens?

i would guess that there are so many anarchists because there are just a lot of us around in general these days. and i found out about this place from one of the anarchist news sources and i assume a few others did as well.

question for all the anarchists.

how long have you been an anarchist? what's your story?

bumpseseseses

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.
Didn't you already cover that statement of mine?
I don't know Anthru, I just wonder what your reply is! It's no good constantly saying "this isn't real anarchy, real anarchy is chaos/primitivism etc."

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.
Didn't you already cover that statement of mine?
I don't know Anthru, I just wonder what your reply is! It's no good constantly saying "this isn't real anarchy, real anarchy is chaos/primitivism etc."
Well, what was the question?

question for all the anarchists.

how long have you been an anarchist? what's your story?
Good question. Mine's a *fairly* interesting story. I was fairly politically blind in my childhood and early teens, I was more interested in personal interests, especially intellectual. I supported the (British) Labour Party because my parents did, and generally agreed with the left-wing's attitude of fairness and care for all rather than the privilege and harshness of the right-wing.

In my later teens and into my twenties I got a bit more interested in politics; I was still a socialist, and I became interested in anarchism as a rival. I felt I had to have an answer for it, and thought up some arguments against it. I even sort of joined the Labour Party in my own hometown, altho I never went thru with the application.

However, I often mixed with people who were more radical. I joined the Charter 88 organisation that was seeking constitutional reform in Britain. I met a guy there who became a friend. He was an anarchist, and was into lots of other radical/alternative causes and opinions as well. We discussed anarchism, and I borrowed a pamphlet, Nicolas Walter's "About Anarchism", from 1969.

I was reading that over breakfast one day, and I came to the paragraph about sex and drugs. It was like they say with religion sometimes, you just see the light. :D I realised that what I was reading was what I believed. This was August 1993, I was 24.

I guess I had been becoming anarchist gradually underneath, and had been waiting for some straw to break the camel's back. When I told my parents a short while later, my mum's reply was "But, you've always been an anarchist!" She felt I'd shown evidence of that temperament ever since childhood - rebellious, independent, resentful of authority, unwilling to obey, idealistic, egalitarian, humanistic, progressive. I had just not until then connected it to the most appropriate poltical ideology.

I've changed a lot since then, got into other things, and my anarchism has taken some more twists and turns. But that's another question. :wink:

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.
Didn't you already cover that statement of mine?
I don't know Anthru, I just wonder what your reply is! It's no good constantly saying "this isn't real anarchy, real anarchy is chaos/primitivism etc."
Well, what was the question?
There was no question, I was answering your comment: Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.

Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
OK, let's get this one nailed once and for all.

The words anarchy, anarchist, anarchism and for all I know anarchic were (AFAIK) coined in the early 19th century, by anarchists. They did not pre-date that time. It can be claimed that the principle of anarchism did pre-date that time (e.g. William Godwin and some faction in the French revolution), but not under that name.

Thus there was no established meaning of the word as "chaos, disorder, common conflict". People devised a new political philosophy, which involved the idea of having no rulers or dominators, which they intended to be a system of order, not of chaos. They called this "anarchy", by comparison with "monarchy, oligarchy", and various other words derived from Greek ending in "-cracy": "democracy, plutocracy, autocracy", etc. What it effectively meant was "a political system of arranging life and society without involving any rulers at all." Otherwise political arguments were about what kind of rulers to have, and how their rule should work. And, they called themselves as advocates of it anarchists, and their ideology anarchism.

Pierre-Josephe Proudhon, an early prominent anarchist, coined the slogan "Anarchy is order". It's sometimes expanded to "Anarchy is order, government is chaos". The idea is you can only really have a truly peacefully ordered society if everything is arranged by common consent. Imposition of will and force produces resentment and evasion, as well as rebellion sometimes.

However, most people who supported a state - statists - couldn't believe that peaceful order of society was possible without some kind of rule. They assumed that removal of all ruling power would lead to breakdown of all order. So they gradually spread the idea that "anarchy = chaos". As such they changed the meaning of the word, at least for themselves and anyone they influenced. They did this either deliberately - as anti-anarchist propaganda - or inadvertently, because it was simply what they believed.

Such non-/anti-anarchist forces are far more numerous and powerful than anarchists ever have been. In time the general population's primary sense of the word "anarchy" was "chaos, disorder", and not what the original anarchists intended. But those early anarchists have been succeeded by many others, in various branches of political thought and action, and they - we - continue to use the words in their original senses. We are often told we need to change our name - but why should we believe that a new one will not also be distorted by our opponents, and misunderstood by the general public?

The idea that "order is only possible with rule" is a belief, not an established fact. It's a belief that's quite reasonable for anyone who supports a statist politics, but it is only a belief. You are going to want to claim it, but please don't assume it, as if us anarchists are bound to agree with you.

In short, "anarchy" is the right name, and "true anarchy" is not "back to the Old Stone Age". "True anarchy" is a highly enlightened political state that looks forward, to a progressive and more evolved future.
Didn't you already cover that statement of mine?
I don't know Anthru, I just wonder what your reply is! It's no good constantly saying "this isn't real anarchy, real anarchy is chaos/primitivism etc."
Well, what was the question?
There was no question, I was answering your comment: Anarchy isn't really the right name, I guess. True anarchy is back to the Old Stone Age.
Oh. Well, whatever you want to call yourselves is fine, really. Regardless what I think anarchy means, I'll just have to get use to associating it with anarchists, such as yourselves.

Hmmm...sounds good. The only problem is that rhetoric is often different to actual motives *cough Bush.*

I also don't really agree with violence to make political points since you have democracy. Obviously you must with anarchism.

Also if you have no government....how are you going to have social welfare, international transport etc.

Also if you mean anarchists as in May day, the problem is they're not very organised. If you really want to break through the police lines etc you should fight like the armies facing shield walls (with non-lethal weapons) etc, and have proper regiments etc.

Dragging back an older post in the thread...

You don't need to believe in violence to be an anarchist. A lot of anarchists are 'revolutionist', others are 'reformist', I suppose I am reformist in a way but I don't agree with the methods of a lot of reformists either. If a revolution happens, I will do whatever seems appropriate in accordance with my own principles.

May Day... I presume you're thinking of occasional violence that breaks out on May Day during socialist/workers demonstrations. That's just one day a year! Are you imagining anarchists only exist on that day?

How are we going to organise welfare, transport etc... these have been answered many times in the thread - we will have non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian organisation. We don't need authority or government, and they are not generally needed to organise anything.

i am a born anarchist
technically we are all born anarchists
then TECHNICALLY what went wrong afterwards? or right ? or whatever?
I think what Sovietsky Soyuz was saying was that we are born without any power relations with others, or any chosen political ideology. For instance in our infantile state we are not employers, MPs, managers, gang leaders, etc. Similarly, we are not capitalists, fascists, socialists, liberals, ecologists etc.

However, we aren't anarchists either actually - we have not chosen to become an anarchist, understanding what that means and believing in its principles on reflection. And we are not devoid of power relations at all, since we are basically helpless and need to be helped by adults.

I have heard a similar claim - that we are all born atheists, and only later may become religious. Sometimes it's changed to agnostic. I'd deny both of these, since a baby simply cannot understand the concepts of God and so is not in a position to believe, disbelieve, or abstain. In the same way I don't think it's true that we are born anarchists. While it may seem gratifying to some anarchists that their politics is somehow 'natural' and original to an individual, I think it's an illusion. The truth is, any political belief has to arise out of appreciating the way the world is and reflecting within on what one's own principles and desires are. This just isn't the case with a baby, who has no politics at all.

Extending from this point, it is interesting to ask how children would/should be brought up in an anarchy...

Communism is certainly a form of collectivism and it does not have to involve any lack of individual freedom. ... Communism is based on a belief that much of what capitalists think of as "human nature" can be shaped by society, so put simply in a collectivist society there is nothing forcing people not to be self centered, greedy or whatever, there is no restriction on freedom, these things simply do not happen because they are a result of capitalist society. In a collectivist society the individuals best interests are served in working collectivly for the common good.

Just wanted to reply to this because something occurred to me as I reread it... "Communism is based on a belief that much of what capitalists think of as "human nature" can be shaped by society" - does this mean that such communists believe the society that want would be shaping human nature? It's an interesting question. If so, for at least some people, including myself, that would be something they would want to avoid.

Obviously there are all sorts of things that shape people's nature, such as individual experience of life. But it seems to me that I have some kind of core 'individuality', that is not affected by outside forces, whether they are benefic or malefic. My awareness of this core has varied, and I'm sure it's the same for others. The point is, I want my personal approach to life to basically come from me, not to be determined by the nature of society. Of course I have to take other people and the general way things are into account - but I don't want my 'nature' to be essentially shaped by any society, not just a capitalist one.

I think this is where I differ from some other people's sense of 'communism'.

Ignoring individualist anarchy since it is a bunch of ape...
at least the actual individualists did recognize that for their system to have any hope at all it would have to be socialist in some sense. unlike the anarcho-capitalists, who either just don't get it or actively desire a nightmare. of course, the individualist anarchists also had this habit of becoming "libertarian bolsheviks" or straight-up goons who shot workers while robbing banks.
Tell us more about this, Free Soviets, I don't know much about the history of individualist anarchism.

so i found another site that should probably be tossed on the first post.

Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills, and Ideas (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/)

it looks like a fairly good run down on some basic info.

a sample:

Federations and Networks

What is a Federation?

Federations are essentially unions of autonomous organizations and/or affinity groups. An anarchist federation can be viewed as the regional, or national, or international decision making body of the union (depending on the federation's self-imposed geographical limitations) and the collectives or affinity groups that belong to the federation can be viewed as autonomous union locals. Federations are formal organizations with constitutions, bylaws, and specific membership guidelines. There are three general types of federations that have been formed in recent memory, I will refer to them as "Specialist", "General Revolutionary", and "Synthesist" Federations. This terminology is in no way standard, but it is useful for purposes of description.

"Specialist Federations": Federations, like affinity groups and collectives, can exist to serve a specific role or achieve a specific goal. An example of a "specialist" federation is the Anarchist Black Cross Federation (ABCF http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/), which exists to do support work for political prisoners.

"General Revolutionary Federations": Federations can also be very broad in scope and focus on organizing around a particular political viewpoint, as well as doing organizing work and activism that embodies and advances that political view. An example of a "general revolutionary" federation is the North Eastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists (NEFAC http://www.nefac.net), which is a federation with a broad scope that does a variety of organizing and activism consistent with the principles of Anarchist-Communism.

"Synthesist Federations": An Anarchist federation that is "synthesist" is one that attempts to be inclusive of all Anarchist tendencies and bring Anarchists of all the varying tendencies into a single organization – a "synthesist federation" can be considered a subcategory of "general revolutionary" federations. The closest example of a contemporary "synthesist" federation is the defunct Love and Rage Federation.

Federation Structure

How a federation is organized and how it makes decisions is entirely up to the members of the federation. But, in terms of decision making, it can be safely said that all currently viable Anarchist federations use recallable delegates that are sent by their collectives and/or affinity groups to federation assemblies to make decisions that pertain to the federation as a whole. In terms of the what the specific internal structure of a federation is or whether consensus or direct democracy is used by the federation to make decisions, there are no hard and fast rules other than the structure and decision making method used by the federation must be consistent with the fundamental principles of Anarchism.

What is a Network?

A useful way to define anarchist networks is to compare it to an anarchist federation. Networks are far less formal than a federation (although, some networks are formal enough in structure to blur the line between network and federation), and they usually only require an agreement to a set of principles or the sharing of a general political viewpoint as a qualification for membership. Also, unlike federations which emphasize collective action and organization, networks emphasize autonomy over formal organization. This does not mean to imply that anarchist networks are not organized or that they are against organization. It simply means that their organizational focus is on allowing individual member groups to engage in actions that fit within the context of the network and utilize the network itself primarily for solidarity and support of the individual member groups as needed.

Generally speaking, there are two main types of networks: formal networks and informal networks.

Formal Networks: What typically makes a network formal is that it has a "global" decision making structure – meaning that, like a federation, there is an overarching body of delegates that make decisions pertaining to the network as a whole – in most other aspects formal networks are mostly the same as informal networks. A good example of a formal network was, the now largely defunct, Direct Action Network (DAN).

Informal Networks:

In the last 20 years, the informal network structure has been, hands down, the most effective method of anarchist organization -- as the wide variety of highly successful informal network organizations prove. The use of informal networks in the Anarchist movement has been so widespread and successful that, in sheer numbers of groups and members, this form of organization currently makes up the bulk of Anarchists organizations around the world. Examples of informal Anarchist networks are: Food Not Bombs, Earth First!, Reclaim The Streets, Anti-Racist Action, Homes Not Jails, etc.

Hello. I SI and I'm... I'm *starts crying* anarchist! :cry: :cry:

Group Leader:There, There, This is why you in Anarchists Annonymis. We're here for you

Som what are we talking about?

at least the actual individualists did recognize that for their system to have any hope at all it would have to be socialist in some sense. unlike the anarcho-capitalists, who either just don't get it or actively desire a nightmare. of course, the individualist anarchists also had this habit of becoming "libertarian bolsheviks" or straight-up goons who shot workers while robbing banks.
Tell us more about this, Free Soviets, I don't know much about the history of individualist anarchism.

well, there were some individualists who took up illegalism. ran around attacking the state and capitalism through crime. a few of them wound up shooting workers at the banks they robbed and then tried to justify it. its bad enough we had propagandists of the deed claiming that there are no innocents among the bourgeoisie. but regular workers as some sort of collateral damage?!

the "libertarian bolshevik" i mentioned was victor serge, who left anarchism and wound up supporting the dictatorship of the party in russia. he even decided to stick with the bolshies after they crushed the kronstadt rebellion - though apparently he felt bad about it.

question for all the anarchists.

how long have you been an anarchist? what's your story?

that's a good question.

once upon a time there was a boy named matt who didn't think too much about politics, though he didn't so much like authority. when he was 11 he thought ross perot should win the presidency of the us solely because he wasn't a democrat or a republican. matt got a little older and started reading more and keeping up with world events. and he realized there was something fundamentally wrong with the way things were going. at some point around 1994-1995 matt ran across the band rage against the machine. aside from liking the music, he really got into the radical political lyrics. he started looking into some of the ideas and events the ratm had brought to his attention. he read chomsky. and just to be cool he went out and got a copy of "guerrilla warfare" to read/display during study hall.

matt decided that he was some sort of a socialist - though not being a fan of authority, he didn't declare himself a communist. he fit himself in as a sort of general radical leftist. but he kept arguing with people who claimed that socialism=communism=stalinism. he decided that he needed to figure out a good counter-example. he found anarchism. the more he read of it, the more it appealed to him and the more sense it made. by 1997/8ish he was self-identifying as an anarchist.

it is worth noting that a lot of these arguments happened on a usenet newgroup, alt.music.rage-machine. it was quite the group back in the day. eventually became a sort of anarchist stronghold with epic battles between the anarchists and the libertarians. and also epic battles between the newsgroup dictatorship and the occasional rebel.

damn, 7 years as an anarchist. that's like 31% of my life.

I think what'd be better for the anarchy movement in the long run is pick a country, infiltrate it, and demonstrate your program to the world. Communism and facism had their chance. You haven't yet.
Both facism & the types of communism that have had a chance , have had hierarchies - giving power & control to those in government and along with it a greater % of wealth. Killing any chance for equallity for all.
Capitalism is another system whereby the priveliged few control most of the wealth, resouces & power , i have a theory that capitalism will eventually eat itself as those at the top become too greedy & the finite resources become too few. The only social structure with any real hope of sustaining all people on the planet as equals withequal freedoms & equal shares of provisions is an anarchist one. When it is realized by third world counries that thier only hope for a world free from hunger is total world revolution to stop the exploitation by the first world nations , how will we stop the sheer numbers of people in these third world nations from siezing the resouces and saying no you cant have them?

so i found another site that should probably be tossed on the first post.

Anarchism in Action: Methods, Tactics, Skills, and Ideas (http://www.radio4all.org/aia/)

it looks like a fairly good run down on some basic info.

OK thanks for that FS, I've added it to the infom list along with some other bits. Regarding this Anarchism in Action piece, you can download it in various formats - I recommend it.

OK - here's another idea for the info list: Can people please suggest their favourite books on anarchism? I'll start a new section for that.

at least the actual individualists did recognize that for their system to have any hope at all it would have to be socialist in some sense. unlike the anarcho-capitalists, who either just don't get it or actively desire a nightmare. of course, the individualist anarchists also had this habit of becoming "libertarian bolsheviks" or straight-up goons who shot workers while robbing banks.
Tell us more about this, Free Soviets, I don't know much about the history of individualist anarchism.
well, there were some individualists who took up illegalism. ran around attacking the state and capitalism through crime. a few of them wound up shooting workers at the banks they robbed and then tried to justify it. its bad enough we had propagandists of the deed claiming that there are no innocents among the bourgeoisie. but regular workers as some sort of collateral damage?!
OK - is there any connection to people like John Dillinger? He is always mentioned by Robert Anton Wilson as if he has something to do with popular/libertarian movements. I believe that in the Depression era there was an awful lot of 'popular' crime in the Mid-West.

Hello. I SI and I'm... I'm *starts crying* anarchist! :cry: :cry:

Group Leader:There, There, This is why you in Anarchists Annonymis. We're here for you

Som what are we talking about?
Heheh, you'll have to get used to there being no "group leader" if you want to be an anarchist, SI! We are the one group of people who feel embarrassed if we are seen as taking a leadership position! :wink:

We're talking about a lot of things ATM - continuing various strands from the last few weeks, including:

* what is the relation between anarchism and socialism and communism
* how do you deal with crime/criminals in an anarchy
* how do you avoid somebody setting up a new state if you have an anarchy
* is a society with no government but capitalism still an anarchist one
* does anarcho-communism involve any amount of individual distinctness
* what is the true/original meanings of the words "anarchy, anarchism, anarchist" - as compared to "chaos, disorder etc."

and there are some we haven't discussed much yet, which I'd like to:

* the differences between 'class struggle' anarchism and its alternatives
* how soon will we have an anarchy, and how hard should we struggle to get it?
* revolutionism vs. reformism/evolutionism
* anarchism and religion/spirituality/atheism
* how to bring up children in an anarchy - parental authority?
* would a working anarchy require a reduction in population? Anarchism and cities/country
* global anarchy or anarchy-in-one-country a la Stalin ( :wink: )

Feel free to get going on any of them...

question for all the anarchists.

how long have you been an anarchist? what's your story?
that's a good question.

once upon a time there was a boy named matt who didn't think too much about politics, though he didn't so much like authority. when he was 11 he thought ross perot should win the presidency of the us solely because he wasn't a democrat or a republican. matt got a little older and started reading more and keeping up with world events. and he realized there was something fundamentally wrong with the way things were going. at some point around 1994-1995 matt ran across the band rage against the machine. aside from liking the music, he really got into the radical political lyrics. he started looking into some of the ideas and events the ratm had brought to his attention. he read chomsky. and just to be cool he went out and got a copy of "guerrilla warfare" to read/display during study hall.

matt decided that he was some sort of a socialist - though not being a fan of authority, he didn't declare himself a communist. he fit himself in as a sort of general radical leftist. but he kept arguing with people who claimed that socialism=communism=stalinism. he decided that he needed to figure out a good counter-example. he found anarchism. the more he read of it, the more it appealed to him and the more sense it made. by 1997/8ish he was self-identifying as an anarchist.

it is worth noting that a lot of these arguments happened on a usenet newgroup, alt.music.rage-machine. it was quite the group back in the day. eventually became a sort of anarchist stronghold with epic battles between the anarchists and the libertarians. and also epic battles between the newsgroup dictatorship and the occasional rebel.

damn, 7 years as an anarchist. that's like 31% of my life.
I just rereading all this that it was 10 years since I became an anarchist a couple of months ago. It would actually have been when I came on NationStates, tho I'd forgotten about it at the time.

RE Ross Perot - it's funny how earlier in your life you can be into something and that later on you can't imagine why. :)

*blows fine layer of dust off of thread*

...global anarchy or anarchy-in-one-country a la Stalin ( :wink: )

an interesting problem for any internationalist ideology. it seem ridiculously unlikely to wait for a completely global revolution (though its fairly easy to imagine one spreading quickly in the right conditions). but an anarchist revolution in one country seems like it would have a huge pile of enemies just outside ready to crush it at the first chance. which means that an anarchist federation in such a situation would probably be forced to be fairly militarized and armed to the fecking teeth. doesn't sound to me to be ideal conditions for freedom to flourish. i guess we'd need to win one area at a time but keep the revolution spreading and keep the forces of reaction on the defensive and off balance. and, of course, we need to get the armed forces of the state to defy their masters and not shoot their friends and families.

*blows fine layer of dust off of thread*
Yep - every now and then I wonder if we should give up a single anarchist thread, and just do lots of threads on anarchist issues, or whether there's any point talking about anarchism on NS at all. But since I'm listening to "F*ck Authority" by Pennywise right now I feel like carrying on!

...global anarchy or anarchy-in-one-country a la Stalin ( :wink: )
an interesting problem for any internationalist ideology. it seem ridiculously unlikely to wait for a completely global revolution (though its fairly easy to imagine one spreading quickly in the right conditions). but an anarchist revolution in one country seems like it would have a huge pile of enemies just outside ready to crush it at the first chance. which means that an anarchist federation in such a situation would probably be forced to be fairly militarized and armed to the fecking teeth. doesn't sound to me to be ideal conditions for freedom to flourish. i guess we'd need to win one area at a time but keep the revolution spreading and keep the forces of reaction on the defensive and off balance. and, of course, we need to get the armed forces of the state to defy their masters and not shoot their friends and families.
Ultimately I definitely believe in a global movement; I think expecting a single country to survive as an anarchy with all the sharks out there is unrealistic. But at the same time I think some parts of the world will head towards anarchy before others. We also have to think about the "clash of civilisations" issue, that there will be more squaring up of multi-country blocs over the next few decades, and also that many parts of the world will see anarchism as a foreign, Western ideology that they can reject with other doctrines.

Actually I think a large part of how it will happen is that populations gradually collectively see thru politicians and other forms of authority. The authority of established religion is already coming under heavy blows.

Okay, lemme get this straight...

Since some harebrained morons came up with the notion that they wanted someone to order them around, steal from them (via extortion, commonly AND incorrectly referred to as taxation) and make arbitrary scribblings on pieces of paper (laws), that means the slimeball politicians (mobsters) have the right to rule ME, even if I haven't consented to the idiotic scheme? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't see how one person (or millions, for that matter) "consenting" to be ruled is tantamount to there being a "right to rule" those that don't consent. In fact, the entire idea of "consent of the governed" is patently absurd. The thugs don't need anyone's consent when they've got guns and the ability to escalate to deadly force when compliance is not gained. Paying up to the United States Mafia for fear of having their posessions "reposessed" (i.e. stolen) and being locked in a cage doesn't exactly sound like "consent" to me

Sounds more like coercion and violence.
I agree with your opposition to the state/government, Anarchist Humans, and with your analysis that there is no genuine "right to rule" or "consent". However I disagree with your inference and way of talking about the situation, and I think it makes a difference to how you see it and hence how you deal with it.

Firstly, it is not the case that some harebrained morons came up with the notion that they wanted someone to order them around. If you think about it, that's obviously not how things work. Instead the notion and reality of authority grew up gradually, and who knows how it first started. I think it involves a population first being cowed, then having to accept authoritarian power as a practical reality, eventually coming to believe it's inevitable, and finally coming to believe it's beneficial. It's in the interest of authority that they go thru that process, but it also requires potential and actual compliance on the part of millions of ordinary people.

Secondly, it's no good referring to taxation as theft. It's good rhetoric, sometimes effective in making people think, but it's not true in a simple way. A good argument against it would be one that didn't accept property as natural in the first place, especially monetary (abstract) property. Thus, property in the relevant sense is only legal... and since taxation is legal in a similar way, it's not theft ("theft" would similarly become a legal, and hence conventional, term). Money is a fictional entity anyway, so in what way can it be stolen?

With regard to laws, I agree that nothing is genuinely binding from being written on a piece of paper. (You are not forced to do anything, it is always a matter of free choice.) But the power here is psychological. It's interesting living in a country (Britain) that has no written constitution, because it's technically possible for a government to bend the constitution to its own ends. There is no particular form of words the opposition can hold them to. That is the point of law: to define the rules precisely, rather than expect people to obey without knowing what they are supposed to be doing.

As regards politicians, they may often be corrupt, grasping, power-hungry, two-faced etc., yet again the psychology is different from mobsters. Part of what's involved with mobsters is a sense of secretive illicitness, almost an alternativeness. Whereas politicians constantly radiate a sense of normality, acceptedness. Again, this psychology is crucial to their acceptability to the people, and that's an important aspect of how the state functions and survives.

Finally, as regards consent, it's something I like to say that I have never consented to any of the political structure I live under, so why should I obey? And all the millions of conscious and default statists have never explicitly consented either. Yet they still support the state, especially when you propose anarchy as an alternative. So they don't feel they need to consent explicitly to want the state to remain! They have not been a party to its being set up, it was there when they were born and they have never known anything else, but it is convenient to them because they believe it benefits them (keeps them from chaos).

Anyone read the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanely Robinson?

('Red Mars' 'Green Mars' and 'Blue Mars')

I ask the question because one of the reasons I support anarchism is because I believe in the ineffiency of large national governments; local control is more exact and much less likely to be corrupted.
Borrowed the first one - Red Mars - from the library today... along with Jennifer Government...

or Hobbes' state of nature: Russia today, ... (compare above).
Would you really characterise everyday life in Russia as "a war of all against all"? (Honest question)
More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
Just as an aside: it occurred to me we could reverse Sephardish's logic and make the situation described in Russia an argument *for* anarchism, not against it. Because in that situation the state is failing to help and support the populace against the mafias. His/her response is to want the state back, strongly, and to associate the present unhappiness with political "anarchy", which is of course a completely different thing. But I think the Russian example is a major piece of evidence that a state is no guarantee of protection against gangsterish oppression, and in fact it seems it helps the mafias considerably.

Statists are constantly arguing that an anarchy would be chaos and misery, because authority is needed to create order - order is not possible without authority and rule. Anarchists reply that order (and justice) is a totally different thing from authority, and I personally like to argue that all the potential problems that statists think will occur in an anarchy can already exist in a state society. This Russian situation is an example. If the Russian state expects their obedience but cannot protect them on its own territory, why should Russians comply?

More or less. Let's put it like this: it's mainly a war against extorting 'state' officials and other violence managing agencies (e.g. the so-called Mafia).
It's getting better, but it must have been a horror in the mid 1990s and I personally can tell you that it sometimes still can be like that in the provinces.

If you are interested in this topic, have a look at Volkov, V. Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
Just as an aside: it occurred to me we could reverse Sephardish's logic and make the situation described in Russia an argument *for* anarchism, not against it. Because in that situation the state is failing to help and support the populace against the mafias. His/her response is to want the state back, strongly, and to associate the present unhappiness with political "anarchy", which is of course a completely different thing. But I think the Russian example is a major piece of evidence that a state is no guarantee of protection against gangsterish oppression, and in fact it seems it helps the mafias considerably.

Statists are constantly arguing that an anarchy would be chaos and misery, because authority is needed to create order - order is not possible without authority and rule. Anarchists reply that order (and justice) is a totally different thing from authority, and I personally like to argue that all the potential problems that statists think will occur in an anarchy can already exist in a state society. This Russian situation is an example. If the Russian state expects their obedience but cannot protect them on its own territory, why should Russians comply?

i'm pretty sure most arguments against anarchism stem from either misunderstandings or projection.

though i guess there must be a few people out there who really believe that they need to be ordered around all the time and that elites should make all of their decisions for them and hold a hugely disproportionate share of society's wealth and power. seems odd, but it must be true.