NationStates Jolt Archive

The principles may be appealing, but the process seems so impractical.

I remember watching an interview with the anarchist pop group Chumbawumba. It was a fiasco.
The announcer said: "Okay, who do I talk to? Does your group have a spokesperson?"
The lead singer said "We decided that would be me."
"Oh yeah?" said someone else. "Since when? It's not like we took a vote. Everybody should get to talk."
"Yeah", said another, "You were spokesman last time."
"Okay then somebody else go ahead", says the first one.
Silence. Nobody says a thing.
Finally the reporter says: "Well, since time is short, I'll just start asking questions and whover wants to answer can answer. Um, how did you decide to do this kind of music?"
People look at each other but are silent.
"All right, how long have you been together?"
First guy: "About four years."
Second guy: "What makes you think you can speak for us? I don't think it's been that long anyway."
First guy: "So tell him what you think then."
Second: "No. This whole thing is way too manipulative."
Third: "You're just an a**."

(It went downhill from there.)

The principles may be appealing, but the process seems so impractical.

I remember watching an interview with the anarchist pop group Chumbawumba. It was a fiasco.
The announcer said: "Okay, who do I talk to? Does your group have a spokesperson?"
The lead singer said "We decided that would be me."
"Oh yeah?" said someone else. "Since when? It's not like we took a vote. Everybody should get to talk."
"Yeah", said another, "You were spokesman last time."
"Okay then somebody else go ahead", says the first one.
Silence. Nobody says a thing.
Finally the reporter says: "Well, since time is short, I'll just start asking questions and whover wants to answer can answer. Um, how did you decide to do this kind of music?"
People look at each other but are silent.
"All right, how long have you been together?"
First guy: "About four years."
Second guy: "What makes you think you can speak for us? I don't think it's been that long anyway."
First guy: "So tell him what you think then."
Second: "No. This whole thing is way too manipulative."
Third: "You're just an a**."

(It went downhill from there.)
That sounds really funny! I'd love to see a copy of that. I wonder if they were doing it deliberately.

You're right on a level that some anarchists - or other radical people - can get really lary of asserting themselves. They've internalised the thing about not dominating and presuming on others, but they haven't worked out how to do anything a different way. It's not always easy to know, because as a political theory it's breaking new ground in human behaviour.

IMO, each person needs to shout up and stand up for themselves as an individual. The individual, not the mass, is the baseline for anarchist organisation for me. The next level is then the interaction and interrelation of all those individuals, as equals. So self-assertion then needs to be tempered with concern and respect for others, and an ability to relate your own desire with theirs constructively. It doesn't have to be either domination or shrinking back. You assert yourself as an individual within a cared-for group, rather than imposing on them or hanging back in embarrassment.

In short, those band members needn't have acted like that. It also sounds like they were having interpersonal problems anyway.

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.
I've sort of covered this in my reply to Anarchist Humans. It is not that people really want to be ordered about, or believe they need it, it's that they believe it is generally needed for there to be order, organisation and social benefit (e.g. no gangsters running riot). It comes down to their cynical and pessimistic view of human nature. Part of the feeling is that it is a necessary evil, not a necessary good. Compare the amount of detractors of anarchism who say "it would be great in theory, but...". What that means implicitly is that they don't have a theoretical objection - they wouldn't mind living in an anarchy if they could. They are already half an anarchist! Their objection is practical. So their support for the state and capitalism is a kind of practical resignation, rather than genuine desire for it. The only people who *really* want a state are fascists, because they idolise power.

Of course the "human nature" that is so awful is always other people's nature - they, the person considering anarchy, could only be the *victim* of anything they imagine the law is necessary to punish or prevent.

The principles may be appealing, but the process seems so impractical.

I remember watching an interview with the anarchist pop group Chumbawumba. It was a fiasco...

i admit that there has been some amount of fetishizing of a complete lack of structure and of "spontaneous order" that will arise with no work what so ever. this is stupid. of course we need some amount of structure and we need to have procedures for deciding things. we just also have to make sure that no elite can monopolize those structures and we have to safeguard against it. anarchist theory already covered a lot of this ground a long time ago, its just hard to get that message through to people. there is nothing unanarchistic about having a delegated position (possibly a rotating one) of primary spokesperson. you should probably have that figured out before you go talk to the press or another group. but anyone else present has the right to speak up and clarify a position or whatever - preferably without yelling at each other and interrupting.

we need structures and order created freely. not no structures at all.

The principles may be appealing, but the process seems so impractical.

I remember watching an interview with the anarchist pop group Chumbawumba. It was a fiasco.
The announcer said: "Okay, who do I talk to? Does your group have a spokesperson?"
The lead singer said "We decided that would be me."
"Oh yeah?" said someone else. "Since when? It's not like we took a vote. Everybody should get to talk."
"Yeah", said another, "You were spokesman last time."
"Okay then somebody else go ahead", says the first one.
Silence. Nobody says a thing.
Finally the reporter says: "Well, since time is short, I'll just start asking questions and whover wants to answer can answer. Um, how did you decide to do this kind of music?"
People look at each other but are silent.
"All right, how long have you been together?"
First guy: "About four years."
Second guy: "What makes you think you can speak for us? I don't think it's been that long anyway."
First guy: "So tell him what you think then."
Second: "No. This whole thing is way too manipulative."
Third: "You're just an a**."

(It went downhill from there.)
That sounds really funny! I'd love to see a copy of that. I wonder if they were doing it deliberately.

You're right on a level that some anarchists - or other radical people - can get really lary of asserting themselves. They've internalised the thing about not dominating and presuming on others, but they haven't worked out how to do anything a different way. It's not always easy to know, because as a political theory it's breaking new ground in human behaviour.

IMO, each person needs to shout up and stand up for themselves as an individual. The individual, not the mass, is the baseline for anarchist organisation for me. The next level is then the interaction and interrelation of all those individuals, as equals. So self-assertion then needs to be tempered with concern and respect for others, and an ability to relate your own desire with theirs constructively. It doesn't have to be either domination or shrinking back. You assert yourself as an individual within a cared-for group, rather than imposing on them or hanging back in embarrassment.

In short, those band members needn't have acted like that. It also sounds like they were having interpersonal problems anyway.

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?
What, not "he drinks a whisky drink... he drinks a vodka drink..." etc.? A lot of people have problems with that! :D As for 'normal bands' - well, a lot of bands with some political awareness and degree of democracy might think in terms of getting clear who's going to speak for the band; others that are more dictatorships will simply have the dominant member speaking by default. Consider what happened with Pink Floyd.

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?
What, not "he drinks a whisky drink... he drinks a vodka drink..." etc.? A lot of people have problems with that! :D

No, their dalliances with Sinn Fein in the 80s.

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?
What, not "he drinks a whisky drink... he drinks a vodka drink..." etc.? A lot of people have problems with that! :D

No, their dalliances with Sinn Fein in the 80s.

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?
What, not "he drinks a whisky drink... he drinks a vodka drink..." etc.? A lot of people have problems with that! :D

No, their dalliances with Sinn Fein in the 80s.

what did they do exactly? nominal support, fund-raising, arms smuggling? i don't actually know much about chumbawumba other than their hit song. and that they chanted "free mumia" on letterman as part of their musical guest spot.

bump again.

but this time its controversial.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/ShootOfficers3.gif

bump again.

but this time its controversial.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/ShootOfficers3.gif
That's morbid.

I have fundamental problems with the band Chumbawamba, which I needn't air here, but I would suspect they were doing it deliberately. How many 'normal' bands would be asked if they had a spokesperson?
What, not "he drinks a whisky drink... he drinks a vodka drink..." etc.? A lot of people have problems with that! :D
No, their dalliances with Sinn Fein in the 80s.
Oh, I don't know about that.

bump again.

but this time its controversial.

"we support our troops when they shoot their officers"
That's morbid.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.

bump again.

but this time its controversial.

"we support our troops when they shoot their officers"
That's morbid.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.
So these people are suggesting a revolution? Most people wouldn't want one in the first place.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.
So these people are suggesting a revolution? Most people wouldn't want one in the first place.

of course they are. and if a revolution did take off, i suspect large numbers of people would find themselves becoming the revolutionaries. revolutions have a logic of their own. the real trick is kicking the whole thing off.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.
So these people are suggesting a revolution? Most people wouldn't want one in the first place.

of course they are. and if a revolution did take off, i suspect large numbers of people would find themselves becoming the revolutionaries. revolutions have a logic of their own. the real trick is kicking the whole thing off.
So you accuse me of being uncynical, and then I say no one wants a revolution, so you attack it. You must be dying for a worldwide anarchist revolution.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.
So these people are suggesting a revolution? Most people wouldn't want one in the first place.

of course they are. and if a revolution did take off, i suspect large numbers of people would find themselves becoming the revolutionaries. revolutions have a logic of their own. the real trick is kicking the whole thing off.
So you accuse me of being uncynical, and then I say no one wants a revolution, so you attack it. You must be dying for a worldwide anarchist revolution.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

You can have an anarchist revolution. True, Anarchy can be reached by a breakdown of order, but that leads to chaos (in my opinion, capitalist-anarchism as opposed to socialist-anarchism). An anarchist revolution would be a socialist-anarchism, though it can be a capitalist one also (though, it seems more logical to have an anarcho-socialist revolution rather than an anarcho-capitalist). It would simply be the people rising up and overthrowing any form of authority, that would be a revolution, and an anarchist one.

morbid it may be. but there is theory behind it. when troops turn on their officers you have revolution. see russia in 1917, germany in 1918, and spain in 1936.
So these people are suggesting a revolution? Most people wouldn't want one in the first place.

of course they are. and if a revolution did take off, i suspect large numbers of people would find themselves becoming the revolutionaries. revolutions have a logic of their own. the real trick is kicking the whole thing off.
So you accuse me of being uncynical, and then I say no one wants a revolution, so you attack it. You must be dying for a worldwide anarchist revolution.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.
However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

You can have an anarchist revolution. True, Anarchy can be reached by a breakdown of order, but that leads to chaos (in my opinion, capitalist-anarchism as opposed to socialist-anarchism). An anarchist revolution would be a socialist-anarchism, though it can be a capitalist one also (though, it seems more logical to have an anarcho-socialist revolution rather than an anarcho-capitalist). It would simply be the people rising up and overthrowing any form of authority, that would be a revolution, and an anarchist one.

And what would you do with those people who were members of the government?

However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

The government can overthrow itself.

However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

The government can overthrow itself.
For political opposition hoping for a revolution (like communists), this is wishful thinking.

However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

The government can overthrow itself.
For political opposition hoping for a revolution (like communists), this is wishful thinking.

I don't think so. It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it. Of course, most people today wouldn't go along with it because our greed based Capitalist society is self-perpetuating. To be sucessful within society you have to conform to it. Eventually, however, perhaps through socialist reforms, this could be changed.

However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

The government can overthrow itself.

Yes, but the people also can. You are both right, Anarchy (as in loss of control) can be achieved through the people revolting or a government simply collapsing. Though, true Anarchy (my personal opinion, anarcho-socialism is true anarchism) can really only be achieved through a social revolution.

However, you'd need something to overthrow the government.

The government can overthrow itself.
For political opposition hoping for a revolution (like communists), this is wishful thinking.

I don't think so. It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it. Of course, most people today wouldn't go along with it because our greed based Capitalist society is self-perpetuating. To be sucessful within society you have to conform to it. Eventually, however, perhaps through socialist reforms, this could be changed.
Perhaps. But you need to change all of society, most of which won't be receptive. Good luck.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

no it isn't. go back to the start of this thread and check out some of the sources listed in the first post. anarchism is a specific social and political theory. it is not a run down society.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

You can have an anarchist revolution. True, Anarchy can be reached by a breakdown of order, but that leads to chaos (in my opinion, capitalist-anarchism as opposed to socialist-anarchism). An anarchist revolution would be a socialist-anarchism, though it can be a capitalist one also (though, it seems more logical to have an anarcho-socialist revolution rather than an anarcho-capitalist). It would simply be the people rising up and overthrowing any form of authority, that would be a revolution, and an anarchist one.

And what would you do with those people who were members of the government?

I do not know. They could back down to other jobs, or be killed. It all depends on what the revolution produces, what the people do.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

no it isn't. go back to the start of this thread and check out some of the sources listed in the first post. anarchism is a specific social and political theory. it is not a run down society.

Anarchy can be considered the run down of society, but Anarchism is not. It is tricky, I would recommend looking up Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn if you want to know about Anarchists.

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.

no it isn't. go back to the start of this thread and check out some of the sources listed in the first post. anarchism is a specific social and political theory. it is not a run down society.

Anarchy is a run down of society. It is an end to the structured, imposed patterns of modern social thought. "Anarchism" as a political theory, is really just another permutation of the same power/lack of power structure that government is built on. There's no improvement there.

Soviet Democracy, killing them is really not a good option. Killing them is imposing your force upon them, telling them what they can and cannot do. Really it's a little more extreme than that, it's telling them that they cannot do anything.

It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it.

that won't ever work. the rich and privileged and powerful will never voluntarily give up their power and privilege. what's in it for them? if power and privilege are things to be opposed then there is nothing contradictory in forcefully taking them away from people. its like slavery - if you oppose slavery then it is morally acceptable to take free somebody elses' slaves by force even though they are "rightfully" that person's property.

It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it.

that won't ever work. the rich and privileged and powerful will never voluntarily give up their power and privilege. what's in it for them? if power and privilege are things to be opposed then there is nothing contradictory in forcefully taking them away from people. its like slavery - if you oppose slavery then it is morally acceptable to take free somebody elses' slaves by force even though they are "rightfully" that person's property.

You may be right, it may never happen. There is certainly something contradictory in using your own power and privilege to take away the power of others. That's exactly what the rich and powerful do, and why we are upset at them. You're still thinking within the system. "Morals" are entirely subjective and individual. If you impose your morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that, then you are violating their rights and disrupting the most fundamental principles of anarchist society. Your whole statement is based around your own ideas of right and wrong.

Soviet Democracy, killing them is really not a good option. Killing them is imposing your force upon them, telling them what they can and cannot do. Really it's a little more extreme than that, it's telling them that they cannot do anything.

you are talking about the former ruling class and bosses, yes? here are their options:

they can stick with the people but not be rulers anymore. there's always room for more revolutionaries.

they can run away to somewhere where they can continue being bosses and masters.

or they can resist. resisting means attempting to regain control - to be rulers and bosses again. it is not "imposing your force upon them" to tell would-be rulers to go fuck themselves and to shoot them if they try anything. let's say that you and a whole bunch of other people have just overthrown stalin. are you really going to just sit there and let him reconsolidate his rule? no, you shoot the bastard. no one has the "freedom" to rule others. stopping someone from doing so is the proper course of action, the morally correct thing to do.

Soviet Democracy, killing them is really not a good option. Killing them is imposing your force upon them, telling them what they can and cannot do. Really it's a little more extreme than that, it's telling them that they cannot do anything.

you are talking about the former ruling class and bosses, yes? here are their options:

they can stick with the people but not be rulers anymore. there's always room for more revolutionaries.

they can run away to somewhere where they can continue being bosses and masters.

or they can resist. resisting means attempting to regain control - to be rulers and bosses again. it is not "imposing your force upon them" to tell would-be rulers to go f--- themselves and to shoot them if they try anything. let's say that you and a whole bunch of other people have just overthrown stalin. are you really going to just sit there and let him reconsolidate his rule? no, you shoot the bastard. no one has the "freedom" to rule others. stopping someone from doing so is the proper course of action, the morally correct thing to do.

It certainly is imposing your force and will upon them. A revolution is a certain system being overthrown by another. Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.

You can, however, go around killing people in the name of Anarchy and Anarchism, but at that point you'd be no better than Stalin or Mao, killing millions in the name of Communism.

You may be right, it may never happen. There is certainly something contradictory in using your own power and privilege to take away the power of others. That's exactly what the rich and powerful do, and why we are upset at them. You're still thinking within the system. "Morals" are entirely subjective and individual. If you impose your morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that, then you are violating their rights and disrupting the most fundamental principles of anarchist society. Your whole statement is based around your own ideas of right and wrong.

hahaha!

if your system of rights finds it to be a violation to forcefully free slaves then your system of rights is not worth debating. if we take away the rulers' power and privilege - not to give ourselves more but to get rid of them entirely - there is no contradiction at all. to say that there is is to say that even if it is wrong to be ruled over, it is just as wrong to fight against it. frell that. that's silly and completely useless.

You may be right, it may never happen. There is certainly something contradictory in using your own power and privilege to take away the power of others. That's exactly what the rich and powerful do, and why we are upset at them. You're still thinking within the system. "Morals" are entirely subjective and individual. If you impose your morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that, then you are violating their rights and disrupting the most fundamental principles of anarchist society. Your whole statement is based around your own ideas of right and wrong.

hahaha!

if your system of rights finds it to be a violation to forcefully free slaves then your system of rights is not worth debating. if we take away the rulers' power and privilege - not to give ourselves more but to get rid of them entirely - there is no contradiction at all. to say that there is is to say that even if it is wrong to be ruled over, it is just as wrong to fight against it. frell that. that's silly and completely useless.

What I am saying is that force is the wrong way to achieve an end to power and domination. At that point you're just using what you dislike to destroy it and becoming exactly what you are fighting against.

Civil disobediance is very effective, as are many other non-violent methods.

Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.

incorrect. anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. always has been, always will be.
anarchism proposes that society be organized through voluntary federations of workplaces and communities and communes and collectives and such, through direct democracy and without hierarchy or bosses. power rests with the individuals and their communities and decisions flow from the ground up.
see the first post (and others in this thread) for more information.

Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.

incorrect. anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. always has been, always will be.
anarchism proposes that society be organized through voluntary federations of workplaces and communities and communes and collectives and such, through direct democracy and without hierarchy or bosses. power rests with the individuals and their communities and decisions flow from the ground up.
see the first post (and others in this thread) for more information.

Please notice that I said "Anarchy" not "Anarchism." I believe I made it clear before that they are very different. What you speak of is known as Anarcho-Communism. There are other forms of Anarchism such as Anarcho-Capitalism, and neither can be achieved without using force of some kind and negating one of the most fundamental principles of Anarchy.

What I am saying is that force is the wrong way to achieve an end to power and domination. At that point you're just using what you dislike to destroy it and becoming exactly what you are fighting against.

Civil disobediance is very effective, as are many other non-violent methods.

civil disobedience won't get you very far when the tanks roll in. i advocate as non-violent a revolution as possible (the general strike, if i got to choose), but sitting there and taking it will not make you free when the state and capital are faced with their destruction. when we take the factories and threaten their whole power structure they will not hesitate to massacre us all. i, for one, do not intend to let them.

the state's use of force is not what we dislike about it. it is its power and authority. we may have to use force to do away with power and privilege. so be it.

What I am saying is that force is the wrong way to achieve an end to power and domination. At that point you're just using what you dislike to destroy it and becoming exactly what you are fighting against.

Civil disobediance is very effective, as are many other non-violent methods.

civil disobedience won't get you very far when the tanks roll in. i advocate as non-violent a revolution as possible (the general strike, if i got to choose), but sitting there and taking it will not make you free when the state and capital are faced with their destruction. when we take the factories and threaten their whole power structure they will not hesitate to massacre us all. i, for one, do not intend to let them.

the state's use of force is not what we dislike about it. it is its power and authority. we may have to use force to do away with power and privilege. so be it.

Force is merely a tool of privilege, the exercise of power. If you dislike power, you must dislike force because they are one in the same.

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Read this. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=82457)

You can't have an anarchist revolution, it just wouldn't make any sense. Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.
What on Earth is the point of such an ignorant comment, Our Earth? Have you actually read any of this thread? Do you actually know anything about the beliefs and history of anarchists?

I don't think so. It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it. Of course, most people today wouldn't go along with it because our greed based Capitalist society is self-perpetuating. To be sucessful within society you have to conform to it. Eventually, however, perhaps through socialist reforms, this could be changed.
I agree up to a point on your first part - I am not in favour of "revolution" in most senses of that term. I am an evolutionist anarchist. And I agree that most people of right now would not support an anarchy. But I deny that capitalism will be self-perpetuating forever. I think there are new attitudes of individual freedom and sovereignty that are coming in, that will gradually motivate people to give up authority and capitalism.

You cannot end the cycle of violence through violence, it's as simple as that.

Capitalism isn't self-perpetuating, but society as it is organized today is. People are raised to believe that the best thing they can do is to be sucessful within the system. No alternatives are presented. Read the Great Tradition thing I posted a while back, it describes it better than I could.

Anarchy is a run down of society. It is an end to the structured, imposed patterns of modern social thought. "Anarchism" as a political theory, is really just another permutation of the same power/lack of power structure that government is built on. There's no improvement there.

NO IT IS NOT.


http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=71742&start=199

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.

I'm sorry, I just can't stand dogmatism from people who aren't involved and don't know what they're talking about.

But, interjected van Passen, even if you win "You will be sitting on a pile of ruins". Durruti answered "We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a while. For, you must not forget, we also know how to build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and in America,and everywhere.

"We, the workers, can build others to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth, there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute".

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/graphics/durruti.jpg

A revolution is a certain system being overthrown by another. Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.
? ? ?


http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html

"However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."...

"...anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations."

"And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co- operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities."

"Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential new society -- a society that maximises certain human needs which the current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty, equality and solidarity..."

""The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management."

That's just from that one page... I suspect later pages in the FAQ would be even more on the mark.

An anarchic society built on the bodies of those killed in a revolution against "power" is no better than the institutions it destroyed. An anarchy cannot come from a revolution, it can, however, come from a voluntary destruction of personal privilege.

Spiritual Anarchy, you can quote famous anarchists at me all you like, but I will tell you each time that if they believe violent revolution is the answer to the current problems of power and privilege then they misrepresent themselves.

I'm sorry, I just can't stand dogmatism from people who aren't involved and don't know what they're talking about.

Quoting yourself won't help you. I am involved, probably more than yourself, and I certainly know what I'm talking about. You could be honest and say that you can't stand people who look at the same things as you but come up with different answers, that'd be better.

"Morals" are entirely subjective and individual. If you impose your morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that, then you are violating their rights...

Inconsistency, self-contradiction. Your concept of 'rights' is a moral concept, and so according to your first statement subjective and individual. So the "rights" being 'violated' only exist if you believe in them - and obviously someone imposing their will doesn't have to believe in them. Therefore if I "impose my morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that" I am not necessarily violating their rights all. Not that I would want to do those things.

"Morals" are entirely subjective and individual. If you impose your morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that, then you are violating their rights...

Inconsistency, self-contradiction. Your concept of 'rights' is a moral concept, and so according to your first statement subjective and individual. So the "rights" being 'violated' only exist if you believe in them - and obviously someone imposing their will doesn't have to believe in them. Therefore if I "impose my morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that" I am not necessarily violating their rights all. Not that I would want to do those things.

Actually, I was using the idea of rights presented by the person I was discussing with. I do, of course, have my own opinion on the nature of human rights, and I have no compunction about using them while stating that rights and morals are subjective and individual. I have made my own subjective judgments and come to my own individual morals. There's nothing contradictory there.

I'm sorry, I just can't stand dogmatism from people who aren't involved and don't know what they're talking about.
Quoting yourself won't help you.
I don't need to be helped. You need to be helped, because you are persisting in an ignorant dogmatism about a subject you show you know nothing about, and then you avoid the points made in rebuttal while completely failing to support your own claims. Answer what I say in that post of mine, and the passages from the Anarchy FAQ, that I quoted. Justify your claims that "anarchy" is not a system but a lack of system, and a run-down of society rather than a new society, in the face of all the evidence that it has absolutely not meant what you say it has meant for all of its history and all of its followers.

I am involved, probably more than yourself,
How would you know that?

and I certainly know what I'm talking about. You could be honest and say that you can't stand people who look at the same things as you but come up with different answers, that'd be better.
On the contrary I don't mind such people at all, they can usually teach me something. But that is not the situation here. This is not a situation of looking at the same thing and coming up with different answers. This is a situation of someone saying things about what anarchy is supposed to be like according to anarchism that simply don't remotely match the reality of what anarchism has intended an anarchy to be for 150 years, in all its branches. It's sheer ignorance, and masquerading as knowledge under the cover of dogmatism and ignoring of questions and counter-points. Dogmatism is one of the things I most loathe in human behaviour. Don't try pretending it's me who is in illusion here.

An anarchic society built on the bodies of those killed in a revolution against "power" is no better than the institutions it destroyed. An anarchy cannot come from a revolution, it can, however, come from a voluntary destruction of personal privilege.

Spiritual Anarchy, you can quote famous anarchists at me all you like, but I will tell you each time that if they believe violent revolution is the answer to the current problems of power and privilege then they misrepresent themselves.
As I've already indicated, I half-agree with you on the anarchist use of violence, hypocrisy, etc. But you perhaps have too narrow a sense of 'revolution'. A revolution could be fairly non-violent, more about redistributing power ASAP than attacking and fighting people for a long time.

"Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist principles. That is way anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible." [Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.

So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca34

Inconsistency, self-contradiction. Your concept of 'rights' is a moral concept, and so according to your first statement subjective and individual. So the "rights" being 'violated' only exist if you believe in them - and obviously someone imposing their will doesn't have to believe in them. Therefore if I "impose my morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that" I am not necessarily violating their rights all. Not that I would want to do those things.

Actually, I was using the idea of rights presented by the person I was discussing with. I do, of course, have my own opinion on the nature of human rights, and I have no compunction about using them while stating that rights and morals are subjective and individual. I have made my own subjective judgments and come to my own individual morals. There's nothing contradictory there.

no you weren't. i had made no mention of rights at all. what you were replying to was,

"if power and privilege are things to be opposed then there is nothing contradictory in forcefully taking them away from people. its like slavery - if you oppose slavery then it is morally acceptable to take free somebody elses' slaves by force even though they are 'rightfully' that person's property."

and i stand by that. under whatever standard we use to judge the morality of something, if x is wrong it is permissible to stop x. and under any morality that isn't completely pacifist the use of force may come into play in the efforts to stop x. it is not continuing the cycle of violence to stop someone from hitting you with a bat - even if you have to break his arm to do so.

I'm sorry, I just can't stand dogmatism from people who aren't involved and don't know what they're talking about.
Quoting yourself won't help you.
I don't need to be helped. You need to be helped, because you are persisting in an ignorant dogmatism about a subject you show you know nothing about, and then you avoid the points made in rebuttal while completely failing to support your own claims. Answer what I say in that post of mine, and the passages from the Anarchy FAQ, that I quoted. Justify your claims that "anarchy" is not a system but a lack of system, and a run-down of society rather than a new society, in the face of all the evidence that it has absolutely not meant what you say it has meant for all of its history and all of its followers.

I think you should relax. I didn't say you needed help, I said that for the sake of making your point, quoting yourself will not help. I don't know where this "ignorant dogmatism" concept is coming from, but I think you should stop it, and think instead of falling back onto rhetoric.

Traditionally, and by definition, Anarchy means no government. In more recent years it has come to mean no heirarchy, or no unwanted outside influences. An anarchist revolution would go against the concept of no government in that it would be forcing people to change their ways. I wholeheartedly agree with "educating" (a loaded term since it really means, "educating them on what I think") people on the truths of anarchy, but a revolution, and the use of force, would undermine the principles of voluntary association and individual choice of situation.

I am involved, probably more than yourself,
How would you know that?

I know myself and I know the involvement of the average person. You'll notice I said probably, there is, of course, no way to know one way or the other for sure, and it would not be meaningful to attempt to find out. The point is that despite what you say about me being uninvolved, you are wrong.

and I certainly know what I'm talking about. You could be honest and say that you can't stand people who look at the same things as you but come up with different answers, that'd be better.
On the contrary I don't mind such people at all, they can usually teach me something. But that is not the situation here. This is not a situation of looking at the same thing and coming up with different answers. This is a situation of someone saying things about what anarchy is supposed to be like according to anarchism that simply don't remotely match the reality of what anarchism has intended an anarchy to be for 150 years, in all its branches. It's sheer ignorance, and masquerading as knowledge under the cover of dogmatism and ignoring of questions and counter-points. Dogmatism is one of the things I most loathe in human behaviour. Don't try pretending it's me who is in illusion here.

What reality? Do you understand that each person percieves a different reality and that the one you, or those you follow are not necessary "correct," and even that the concept of "correct" is meaningless in an entirely individualist society? Understand this, I'm not telling you what anarchism is intended to do, I'm telling you about what I see of it, and the problems I see in it. If you cannot constructively debate them there is no point in either of us being here.

Dogmatism - Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief. (As defined at dictionary.com)

It's amusing to note than we both fit this definition, the difference I see is that I have to problem with my stubborness, while you do.

Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.
incorrect. anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. always has been, always will be.
Please notice that I said "Anarchy" not "Anarchism." I believe I made it clear before that they are very different. What you speak of is known as Anarcho-Communism. There are other forms of Anarchism such as Anarcho-Capitalism, and neither can be achieved without using force of some kind and negating one of the most fundamental principles of Anarchy.
"Anarchy" is the word created by anarchists to name the sort of society they want to create - basically a libertarian and socialist one, as Free Soviets says. I've already drawn your attention to the older post that I requoted, that you tried to ignore. BTW, have you ever noted the coincidental similarity between the words "anarchy" and "anarchism"?

You keep talking about anarchism "being achieved". To make a strict definition of usage, anarchism cannot be "achieved"; it is an ideology or theory, an -ism. It already exists, in people's heads. Anarchy is the name of the form of society, like democracy, republic, etc.

Inconsistency, self-contradiction. Your concept of 'rights' is a moral concept, and so according to your first statement subjective and individual. So the "rights" being 'violated' only exist if you believe in them - and obviously someone imposing their will doesn't have to believe in them. Therefore if I "impose my morals on someone else by killing them, or taking their slaves, or anything like that" I am not necessarily violating their rights all. Not that I would want to do those things.

Actually, I was using the idea of rights presented by the person I was discussing with. I do, of course, have my own opinion on the nature of human rights, and I have no compunction about using them while stating that rights and morals are subjective and individual. I have made my own subjective judgments and come to my own individual morals. There's nothing contradictory there.

no you weren't. i had made no mention of rights at all. what you were replying to was,

"if power and privilege are things to be opposed then there is nothing contradictory in forcefully taking them away from people. its like slavery - if you oppose slavery then it is morally acceptable to take free somebody elses' slaves by force even though they are 'rightfully' that person's property."

and i stand by that. under whatever standard we use to judge the morality of something, if x is wrong it is permissible to stop x. and under any morality that isn't completely pacifist the use of force may come into play in the efforts to stop x. it is not continuing the cycle of violence to stop someone from hitting you with a bat - even if you have to break his arm to do so.

You had made mention of rights earlier, but it'd be a pain to go and find it so I won't.

How about this. "Stopping x is wrong" by your logic of, "if x is wrong it is permissable to stop x" you are caught in a paradoxical loop. It is also important to understand that by your morality something may be wrong, but by anothers it may be right. By stopping them from doing this thing which you consider wrong you are, in essence, imposing your own beliefs upon them, which goes against the fundamental ideal of anarchy which is that of no government.

An anarchic society built on the bodies of those killed in a revolution against "power" is no better than the institutions it destroyed. An anarchy cannot come from a revolution, it can, however, come from a voluntary destruction of personal privilege.

Spiritual Anarchy, you can quote famous anarchists at me all you like, but I will tell you each time that if they believe violent revolution is the answer to the current problems of power and privilege then they misrepresent themselves.
As I've already indicated, I half-agree with you on the anarchist use of violence, hypocrisy, etc. But you perhaps have too narrow a sense of 'revolution'. A revolution could be fairly non-violent, more about redistributing power ASAP than attacking and fighting people for a long time.

"Thus, the attraction of pacifism to anarchists is clear. Violence is authoritarian and coercive, and so its use does contradict anarchist principles. That is way anarchists would agree with Malatesta when he argues that "[w]e are on principle opposed to violence and for this reason wish that the social struggle should be conducted as humanely as possible." [Op. Cit., p. 57] Most, if not all, anarchists who are not strict pacifists agree with pacifist-anarchists when they argue that violence can often be counterproductive, alienating people and giving the state an excuse to repress both the anarchist movement and popular movements for social change. All anarchists support non-violent direct action and civil disobedience, which often provide better roads to radical change.

So, to sum up, anarchists who are pure pacifists are rare. Most accept the use of violence as a necessary evil and advocate minimising its use. All agree that a revolution which institutionalises violence will just recreate the state in a new form. They argue, however, that it is not authoritarian to destroy authority or to use violence to resist violence. Therefore, although most anarchists are not pacifists, most reject violence except in self-defence and even then kept to the minimum."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA3.html#seca34

Thank you, that is a reasonable way of looking at it. I might argue that only pacifists can be anarchists, but it's really not worth it at this point. I recommend, however, and you can take this any way you like, that you avoid quoting people in your arguments about anarchism. A signifigant portion of anarchism is devoted to the idea that blind faith in authority figures is detrimental to the lives of those who follow. You may be follow people who could be seen as on the side of good, but you're still following.

Anarchy is not a system, but a lack of a system, and can therefor not be the goal of a revolution.
incorrect. anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. always has been, always will be.
Please notice that I said "Anarchy" not "Anarchism." I believe I made it clear before that they are very different. What you speak of is known as Anarcho-Communism. There are other forms of Anarchism such as Anarcho-Capitalism, and neither can be achieved without using force of some kind and negating one of the most fundamental principles of Anarchy.
"Anarchy" is the word created by anarchists to name the sort of society they want to create - basically a libertarian and socialist one, as Free Soviets says. I've already drawn your attention to the older post that I requoted, that you tried to ignore. BTW, have you ever noted the coincidental similarity between the words "anarchy" and "anarchism"?

You keep talking about anarchism "being achieved". To make a strict definition of usage, anarchism cannot be "achieved"; it is an ideology or theory, an -ism. It already exists, in people's heads. Anarchy is the name of the form of society, like democracy, republic, etc.

I think it is important, still, that we seperate the theory and the practice. They are different things. The theory, like any other political system, can only be implemented, and made into the practice through some conversion from the old. The nature of anarchism is such that a forcible systemic change would violate its principles. Hence, Anarchy in practice cannot exist through a revolution with the intent of implementing Anarchism.

You cannot end the cycle of violence through violence, it's as simple as that.
True... but what should you do if you are attacked?

Capitalism isn't self-perpetuating, but society as it is organized today is.
When you say self-perpetuating, do you mean as in a Perpetual Motion machine? Human history has twisted and turned so many different ways for millennia, now we come to our present society and it doesn't change in its basics ever again?

Or do you just mean "keeps itself going for as long as it can". Because in that sense pretty much all past forms of society have been no less self-perpetuating. If we see a form of society last long enough for us to define it and give it a name, it must have had some stability and sticking power.

And yet... each of those past societies has died or mutated into something else. So what is your point?

People are raised to believe that the best thing they can do is to be sucessful within the system. No alternatives are presented.
Well, except inasmuch as they're not. What you're referring to is the majority/mainstream pattern, then if you look around you see all the exceptions. And there's a lot of them.

And again, this society is no more conformist than any past one. People have always been brought up to work within the system - not thru some conscious tyranny, but just because that's an aspect of how phases in social development work.

Read the Great Tradition thing I posted a while back, it describes it better than I could.
Altho Illuminatus! is one of my favourite books, I must admit I had forgotten that passage. Well, it is a very confused book. :wink: But I don't see what point you are making. Privilege is the problem? That sounds very much like one of the passages from the Anarchy FAQ:

"For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca11

How about this. "Stopping x is wrong" by your logic of, "if x is wrong it is permissable to stop x" you are caught in a paradoxical loop. It is also important to understand that by your morality something may be wrong, but by anothers it may be right. By stopping them from doing this thing which you consider wrong you are, in essence, imposing your own beliefs upon them, which goes against the fundamental ideal of anarchy which is that of no government.

the only way it could be a loop is if you hold that both x and not-x are wrong, or that it is wrong to prevent wrongs. neither of which do it for me. let's take the "no government" idea for a ride. your argument runs that imposing your will upon someone amounts to government. but what if your will is to stop that person from creating a government? if you do not act then there is a government, which goes against the fundamental ideal above. so your inaction creates a government. but what would your action be? it would be to prevent someone from imposing their will and government on others. that means you are not imposing on anyone, you are preventing an imposition. even if you say that that is still an imposition, i would have to say that it is a worthwhile one; that if we are unwilling to act to prevent wrongs then we have already lost and everything is meaningless wankery. for anarchy to exist some actions must be taken and continue to be taken, and other actions must be prevented and continue to be prevented.

Spiritual Anarchy, you can quote famous anarchists at me all you like,
Where have I done that? I quoted from the Anarchy FAQ http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ which is an online resource written by anarchists for fellow anarchists to use in explaining anarchism to people, which is what I'm doing now. They use some quotes from 'famous' anarchists themselves, but the bulk of the text is contemporary and basically unknown people.

but I will tell you each time that if they believe violent revolution is the answer to the current problems of power and privilege then they misrepresent themselves.
How on Earth can you know that? Don't you think they (famous anarchists, who I wasn't quoting) are going to know what represents them and what doesn't? The massive majority of past anarchists have not been pacifist, FACT. A lot have abhorred indiscriminate violence as well, but they don't rule out violence as a part of the struggle. *cough* Spanish Civil War. *cough* Paris Commune. *cough* Ukraine, Russian Revolution. *cough* Chiapas.

I think what you mean is, they misrepresent you. But then famous past dead anarchists, who I wasn't quoting and who have never met you, have not tried to represent you.

Actually, I was using the idea of rights presented by the person I was discussing with. I do, of course, have my own opinion on the nature of human rights, and I have no compunction about using them while stating that rights and morals are subjective and individual. I have made my own subjective judgments and come to my own individual morals. There's nothing contradictory there.
OK... so if you accept that your own concept of rights is as subjective and individual as any other moral opinion, you accept that no-one else is bound by it, right?

Thank you, that is a reasonable way of looking at it. I might argue that only pacifists can be anarchists, but it's really not worth it at this point. I recommend, however, and you can take this any way you like, that you avoid quoting people in your arguments about anarchism. A signifigant portion of anarchism is devoted to the idea that blind faith in authority figures is detrimental to the lives of those who follow. You may be follow people who could be seen as on the side of good, but you're still following.
Again, I half-agree about the issue of quoting people in a political movement that is against authority figures and leaders, and where people are supposed to think for themselves. Basically there are a couple of reasons for doing it: 1) if someone's already prepared the words it's easier to quote them, rather than compose them, which takes more time and effort. 2) Other people may put some things better than me 3) it shows it is not only my idea - possibly illusion - about what anarchism is about, but rather the shared opinion of large numbers of people on the net, including a group who have prepared a FAQ specially for use by anarchists, and in doing so have consulted with an awful lot of anarchists, including receiving suggestions by visitors.

That last reason is particularly apposite when I am making my points to someone I think has a highly inaccurate sense of what anarchism is, and who is seeing me the same way.

At the risk of irony, here is the Anarchy FAQ's own explanation of the use of quoted Great Dead Anarchists:

"Readers may consider our use of extensive quoting as being an example of a "quotation [being] a handy thing to have about, saving one the trouble of thinking for oneself." (A.A. Milne) This is not the case of course. We have included extensive quotations by many anarchist figures for three reasons. Firstly, to indicate that we are not making up our claims of what certain anarchists thought or argued for. Secondly, and most importantly, it allows us to link the past voices of anarchism with its present adherents. And lastly, the quotes are used for their ability to convey ideas succinctly rather than as an appeal to "authority."

In addition, many quotes are used in order to allow readers to investigate the ideas of those quoted and to summarise facts and so save space. For example, a quote by Noam Chomsky on the development of capitalism by state protection ensures that we base our arguments on facts without having to present all the arguments, facts and references Chomsky uses. Interested readers can read the cited text if they desire to discover more."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html

I totally rebut your idea that only pacifists can be anarchists. This is not in defence of violence, or the opinion of non-pacifist anarchists; it's in defence of a certain way of determining who belongs to a named group or doesn't. This is the way that basically takes people at their word, rather than deciding what you think people in that category *ought* to believe. The fact is that the majority of people who've been part of the history of anarchism have not been basically against violence, and a lot have been very much for. That *means* that you don't have to be a pacifist to be an anarchist. You may *wish* that all people who called themselves anarchist were pacifist... but they aren't. Pacifist anarchists are just a subset. Check out Tolstoy.

"Anarchy" is the word created by anarchists to name the sort of society they want to create - basically a libertarian and socialist one, as Free Soviets says. I've already drawn your attention to the older post that I requoted, that you tried to ignore. BTW, have you ever noted the coincidental similarity between the words "anarchy" and "anarchism"?

You keep talking about anarchism "being achieved". To make a strict definition of usage, anarchism cannot be "achieved"; it is an ideology or theory, an -ism. It already exists, in people's heads. Anarchy is the name of the form of society, like democracy, republic, etc.
I think it is important, still, that we seperate the theory and the practice. They are different things. The theory, like any other political system, can only be implemented, and made into the practice through some conversion from the old. The nature of anarchism is such that a forcible systemic change would violate its principles. Hence, Anarchy in practice cannot exist through a revolution with the intent of implementing Anarchism.
Absolutely we must distinguish clearly between theory and practice. Well, it's not hard with anarchism, which in theory should be quite practical, but where in practice there is much more theory than practice... ;)

Anyway, I again agree with you that an attempt to 'force' a change to an anarchy would be abortive. Basically, it has kind of been tried on a few occasions - which I mentioned in connection with violence in another post - as has Marxist 'socialism', and neither of them really worked. This is why I am an evolutionist anarchist. The change will happen when the time is right. The change, IMO, will be gradual, not as anyone predicts, global, tho leading in some areas and behind in others, and will be as much to do with the falling apart of the old system as the creation of a new one.

Also it will come partly from small-scale grassroots efforts at individual and community organisation.

Is anarcho-capitalism welcome here? Or is this just for left-wing, bomb throwing wackos?

Is anarcho-capitalism welcome here? Or is this just for left-wing, bomb throwing wackos?

"anarcho"-cappies are as welcome as anyone else. but i would prefer that you not call us wackos. considering you guys are the ones attempting to latch onto a political movement that has little in common with you, and want to call yourselves anarchists even though your entire critique of authority starts and ends with the modern welfare state.

Double post.

Move along, nothing to see here...

:shock: :!:

It is my belief that the only way to start a true anarchy is through the voluntary release of power and privilege by those who hold it.

that won't ever work. the rich and privileged and powerful will never voluntarily give up their power and privilege. what's in it for them? if power and privilege are things to be opposed then there is nothing contradictory in forcefully taking them away from people. its like slavery - if you oppose slavery then it is morally acceptable to take free somebody elses' slaves by force even though they are "rightfully" that person's property.

The root of all problems with capitalism. The property of wealth to be "sticky," I suppose you could call it. People try and get as much of it as they can and hold on to what they have; an overextension - a malfunction, perhaps - of one human instinct. Self-preservation via resource hoarding.

Is anarcho-capitalism welcome here? Or is this just for left-wing, bomb throwing wackos?
It's just for left-wing, bomb throwing wackos. Tata.

Quoting yourself won't help you.
Answer what I say in that post of mine, and the passages from the Anarchy FAQ, that I quoted. Justify your claims that "anarchy" is not a system but a lack of system, and a run-down of society rather than a new society, in the face of all the evidence that it has absolutely not meant what you say it has meant for all of its history and all of its followers.
I said that for the sake of making your point, quoting yourself will not help.
I was not quoting myself with the idea that I'm some authority, but rather with further information and arguments on the matter, which IIRC was the definition of anarchy and anarchism. That's perfectly valid, it's just saying "I've already addressed this point elsewhere, here are the details". What got me was that you just replied "Quoting yourself won't help you", and totally ignored the information contained in the post, making no argument in reply at all.

I don't know where this "ignorant dogmatism" concept is coming from
It comes from the fact that you've baldly stated things like "Anarchy is what you get when you run down society" without any backup or argument, and when that is in contradiction to all the reading I've done on what "anarchy" has meant for the anarchist tradition of the last 150 years. I quoted my earlier post because it was as relevant in correcting you as it was Anthrus.

Traditionally, and by definition, Anarchy means no government. In more recent years it has come to mean no heirarchy, or no unwanted outside influences.
I'll agree to the latter part about hierarchy, however the plain fact of the matter is that from the earliest uses by Proudhon the word meant not only "no state" but also "no capitalism". It was certainly more than "no government". The Anarchy FAQ gives some quotes from Proudhon and many successors to show it.

An anarchist revolution would go against the concept of no government in that it would be forcing people to change their ways. I wholeheartedly agree with "educating" (a loaded term since it really means, "educating them on what I think") people on the truths of anarchy, but a revolution, and the use of force, would undermine the principles of voluntary association and individual choice of situation.
As I've already indicated in other replies I largely agree with you, and it's not a popular opinion amongst anarchists. However, if a revolution happens I would probably have to be involved, whatever the probable outcome. Otherwise I couldn't claim to have solidarity with my fellow anarchists and they would have no reason to consider me a comrade.

I am involved, probably more than yourself,
How would you know that?
I know myself and I know the involvement of the average person. You'll notice I said probably, there is, of course, no way to know one way or the other for sure, and it would not be meaningful to attempt to find out. The point is that despite what you say about me being uninvolved, you are wrong.
OK, but what is it exactly you are involved *in*? Something where you call yourself an anarchist? How do other anarchists you're involved with feel about your opinion that "anarchy is what you get when society runs down" or "if you aren't a pacifist you can't be an anarchist"? Or, do you not consider yourself and anarchist? In which case what makes you think you are 'involved'?

This is a situation of someone saying things about what anarchy is supposed to be like according to anarchism that simply don't remotely match the reality of what anarchism has intended an anarchy to be for 150 years, in all its branches.
What reality? Do you understand that each person percieves a different reality and that the one you, or those you follow are not necessary "correct," and even that the concept of "correct" is meaningless in an entirely individualist society?
I understand that there's a single reality that we all perceive differently. None of our perceptions/conceptions are fully 'correct' as in absolutely accurate, but some will be more accurate than others. An entirely individualist society is not what I want anyway, it is a minority opinion amongst anarchists, and I am an "individuo-collectivist". :D But even in an entirely individualist society "correct" would still not be meaningless. At any rate, it is absolutely valid, imperative in some circumstances, to strive for better knowledge and understanding.

In the present subject, reading about the history of anarchism, and learning how anarchists have conceived what "anarchy" is, gives one a better understanding of what anarchy is. If someone hasn't done that, and made any attempt to find out what "anarchy" is supposed to be according to the people that propose it... they are ignorant about that subject. If they then state their uninformed opinion boldly... they are being ignorantly dogmatic.

Understand this, I'm not telling you what anarchism is intended to do, I'm telling you about what I see of it, and the problems I see in it.
In effect you are and were doing exactly that - but making the appearance that what you were saying was simply the truth about anarchy and anarchism, rather than just your opinion. You are backsliding now into a little relativism. You didn't say "Anarchism aims for *this* - but I think it's flawed, *here*, and will lead to *this*, which would be unfortunate", you said:

Anarchism is basically what you get if you let society run down.
...
Anarchy is a run down of society. It is an end to the structured, imposed patterns of modern social thought.

Now it's a fact that "anarchism" is a doctrine, an ideology, which exists now. It's not "what you get if you let society run down".
It's also a fact, tho a more contentious one, that "anarchy" is defined by anarchists as a pleasant society, with great social order, organisation, fairness, etc. No running-down. As I pointed out in my earlier post I quoted, anti-anarchists either disbelieve that the absence of rule could be pleasant, ordered and organised, or else simply want to discredit anarchism in the eyes of potential converts. Either way they change the meaning of "anarchy" to mean "chaos, disorder, lack of order as provided by the state and authority". Not far from a "run down of society", "what you get if you let society run down". Anarchists have constantly had to battle those senses of the words.

"an end to the structured, imposed patterns of modern social thought." - only an end to the established order - once again merely the *removal* of authoritarian rule, not the putting in its place of a different, better, libertarian, federated structure of organisation? That's not anarchy.

At least it's not *our* anarchy, so if anyone comes along to anarchists with statements like that, we are inclined to take them not to be anarchists, and not to be telling the truth.

Upon rereading the earlier pages, I now realise part of the reason I considered your statements to have been especially 'dogmatic' is that in your 6:22 post you pretty much just restated the opinion of your 6:00 post, without argument or any reference to what had been said in between, especially by Free Soviets.

"Anarchism" as a political theory, is really just another permutation of the same power/lack of power structure that government is built on. There's no improvement there."
Now that's a more interesting and defensible claim. I don't agree with it, in fact I don't entirely understand it, but it's more like "telling you about what I see of it, and the problems I see in it" as you said above. That would be the sort of claim that would be worth expanding on.

If you cannot constructively debate them there is no point in either of us being here.

Dogmatism - Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief. (As defined at dictionary.com)

It's amusing to note than we both fit this definition, the difference I see is that I have to problem with my stubborness, while you do.
I *can* constructively debate, and I'm sorry if I was OTT the other day with the post you were replying to here. But I stick by my claims that you were being dogmatic about anarchy/ism, that you are (relatively) ignorant about the history and reality of anarchism, that you are wrong about "what anarchy is", at least according to a reasonable sense of that word, that you are wrong that non-pacifists can't be anarchists, or that anarchists have to be pacifists.

I will accept that I can stubbornly assert an opinion; I would hope it's not arrogantly, and I think my stubbornness is not irrespective of counter-arguments, but merely in the face of failed counter-arguments or no argument at all. In other words I only 'stubbornly' maintain an opinion when there's no valid counter-point made against it. To do that I have to consider and respond to points made. That is not dogmatism, that is (relative) flexibility and open-mindedness.

Dogmatism specifically maintains an opinion irrespective of counter-arguments made, because the dogmatic person is not holding the belief on account of arguments/evidence/genuine knowledge but rather out of prejudice, pride, lack of imagination, inability to listen etc. I don't think you've been arrogant, but I think that earlier you were asserting your opinion of "what anarchy is" in a way which was dogmatic, as I explained above. And I think it's such dogmatism that's "not debating constructively".

That is very long, and while I appreciate the amount of effort you put into it I'm afraid I'm not going to read it all. I gave up on this conversation back when we had it because it's entirely semantic.

I welcome any discussion, but all that I've seen so far is attacks on my knowledge base and the way I use it in my discussion. It's very interesting to watch actually, because we take very different things from the same pieces of writing.

Just briefly (famous last words for me), anyone who says "no-capitalism" is a part of anarchy doesn't understand the concept of no authority. If people want capitalism, then, in an anarchic society they would have it. Your belief that only Anarcho-Communism can be considered true Anarchy seems to me to be counterproductive. The last thing anarchists need is to be fighting amongst themselves about the way that would be implimented. In truth, there is no way to prevent or create a Capitalist of Socialist society in Anarchy. One or the other, or both, will occur naturally based on the way in which people interact. There is no value in debating which will happen, when all involved agree with the truly fundamental principles of anarchy which are self-governance and an end to the institutions of privilege and authority.

That is very long, and while I appreciate the amount of effort you put into it I'm afraid I'm not going to read it all. I gave up on this conversation back when we had it because it's entirely semantic.
Not just because you can't answer then? :D But seriously, I appreciate that it's long and not too productive at this stage. Still, if I feel like doing a reply, I do it, or else it niggles at me. And I have actually considered what you say and gone back to check on the truth of things. I don't think the argument is entirely semantic, I think it's partly about the truth of what anarchism is and what anarchy is supposed to be, which are crucial. I also think people need to actually *tackle* semantic disagreements in arguments, that it makes no sense to run away from them. Let's just say I've answered your points, whether or not you answer in turn.

I welcome any discussion, but all that I've seen so far is attacks on my knowledge base and the way I use it in my discussion. It's very interesting to watch actually, because we take very different things from the same pieces of writing.
I think you've seen more than that, and what gets me is that you've not *defended* your knowledge-base either. But of course if you refuse to read the post I've just done you won't know if there's anything else in it. If you "take something else" from the same piece of writing, specify - correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Just briefly (famous last words for me), anyone who says "no-capitalism" is a part of anarchy doesn't understand the concept of no authority.
As an aside, that could be read as a dogmatic statement. A less dogmatic way of putting it would be: "anyone who says "no-capitalism" is a part of anarchy has a different concept of no-authority to me", or "I think anyone who says "no-capitalism" is a part of anarchy doesn't understand what "no-authority" really means", etc.

If people want capitalism, then, in an anarchic society they would have it.
If by "anarchic" you mean "no state", I agree. If by "anarchic" you mean "no authority or rule, especially as conceived by the original left-wing socialist anarchists", then no, for reasons that should be evident from the way i've put that.

If there is an economic structure in which there are companies where some are higher than others, and tell their employees what to do - that's authority.

Your belief that only Anarcho-Communism can be considered true Anarchy seems to me to be counterproductive.
For one thing I'm not consciously an anarcho-communist. Recently I've come across explanations of anarcho-communist thinking that I might be able to agree with. Otherwise, I believe the phrase in my case is "collectivist anarchist". I think what you mean is "anarcho-socialist", I'll own up to that one. :wink:

The last thing anarchists need is to be fighting amongst themselves about the way that would be implimented. In truth, there is no way to prevent or create a Capitalist of Socialist society in Anarchy. One or the other, or both, will occur naturally based on the way in which people interact. There is no value in debating which will happen, when all involved agree with the truly fundamental principles of anarchy which are self-governance and an end to the institutions of privilege and authority.
I agree that infighting is sad and counter-productive. I completely disagree that we can leave the socialist/capitalist question in abeyance until after getting rid of authority. The principle of economic equality, of common ownership and control of production and trade, of even levels of wealth and economic power, are as important to me as the removal of the state. You will find they are to most anarcho-socialists.

Many anarchists feel a connection to Marxist or other non-anarchist socialist/communist groups and movements, and form alliances with them. Anti-capitalist alliances. There are some on NS. In such arrangements anarchists are stressing the economic equality aspect of their beliefs, and demoting the political authority aspect. What you are recommending is more of an alliance between anarcho-socialists and anarcho-capitalists, emphasising the common opposition to authority and down-playing the economic question. And there are others who suggest the same thing - a lot of Libertarians, for instance.

Now I wonder why I, or any other anarch(o-social)ist, should go along with your thinking? Personally, I like to play both sides off against each other. Sometimes when I hear very red anarchists in communion with quasi-libertarian Marxists I feel like saying "I feel I have as much in common with Libertarians as I do with statist socialists". And I can say exactly the reverse to you - I feel as much in common with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" mob as I do with killing the state only to allow companies to fill the gap.

Anti-capitalism is an essential part of my anarchism.

The long and short of it is, even if political authority is removed, and capitalism is kept by support of a massive majority, it's not my anarchy and I will continue to agitate, even if I'm a minority of one. I don't presume to have a popular cause, just a committed and uncompromising one.

anyone who says "no-capitalism" is a part of anarchy doesn't understand the concept of no authority.

anyone who thinks that capitalism is possible without the authoritarian structures of class and hierarchy doesn't understand capitalism or anarchism. without a working class and an owning class you can't have capitalism. and a division between the workers and the bosses means that you can't have true freedom or autonomy. an owning and non-owning class division means that one class will have power over the other - the very thing that anarchism seeks to end.

anarchists unite!
ban censorship!
humility rules!

salvation from fanatacism
is not achieved by replacing it
with another form of fanatacism

real policies have real effects
on real people, places and things.
putting the arbitrary assumptions
of any idiology, form of government,
economic theory, or system of belief
ahead of them
is just as insensitively and harmfully
blind as doing so with any other.

free food and shelter are available
but honor is earned by creating beauty
and tools and materials with which to
do so are also freely available at
public craftufacturing centers

and anyone can build whatever they
want as long as they don't build it
too close to where anyone else already has

the pretense that anyone wants to do
nothing, let alone that a majority
does, is a totaly vested deception

that anyone with a conscounse does
not wish to reward the causing of
harm is only reasonable

=^^=
.../\...

Viva Dischord! (Chaotic bump)

:shock: :twisted: 8)

LOL! :P I can't believe people are still posting on this thread - I would have thought it was at least in a rest home if not already the cemetary! :D

It shows that a lot of people are (at least) interesed by the idea of anarchism. By the by, SA - good discussions in the last few pages, keep it up. I was afraid this thread would turn into a bashing of anarchists.

It shows that a lot of people are (at least) interesed by the idea of anarchism. By the by, SA - good discussions in the last few pages, keep it up. I was afraid this thread would turn into a bashing of anarchists.
Nah, no chance. In the first few pages of the thread there was some lively debate with non-anarchists, and also some non-anarchists just posting their 2p'orth and leaving. But I think non-anarchists find it hard to make a purchase in an argument with anarchists on their 'home ground', because they often don't know the details of anarchist thinking and values, and they don't see anarchism as their main political 'enemy'.

Yes good discussions - the last major exchange was between me and Our Earth ( = Uzebettagetoffmyland, = FeldAJ) over the question of what anarchy is and whether propertarian/private enterprise anti-statism can be counted as a kind of anarchism - whether the sense of 'anarchism' must include a socialist economy element.

Still, there's probably a natural lifes-span to any thread... maybe we should abandon this one and start another/others? Unless someone comes along to inject some new life into this one with a new angle.

. But I think non-anarchists find it hard to make a purchase in an argument with anarchists on their 'home ground', because they often don't know the details of anarchist thinking and values, and they don't see anarchism as their main political 'enemy'.

Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't know what Anarchism is all about. I think this is down to the mainstream media and the govenment using the word 'anarchy' to mean chaos, disorder and general badness. You hear the phrase "descending into anarchy" when there's riots and disorder, and this sows disinformation. Whether this is propaganda, or merly uninformed views, I'm not too sure.

Our Earth ( = Uzebettagetoffmyland, = FeldAJ)

Interesting..... Didnae know that.

Maybe we should abandon this one and start another/others?

I think a new thread would have to warrant a different aspect of anarchism. Is there anything you want to discuss?

. Unless someone comes along to inject some new life into this one with a new angle.

90 degrees...... sorry.

Here is a post of mine from the bottom of the 12th page, on what we have discussed so far and what subjects we could yet discuss:

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...

I would say the one subject I find most interesting is about the raising and education of children within an anarchy. How do you do it? Would there be any 'authority' of parents over children? Or would there be compulsory education, authority of teachers? How could you avoid it - how would children be if you didn't impose your will / some discipline? This is a very underdiscussed area of anarchist thinking, like dealing with crime/criminals. But think how important childhood and reproduction are to human beings and society - and think how much people care about their powers as a parent. Unless anarchists can come up with a good answer on this one, a lot of people will continue to be put off.

I am also interested in the 'class' issue, which I raised in another thread "Laborism vs. Non-Laborism", in the question of metaphysical beliefs and movements in relation to anarchism and the organisation of society/distribution of power, and in the question of how we arrive at an anarchy (revolution/evolution).

anarchist/antiauthoritarian education:

when dealing with children there will probably always be some amount of hierarchy. they aren't adults, after all. they just don't have the necessary skills and experience to be totally in charge. The point of basic education should be to make children into adults who are able to think and act for themselves - to create free people. This will probably best be accomplished through a fairly free and open educational environment; at least that's the general consensus i've gathered from people who have put thought into these things.

an interesting article i found:
http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/culture/paideia.htm

"In 1977 a collective of anarchists, *teachers, child psychologists, pedogologists (roughly * people who study the art and science of teaching) and others * founded an Anarchist school "Paideia" (Greek for Education) in Merida, a town of around 50,000 people in the province of Extremadura, South-West Spain. The school began as a pre-school, and in the mid-80's extended; it's currently for kids from 2-15 years..."

That's an interesting question.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Greed is just
stupidity in disguise."

my thoughts on the challanges and fundimental concepts of education:

first is that there is no such thing as teaching
only lerning and the facilitatin of learning

children are born with an insatiable curiosity
perhapse the intillectual equivalent to seeking the mother's
breast, it is, you could almost say
the charictristic common instinct
of sentient species.

the greatest challange in education is to avoid stiffling
this instinct.
the other challange of course is to keep other students and everyone
else from stiffling it as well

which random behaviour can but doesn't always do. only when it
is demanding of attention.

so the problem becomes as i see it,
how to instill at an early age an
appreaciation of the desirablity to avoid demanding attention
again without undermining the desire to learn

looking at indiginous societies where much of the apparatus of
hierarchal infrastructure is abscent or in less then adamint form
one highly successful approach has always been story telling

of course the calm the ensues may one perpetuate for as long as the story teller is painting his word pictures in the mind, but then in
the very young, long attention spans are not to be expected.
extention of attention spans comes about when the rewards of extending
them become visible.

there is a story that was written by raffiel alloysious lafferty
and appears in an anthology of his work called 'strainge doings'
that i think was called something like formulating a pta among the
camaroi or something like that
well the camaroi education system in general, whose premary thrust,
however extreme some of its measures, is to gratify exploration and avoid holding back,
has many and interesting concepts.

the anthology is in all likelyhood long out of print but from time to
time continues to show up in used paperback venues, and contains many
highly interesting and inspiring concepts and naratives

my other thought
on paranting
is that a parent's responsibility to their ofspring and the rest of
societ is to insure that their borns realize that everything has
consiquences and that some consiquences are more desirable
then others
and not to attempt to dictate their preferences and perceptions
which of course, calls for a great deal of self diciple

it is however plain that the diciplining of self
is always a prerequisite to the diciplining of others in any way
likely to itself be of remotely positive consiquences

which is again also not a concealing of the simple reality
that consiquences, however statistical the nature of ther spicific happenstance,
do always of course, and for everything, exist

=^^=
.../\...

eliminating an inadvertand duplication

=^^=
.../\...

ok, i have a question for anyone still checking this thread. What do you think about the summerhill school?
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

don't be knockin' my Kropoktin.

R.A.M.B.O. rules!

don't be knockin' my Kropoktin.

R.A.M.B.O. rules!

ok, i have a question for anyone still checking this thread. What do you think about the summerhill school?
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

Interesting... But I could see also why the kid won't skip class when he is in a closed enviroment. and the kid will still get fined work by not waking up on time.

---------------------------
http://www.neilswaab.com/comics/images/wiggles_thumb.gif

ok, i have a question for anyone still checking this thread. What do you think about the summerhill school?
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

Interesting... But I could see also why the kid won't skip class when he is in a closed enviroment. and the kid will still get fined work by not waking up on time.

true, they aren't completely free to do whatever they want. however, it should be noted that nearly all the rules have been made through direct democracy among a governing body that is nearly completely composed of children. and they periodically throw out all the rules and start over.

Anarchy is on the far freedom end of the "freedom or safety" spectrum. How do we answer the question, "How do you protect the freedom?"

Spiritual Anarchy wrote:

and Carlemnatia replies:

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

and Carlemnatia replies:

including:

* what is the relation between anarchism and socialism and communism

the relationship is not a direct one, but ...
if people want to eat, and not all live on agricultural cooperatives (also an option)
at the very least infrastructures need to be created and maintained for transportation
and the energy to run refrigeration. this need not require hierarchical forms of
centralized regulation but does require some form of coordination for the volunteers
providing the work and effort

(infrastructure 'companies' need not be capitalist or hierarchical)

the object is not to replace one form of fanaticism with another
but rather the point is that doing so is unnecessary

(more about that in a sort of 'manifesto' I'll have to upload at sometime)

* how do you deal with crime/criminals in an anarchy

distraint and exile, are proved and true methods used anarchic tribal nations of
historical record, also the Celtic tribes in what later became GB had a really fine
solution and that was to remand offenders into the custody of their victims for terms
of involuntary servitude. obvious there were and would be logistical challenges to the
last, just as clearly not insoluble

* how do you avoid somebody setting up a new state if you have an anarchy

this has always been the problem. obviously without adequate provision for the
common defense, someone is likely to see that absence of a standing government as a
power vacuum just waiting for themselves to try and fill. having a sufficiently
advanced nonmilitary technology that can double as weapons in a pinch, and everyone
having access to this helps. one advantage is that without centralized government,
while that means no centralized command and control which may in some ways mean a
high risk of 'friendly fire' casualties in the even of repelling an invasion, it also means
no central targets whose loss, did they exist, might otherwise be critical.

someday i will have to write up how the world of lananara repelled just such an armed
invasion problem. what existed were systems of communication and consultation that
were capable of acting quickly, even if in some cases with less then perfect
coordination.
laser excavating tools used in its mining industry were real handy at making big holes
where big holes were needed, but what really turned the tide was the asteroid miner's
'mosquito armada' being quickly equipped with scaled up versions of the nonleathal
stunners used in 'law enforcement'

all of which in tern requires a bit more explanation bit by bit i realize

* is a society with no government but capitalism still an anarchist one

unless it is limited to 'mom and pop' single and local proprietorships, no!

* does anarcho-communism involve any amount of individual distinctness

define anarcho-communism? i'm your friendly local devoutly agnostic anarcho-socialist
diversity is the nature of reality any attempt to ignore, let alone suppress that reality
is unsustainable (nature tends to laugh at dictators, even when no one else can)

* what is the true/original meanings of the words "anarchy, anarchism, anarchist" - as
compared to "chaos, disorder etc."

an (without) archy (hierarchical, i.e. 'top down' social/governance organization of ANY
kind)

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

* the differences between 'class struggle' anarchism and its alternatives

if you have a struggle going on you've yet to achieve true and sustainable an-archy

* how soon will we have an anarchy, and how hard should we struggle to get it?

the struggle is within our individual selves each and all, to nonconfrontationaly boycott
and ostracize the aggressiveness of gratuitous conventionality, even or perhaps
especially, and certainly first, within out own selves

* revolutionism vs. reformism/evolutionism

conflict nourishes more conflict

* anarchism and religion/spirituality/atheism

genuine and abiding spirituality is all around us
if anything it the imposing of names and definitions upon it
that puts up barriers and separations between it and ourselves

there is also atleast one example (and probably others) of formal organized belief that
has no priesthood, but instead spiritual assemblies elected yearly by plurality vote.
the faith of Baha'u'llah is the example that comes to mind and may prove interesting
for its own sake.

not to mention that the 'economic' implications imbedded within virtually all organized
beliefs are essentially anarcho socialist with provision for modest mom and pop
capitalism but no gobash corporate stateism

* how to bring up children in an anarchy - parental authority?

the wild natural world provides examples of this

parental authority and responsibility can be shared

house breaking is of course essential

as is instilling an awareness that everything has consequences
some more desirable then others

but the dictating of perceptions is no part of either
and is neither necessary nor entirely excusable
other then honest imperfections of separating the one from the other

* would a working anarchy require a reduction in population?

sustainable balance requires sustainable balance
the wanton overdrawing of green capitol is decidedly unsustainable

anytime you have a tradeoff between natural stability
and economic activity, this in and of itself is a working definition
of excessive population.

so the need for a reduction is not specific to ideological form or absence thereof
but rather is necessary for mental and physical health in general

now the term reduction is worrying somewhat i.e. 'draconian' measures which are
intrinsically undesirable kharmicly to say the least

what is desirable and achievable but might take some doing to sell popularly
(but could perhaps be done clandestinely without having to)
is the development of something that will lower all human fertility unbiasedly and
across the board (if we can come up with viagra which is the last thing in hell earth
needs, surely we can come up with something to slip into everyone's water supply or
possibly a sustainable permanent change to achieve this, into the hydrological cycle
itself)

Anarchism and cities/country

cities are merely large aggregations of villages which are called neighborhoods

my appologies for any duplications with my previous post

most of these answers are incomplete and with further
expansions to fallow

=^^=
.../\...

What about minarchy? It's supposed to be like anarchy, but with justice systems, police and army for protection?

We do not need to replace capitalism with another form of fanaticism. we simply need
to get rid of all forms of fanaticism, capitalism included.

we need of course, to maintain certain forms of tangible infrastructure.
that or reduce population (through attrition, not loss of life) to a fraction of its
current levels, or preferably both.

transportation, energy and data communication are desirable forms of infrastructure.
top heavy, self serving, overcentralized standing hierarchies are not.

agriculture is the foundation of civilized life
mining is that of tangible infrastructure
but without a stable, diverse and enriched environment, both are meaningless.
for without the stability of the natural wild environment, which depends in turn upon
its diversity, life itself ceases to exist

(and what is fanaticism but ANYthing that is prioritized ahead of the real effects of
real policies on real people, places and things?)

there is no form of fanaticism, that will save anyone, from another form of fanaticism
or its ill effects.

somehow, we have got to get the idea out of our heads (and emotional attachment to
it out of our hearts) that there 'has' to be, or 'must' be or that we want there to
be.

there may well be all sorts of nontangable beings, maybe even nontangable experiences
awaiting us, but somehow we have got to understand, that this is an entirely separate
question.

if it motivates and inspires us to consider the consequences of our actions, not merely
upon ourselves but upon our surroundings and our neighbors, every living creature and
inanimate object we share them with, that is good, that is what its there for; to
motivate responsibility, not as a substitute for it or an excuse for not doing so.

time for a few definitions of how i'm using terms:
tyranny is the dominance of aggressiveness, under ANY ideology, form of governance,
economic theory or system of belief.
civilization is the absence of tyranny.
morality is the avoidance of knowingly causing avoidable harm
and the one evil is to knowingly cause avoidable harm

ok; so you're probably wondering where in the heck, without the incentives of either
fear or gratuitous accumulation, is the motivation to create and maintain those
essential infrastructures, or anything else for that matter, going to come from.

first of all, let me debunk another myth: there is no such thing as anyone wanting to
do absolutely nothing, whatever anyone may claim about anyone else or even
themselves. there IS such a thing however, as wanting to avoid rewarding
aggressiveness and inequity. this is normal, natural, moral and healthy.

now back to the quest for a sustainable and harmonious source of self motivation.

lets begin by asking what makes gratuitous accumulation a motivation in the first
place. there are two principal gratifications; that of accomplishing something and that
of being appreciated. there are several others of course, chief among them,
experiencing pleasure in all its many forms. people also often want to be envied, or
have been brainwashed into wanting to or into imagining themselves to want to, perhaps
unwisely, for the gratification it brings, if any, is at best fleeting and often woefully
disappointing, however often people keep experiencing this and still not getting it. the
sole exception is the undying 'envy'/admiration of an actual accomplishment and not a
mere accumulation.

and what is the greatest accomplishment, but to create beauty that is appreciated by
and useful to others as well as one's self?

it is obviously not sufficient for a single individual to know these things. it is rather
necessary that an entire culture know, understand and recognize them

one economic system that has historically been observed to be fully functional is called
potlatching. in essence honor, prestige and even position, are earned, not by how
much one can accumulate, but by how much one gives and is able to give, away. the
only flaw, in a technologically advanced setting, is the need to maintain tools, or at
least access to them, in order to keep making more things, to give away. it is
certainly a strong motivation though, of among other things, to learn how to use them.

it is this principal, in combination with recognizing the real value of environmental
enrichment, and the creation of beauty, that is the engine that drives lananaran and
carlemnarian economics.

=^^=
.../\...

We do not need to replace capitalism with another form of fanaticism. we simply need
to get rid of all forms of fanaticism, capitalism included.

we need of course, to maintain certain forms of tangible infrastructure.
that or reduce population (through attrition, not loss of life) to a fraction of its
current levels, or preferably both.

transportation, energy and data communication are desirable forms of infrastructure.
top heavy, self serving, overcentralized standing hierarchies are not.

agriculture is the foundation of civilized life
mining is that of tangible infrastructure
but without a stable, diverse and enriched environment, both are meaningless.
for without the stability of the natural wild environment, which depends in turn upon
its diversity, life itself ceases to exist

(and what is fanaticism but ANYthing that is prioritized ahead of the real effects of
real policies on real people, places and things?)

there is no form of fanaticism, that will save anyone, from another form of fanaticism
or its ill effects.

somehow, we have got to get the idea out of our heads (and emotional attachment to
it out of our hearts) that there 'has' to be, or 'must' be or that we want there to
be.

there may well be all sorts of nontangable beings, maybe even nontangable experiences
awaiting us, but somehow we have got to understand, that this is an entirely separate
question.

if it motivates and inspires us to consider the consequences of our actions, not merely
upon ourselves but upon our surroundings and our neighbors, every living creature and
inanimate object we share them with, that is good, that is what its there for; to
motivate responsibility, not as a substitute for it or an excuse for not doing so.

time for a few definitions of how i'm using terms:
tyranny is the dominance of aggressiveness, under ANY ideology, form of governance,
economic theory or system of belief.
civilization is the absence of tyranny.
morality is the avoidance of knowingly causing avoidable harm
and the one evil is to knowingly cause avoidable harm

ok; so you're probably wondering where in the heck, without the incentives of either
fear or gratuitous accumulation, is the motivation to create and maintain those
essential infrastructures, or anything else for that matter, going to come from.

first of all, let me debunk another myth: there is no such thing as anyone wanting to
do absolutely nothing, whatever anyone may claim about anyone else or even
themselves. there IS such a thing however, as wanting to avoid rewarding
aggressiveness and inequity. this is normal, natural, moral and healthy.

now back to the quest for a sustainable and harmonious source of self motivation.

lets begin by asking what makes gratuitous accumulation a motivation in the first
place. there are two principal gratifications; that of accomplishing something and that
of being appreciated. there are several others of course, chief among them,
experiencing pleasure in all its many forms. people also often want to be envied, or
have been brainwashed into wanting to or into imagining themselves to want to, perhaps
unwisely, for the gratification it brings, if any, is at best fleeting and often woefully
disappointing, however often people keep experiencing this and still not getting it. the
sole exception is the undying 'envy'/admiration of an actual accomplishment and not a
mere accumulation.

and what is the greatest accomplishment, but to create beauty that is appreciated by
and useful to others as well as one's self?

it is obviously not sufficient for a single individual to know these things. it is rather
necessary that an entire culture know, understand and recognize them

one economic system that has historically been observed to be fully functional is called
potlatching. in essence honor, prestige and even position, are earned, not by how
much one can accumulate, but by how much one gives and is able to give, away. the
only flaw, in a technologically advanced setting, is the need to maintain tools, or at
least access to them, in order to keep making more things, to give away. it is
certainly a strong motivation though, of among other things, to learn how to use them.

it is this principal, in combination with recognizing the real value of environmental
enrichment, and the creation of beauty, that is the engine that drives lananaran and
carlemnarian economics.

=^^=
.../\...

What about minarchy? It's supposed to be like anarchy, but with justice systems, police and army for protection?

the question then is whose police and whose army?

What about minarchy? It's supposed to be like anarchy, but with justice systems, police and army for protection?

the question then is whose police and whose army?
I'm not an anarchist, but I have an idea of how it may work with the army. Have an army that is made entirly of drafted men and women, in times of need. Perhaps impose a very small tax in kind for weapons, and store them somewhere. Then, if they are needed, send them to the trouble spots, and the borders of this region that has a common army. That should basically be what it is. No government otherwise, but have a pact to form a common army in times of need.
As for a police force, I can't tell how anarchy can exist with one around. Perhaps it can be like the US constitution. Translated into extremely liberal terms, it could be applied like this: there are no police. When someone is suspected of a crime, the accuser must be a person/people, who place them under citizen's arrest. Then, select a volunteer judge, to decide their fate. However, it may require prisons, and I'm not sure how an anarchy can survive with prisons around. Having a penal system in a pure anarchy can lead to easy toltalitarianism.

Oi all! I'm new, trying to learn the game and wanted to drop by and say: ''may love rule us all!" :)

green hippies
cool name and flag

118 nations
that's almost enough to start a planet
we must be doing something right or atleast piculiar interesting and
curiosity inspiring
by we i mean regon anarchy collectively
to have grown from 103 i think it was when i joined
to 118

i've always wanted to rollplay a post petrolium, post monitarist,
post warring states 'ecotopian' world.

i'm also thinking about maps
does anybody else like maps?
of our regeon/world?

of course nations need not be localized and with borders

one alternative world, well advanced, nations are only united
by their collective on the net.
kind of like nation states. each village and neighborhood subscribing to whichever most appeals to the consensus of their
local population, resaulting in a
crazy quilt geographic patchwork of
(para)'idiologies' and ways of life.
the great advantage of which being that if they way people act and live
in your village or neighborhood or rural district, the next one down
the road might be completely exoticly different, and if not that
one then maybe the next one.

and of course the 'road' being a narrow gauge clean energy railway of some sort, thereby not requiring anyone to indenture themselves
to an automobile.

while i haven't drawn maps
and i want to be careful not to impose my own hopes on anyone else
there are pictures of the kind of place such a world, or at least carlemnaria's parts of it
might look like

http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/j/t/jteall2/jteall2.html

i could try making maps or immages to suit other anarchy nations who
might wish too.

any of the places i hang out or my email if there's any requests for
this.

i do have some very concrete ideas about the possibilities

though i'm not really inclined to lead or fallow
just wishing to coequaly share however that might be achieved

=^^=
.../\...

Anarchy is on the far freedom end of the "freedom or safety" spectrum. How do we answer the question, "How do you protect the freedom?"

It protects itself, if you understand what I mean.

ok, i have a question for anyone still checking this thread. What do you think about the summerhill school?
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

In "The Dispossesed", the main character and those who share his beliefs (represented by "The Syndicate for Initiative") realize that in their "totally" free, anarchic society, their freedom is curtailed by the community and neighbors ("Will they approve or not?)...they (the Initiative Syndicate) realized that society needed to be shook up.

Anyways, as "The Dispossed" relates to Summer Hill, I can see peer pressure (*possibly*) as a very powerful force, seeing as it is one of the only forces left (or is it?). On the whole, the self-description of the school almost seems too good to be true. I don't know enough to make an opinion about Summer Hill, but I think that the kids raised here will have a hard time merging with the rest of hierarchal, Western society.

Anarchy is on the far freedom end of the "freedom or safety" spectrum. How do we answer the question, "How do you protect the freedom?"

It protects itself, if you understand what I mean.

I believe I understand what you're saying to a point, but what prevents the strongest force from simply taking what they want? I believe we all agree that the lure of power is signifigant and that if given the opportunity most people would succumb and become tyrannts. Believing that to be the case how can we expect people to live peacefully when the have the opportunity to gain from other's losses?

I think perhaps the answer is that Anarchy can only exist in an entirely voluntary system so all members of the society would be willing to set aside their personal potential for tyranny for the communal good.

I have one question. I am still not totally familiar with how anarchism works, so what keeps people from hurting each other?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Support the
Anti-Racism Act."

You mean, what's to prevent the type of jerks who "play to win" instead of "play for fun" (or who don't see the distinction) from taking what they want, and then laughing at us while we stare at them, mouths gaping?

"Problem solving" says: exile these types of people to one place, where they can all compete with each other for who's the biggest asshole

"Problem prevention" says: childhood, community, fraternity.

Good, but what about murder?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Support the
Anti-Racism Act."

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

I think perhaps the answer is that Anarchy can only exist in an entirely voluntary system so all members of the society would be willing to set aside their personal potential for tyranny for the communal good.

Sort of...

"Community, Anarchy, and Liberty" by Michael Taylor (Cambridge University Press 1982) makes what I believe is a very important and relevant point about anarchism...

I don't know exactly where it is in the book atm, (but I will find it and post it here, verbatim) but the point it makes is essentially: in an anarchistic community, people MUST have a sense of obligation to each other to work together (people in general do not feel obligated to fight for "the State" or "their country" or any *organization*; they may feel an obligation or devotion to a *cause* (which is represented or supported by an organization) or to *people*).

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

Who or what are you talking about or directing this statement to?

What specific examples or instances do you have to support your statement?

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

Who or what are you talking about or directing this statement to?

What specific examples or instances do you have to support your statement?


uh, Atom and His Package wrote it. Peace out, it's just a song.

Hey, add my region onto teh refions list, it's called 'Anarchy Island'

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

Who or what are you talking about or directing this statement to?

What specific examples or instances do you have to support your statement?


uh, Atom and His Package wrote it. Peace out, it's just a song.

I'm confused...most definitely confused...

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

Who or what are you talking about or directing this statement to?

What specific examples or instances do you have to support your statement?


uh, Atom and His Package wrote it. Peace out, it's just a song.

I'm confused...most definitely confused...


It's a song by a band called Atom and His Package called Anarchy Means I Can Litter. Thats all. It's not that hard

Anarchy Means I Litter
I got a patch. I got a pin. Obtained political beliefs from the same songs as my friends. I got a five finger discount to the little record store, its easier that to get the stiff I want out. And if you want fair compensation for the work that you do, well then your greedy, get out, we have amazing names to call you. Ever think that theres a difference who you're stealing from? So, fine, I'm not punk and you are (a moron). We're gonna tear this stupid city down. Throw our trash on the ground. (Whine Whine Whine when no bands come to town). Liberate that bottle of malt liquor! Oh, I get it. Anarchy means that you litter (nice!). So, if you're flying the flag, and you're naming the name, then you're setting back the ones who know how to behave. It's a good thing this repleneshes itself, or who would be left to take advantage of your Health, Gonna drop our trash on you.

Who or what are you talking about or directing this statement to?

What specific examples or instances do you have to support your statement?


uh, Atom and His Package wrote it. Peace out, it's just a song.

I'm confused...most definitely confused...


It's a song by a band called Atom and His Package called Anarchy Means I Can Litter. Thats all. It's not that hard
well anyone can say anything of course
and nothing can stop anyone form romantaizing common misconceptions
in song.
that people find a financial incentive for doing so is just
another shortcomming of putting little green pieces of paper
ahead of the real effects of real policies on real people, places and
things.
all of which is unfortunate but still basicly 'old news'

i don't think the question as to why it was posted here has been
satisfactraly answered though.

=^^=
.../\...

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?


Because their reward is not a deferred one waiting at the end of the day or the end of the week, instead it is the opportunity to do that work which they believe needs to be done?

Question: why are you going to work?
Answer (1): Because the boss pays me to do so.
Answer (2): Because I believe I am makinga valuable contribution to my society by doing so.
Answer (3): Because I love my work.

Which of the above is likely to work harder?

What about children? Wouldn't they want to have a say? How does that work?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?


Because their reward is not a deferred one waiting at the end of the day or the end of the week, instead it is the opportunity to do that work which they believe needs to be done?

Question: why are you going to work?
Answer (1): Because the boss pays me to do so.
Answer (2): Because I believe I am makinga valuable contribution to my society by doing so.
Answer (3): Because I love my work.

Which of the above is likely to work harder?

Well let's look at the purpose of each and run a simple cost/benifit analysis.

1: Benifits: Pay (survival)
Costs: Effort of work
2: Benifits: Warm feeling
Costs: Effort of work
3: Benifits: Chance to work
Costs: Effort of work

Now which is the most valuable to you, pay (survival), the warm feeling you get from helping people, or the chance to do a job you enjoy?

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?


Because their reward is not a deferred one waiting at the end of the day or the end of the week, instead it is the opportunity to do that work which they believe needs to be done?

Question: why are you going to work?
Answer (1): Because the boss pays me to do so.
Answer (2): Because I believe I am makinga valuable contribution to my society by doing so.
Answer (3): Because I love my work.

Which of the above is likely to work harder?

Well let's look at the purpose of each and run a simple cost/benifit analysis.

1: Benifits: Pay (survival)
Costs: Effort of work
2: Benifits: Warm feeling
Costs: Effort of work
3: Benifits: Chance to work
Costs: Effort of work

Now which is the most valuable to you, pay (survival), the warm feeling you get from helping people, or the chance to do a job you enjoy?

Well, considering that I am raising these issues within a discussion of the possibilities of anarchist society/societies, what is most valuable to me is when I have been lucky enough to work in such small-scale anarchist societies where:
(1) as a member of the society for which I am working my day-to-day survival is looked after by that society
(2) my work has contributed not only to the well-being of other members of the society, but also to my own,
and (3) I enjoy the work I am doing.

Most of the time I am not so lucky... but, by working together it is sometimes possible to look after one's own survival through collective activity which gives one both 'a warm feeling you get from helping people'* and the chance to do work that you enjoy.

*bear in mind that you are also one of these people which is being helped.

Apologies for the lack of clarity here. I really should be asleep right now.

What if a 5-year-old demands a say in things?

Also, what if two groups in an anarchy had conflicting interests? One wants to build a dam, but the other relies on rice heavily and needs the water? According to someone elsewhere, it's not possible for one of these communities to explain to the other why they must have the dam or the water.

Excuse me for my ignorance. I'm still relatively new.

i would guess that we would set up a sliding scale of age/maturity as to how much say kids get in things. kids would definitely get more say in the running of their own lives than they do now, but they would need some limits. but the more involved they are in the running of their own lives from an early age, the better off they will be when they are adults with full say in the running of their communities.

as for groups having conflicting goals, these would have to be talked out and compromised over or argued until both sides agree. within reason anyway - absolute 100% consensus approval isn't needed. and if some issue is so decisive that there is no hope of coming to an agreement, it is probably best to do something else entirely. any project that affects the entire community or beyond will involve a lot of discussion and a lot of compromise.

Someone said that compromise may not be possible and that war would occur. What do you have to say to that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

...

Someone said that compromise may not be possible and that war would occur. What do you have to say to that?

in cases where no compromise is possible, people will just have to go their seperate ways. or fight to the death. but any functioning society does everything it can to avoid full-out wars and feuds because if they don't the society collapses. we'd be no different in that respect, except that we would be a lot more focused on resolving things non-violently than the state is, always has been, and always will be. this is because the state is founded on violence, where as an anarchist society is founded on cooperation. our whole system would be based on freely and peacefully working together - as opposed to the state which orders you to do what they say and then has you punished when you don't.

besides, most cases where people simply "cannot compromise" have less to do with the issue and more to do with someone being stubborn. at least under an anarchist system we wouldn't have a few stubborn people running the whole show with giant armies to back them up.

If I understand the FAQ right, work as we think of it will disappear and people will consider it art instead and do it as an expression of their freedom. What about property? What will make everyone willingly give up wealth?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

What about property? What will make everyone willingly give up wealth?

we aren't after your toothbrush. we mainly want to put things that rightfully belong to society as a whole back under the control of the people so that the benefits of those bits of capitalist property go to everybody instead of a rich minority. the factories and distribution systems. all the farmland and the housing that is owned by landlords and corporations. in essence, redistributing the wealth of society to its rightful owners - which amounts to making almost everybody richer. the only ones who have something to lose really are the rich and privileged. but we aren't going to make them an underclass, we are just going to take away their privilege.

as to how we get there privilege and monopoly of wealth away from them, there are divisions within the anarchist movement. the general consensus is that we will ultimately win by refusing to cooperate with the ruling class. without us working for them and without us fighting for them, they have nothing; they are nothing. whether this refusal will be a general strike or storming the halls of government or directly taking over workplaces or just dropping out is up for argument and experiment.

I see. What if someone refuses to work unless paid?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?


[...]

Question: why are you going to work?
Answer (1): Because the boss pays me to do so.
Answer (2): Because I believe I am makinga valuable contribution to my society by doing so.
Answer (3): Because I love my work. [...]

Dogmatic!

Well let's look at the purpose of each and run a simple cost/benifit analysis.

Nofi, but this is indeed simple.

1: Benifits: Pay (survival)
Costs: Effort of work
2: Benifits: Warm feeling
Costs: Effort of work
3: Benifits: Chance to work
Costs: Effort of work

Benefits highly differ. The warm feeling might as well not count, while the benefit of others does kind; iow you watch it too much from your own view.

Also, keep in mind that these can be combinated. It is obvious one somehow needs money in order to stay alive. However, a partner can work for money while s/he himself doesn't work for profit [where is that pay/survival part than], it can be a direct combination of 1/2/3 (for example: working for a human rights NGO), it can be an indirect combination of 1/2/3 (for example: 2 days working as barman/barwoman, 3 days as volunteer for an grassroot media centre). And there can be other reasons than 1/2/3.

While some only work when they receive (a lot of) money, other do have lower standards. This can be for example from an idealistic point of view. Doesn't need to be.

Now which is the most valuable to you, pay (survival), the warm feeling you get from helping people, or the chance to do a job you enjoy?

You put a dogma up for others, just like OE. Others are however Free to think for their own purpose and/or benefit :)

What about property? What will make everyone willingly give up wealth?
we aren't after your toothbrush. we mainly want to put things that rightfully belong to society as a whole back under the control of the people so that the benefits of those bits of capitalist property go to everybody instead of a rich minority. the factories and distribution systems. all the farmland and the housing that is owned by landlords and corporations. in essence, redistributing the wealth of society to its rightful owners - which amounts to making almost everybody richer.
*Phew!* Thank God I don't have to hide my toothbrush come the revolution! :P

Seriously - or rather comically - though, when I was about ten I asked my Dad what communism was, and he said something about how in a communist society no-one would have any 'property', how it would be taken away from those who had it. I was shocked, and asked: "What - does that include my trousers??!"

:P :P :P Oh you may laugh now, but that was a serious concern to a 10-year-old.

oh, you said ANARCHIST...

not

ANITCHRIST!

Sorry, wrong forum.

*Phew!* Thank God I don't have to hide my toothbrush come the revolution! :P

that wasn't a general amnesty for everyone in the toothbrush-propertied classes. we are in fact after your toothbrush.

oh, you said ANARCHIST...

not

ANITCHRIST!
Anarchist? Antichrist? To quote Bakunin:

"[God] expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.
"We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers. Our Catholic and Protestant theologians look upon that as very profound and very just, precisely because it is monstrously iniquitous and absurd."

-From God and The State

oh, you said ANARCHIST...

not

ANITCHRIST!
Anarchist? Antichrist? To quote Bakunin:

"[God] expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.
"We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers. Our Catholic and Protestant theologians look upon that as very profound and very just, precisely because it is monstrously iniquitous and absurd."

-From God and The State

Totally offtopic, but i've been wondering for quite a while. Why is God stated between [square brackers]???

Bakunin beigins the sentence with the pronoun "He" but if one is reading only that bit, the word 'God' (to whom MB is refering to) makes more sense there and takes away that moment of confusion (Quoth the reader: "who the fuck is 'He'"?)

It would be funny if I saw someone saying, "Head for the hills! The anarchists are after our toothbrushes!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Bakunin beigins the sentence with the pronoun "He" but if one is reading only that bit, the word 'God' (to whom MB is refering to) makes more sense there and takes away that moment of confusion (Quoth the reader: "who the f--- is 'He'"?)

That's clear -- thanks.

Bakunin beigins the sentence with the pronoun "He" but if one is reading only that bit, the word 'God' (to whom MB is refering to) makes more sense there and takes away that moment of confusion (Quoth the reader: "who the f--- is 'He'"?)

That's clear -- thanks.

Bakunin beigins the sentence with the pronoun "He" but if one is reading only that bit, the word 'God' (to whom MB is refering to) makes more sense there and takes away that moment of confusion (Quoth the reader: "who the f--- is 'He'"?)

That's clear -- thanks.

I'd still like to know how to get people who refuse to work for free to work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I'd still like to know how to get people who refuse to work for free to work.

well, you aren't exactly working for free. people won't be working for a wage, but they will instead get the full value of their labor (which is, on average, higher than what their wages would be - no capitalist class sucking off "profits"). essentially you will get rewarded for your work; either directly from the wealth created by whatever you do or more indirectly by the community in exchange for your work. the way that work is rewarded will be decided democratically, either by the whole community or the individual collectives and communes.

the same goes for deciding what to do about people who refuse to work. if there is way more than enough to go around (which seems likely given how rich industrial society has made us) then it might be the case that even people who refuse to do any work are given some basic minimum necessities. but if this runs into the free rider problem, you could always set some very low level of socially required work that each person must do (or provide a reason why they shouldn't) in order to receive the benefits of living in that community. i wouldn't expect people to work nearly as hard as they do now, so this would probably be a small token amount of required work.

there would also be a fairly strong social pressure to work because whether you work or not affects both you and the community around you. and we would not be faceless unknowns to each other anymore, because none of this could work without rebuilding our social networks. so if i don't want to work, everyone in my community would know and would be affected. that would make them less likely to side with me on things and less likely to help me when i need them. this seems to me to be how other egalitarian societies dealt with things like this - we have social instincts from millions of years of evolution that lets us keep track of who has been nice to us and who has acted fairly to us so that we may be fair and nice in return - and to avoid working with people who weren't fair or nice in the past. we are all better off when more people cooperate, so it comes down to a sort of informal democratic oversight.

and anybody that hated the whole system could go off somewhere by themselves.

If there is still wealth, then isn't it possible to get rich and form social classes? What about age? Couldn't that result in social classes, too?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

i'm using wealth as a kind of generic term for "useful stuff we create". this covers everything from cd players to medicine to education. wealth is created by doing pretty much any form of socially useful work.

if you work at the widget making factory, coming home each day with your share of the widgets won't be of much use. so we make as many widgets as the community (and possibly the wider federation of communities) needs. then we trade them for stuff that we need; after all, we've got a severe shortage of doo-hickeys over here. all of this trading and producing makes enough stuff to do what we as a community decide we need. a good chunk of the wealth produced will be sunk back into the community - healthcare, education, public transportation, etc. the rest will be divided up among the community members, in whatever way they see fit. it most likely won't be straight rationing - because people have different desires so why would people all get the same stuff? but it will be a form of rationing, at least until we get beyond the artificial concept of scarcity. people often freak out about this, but really paychecks are also a form of rationing - you get x amount of credits to get whatever you want. our way is just a more fair and just method than the arbitrary rationing decisions made by your boss ("1 for you, 10 for me. 1 for you, 10 for me...").

age might come into play as a sort of social class divider if we aren't careful, though it wouldn't be based in economics i don't think. everyone will get relatively close to the same cut of society's wealth and there won't be a method to earn more wealth for yourself purely by virtue of already having wealth - which makes it hard for old people have vastly more than young people other than in dusty old things in the attic. but we might wind up with a sort of defacto "rule by old people" as is sometimes seen in other cultures. we'll just have to be careful and watch out for it, same as everything else.

Do you like the translated quote in my sig?

How big would these communities generally be?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

How big would these communities generally be?

well, direct democracy works best in groups up to a couple hundred people. beyond that there are just too many people to know and talk to. so the most basic level of an anarchist political and economic system would probably be around that, either as the entire community or a neighborhood assembly for larger communities. for coordination in bigger communities and for groups of smaller communities we would need to have an assembly of delegates from each community/neighborhood, but always keeping political and economic power as close to the ground as possible

and i do like that quote.

I have heard there is an optimum number of people in a community, about 74 or something. This was worked out by some research into communities.

I hope having millions of people don't make the system too cumbersome.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I hope having millions of people don't make the system too cumbersome.

that's where the beauty of decentralized power comes in. for most issues, decentralized direct democracy will be at least as efficient as centralized government - with the added benefit of being immensely more free and fair.

Seriously - or rather comically - though, when I was about ten I asked my Dad what communism was, and he said something about how in a communist society no-one would have any 'property', how it would be taken away from those who had it. I was shocked, and asked: "What - does that include my trousers??!"

:P :P :P Oh you may laugh now, but that was a serious concern to a 10-year-old.

Heh, though it's a valid question and one that has been addressed. Property != possessions, this has been clear since Proudhon. That which you own and use is your possession, that which you own and charge others for the use of is property. Thus, to extend the toothbrush argument, nobody's after YOUR toothbrush, but if you happen to have two extra toothbrushes and rent them to others, then we are after those :-)

As for "wealth" and "riches", think about it for a while. What value is lots of money in a non-monetary economy? It's basically a lot of useless paper and metal. The rich man is the same as the poor man when free distribution exists. Other aspects of conspicuous wealth become more ridiculous - diamonds, expensive clothes, etc, are functionally useless. They look nice, but their value is social. Current society attributes value to shiny stones and rare clothing made by some famous designer. But, in a society with readjusted priorities, these would become completely valueless. There's no need to go as far as Kropotkin and his grey clothes concept, but he was writing in a very different time. Individualist anarchist ideas have long since influenced the counter culture where individual expression in clothing is valued more than expense.

Think of another example of conspicuous wealth - large houses. After the revolution, where are the owners going to get their cleaners and cooks, etc? The very rich, particularly those with inherited wealth, are parasites. Many never do any work at all and their entire lifestyle is based on the activities of other. Remove the workers from their control and they'll suddenly find themselves living in a dwelling far too huge for them to handle and may well starve to death unless they get off their arses and get food for themselves. This is exactly what happened to many of the "great" houses in the UK after WWII and the collapse of the British Empire and in the US South after the Civil War. Without access to cheap and willing staff, or even slaves, many of them fell into ruin.

Pope Vassilly Deferns.

Why do people work their hardest if there is no profit motive?


Because their reward is not a deferred one waiting at the end of the day or the end of the week, instead it is the opportunity to do that work which they believe needs to be done?

Question: why are you going to work?
Answer (1): Because the boss pays me to do so.
Answer (2): Because I believe I am makinga valuable contribution to my society by doing so.
Answer (3): Because I love my work.

Which of the above is likely to work harder?

Well let's look at the purpose of each and run a simple cost/benifit analysis.

1: Benifits: Pay (survival)
Costs: Effort of work
2: Benifits: Warm feeling
Costs: Effort of work
3: Benifits: Chance to work
Costs: Effort of work

Now which is the most valuable to you, pay (survival), the warm feeling you get from helping people, or the chance to do a job you enjoy?

belive it or not
the answer to that is not going to be the same for everybody
or at least that's the impression i get from people i've known.
and i've personaly known people for whome each of those answers is the most valuable

and about equaly many of each.
i'm a number three myself
my wife is a number one as mostly was my mother
while my dad was mostly a number two and tried to raise me that way.

this is part of diversity being the nature of reality

there ARE ways to gratify all three that involve neither fear NOR greed
and i think that is an important point

and obviously fanatical capitolism is NOT one of them
(niether of course is fanatical anything else likely to be for that matter. but familiar assumptions are not the beggining nor ending of anything, even historicly, let alone of what enginuity is likely to devise given half a chance when not stiffled from doing so by emotional attatchment to familiar arbitrary assumptions)

=^^=
.../\...

bump

sisters and brothers in revolutionary struggle,
in spain in 1936 city over the population of 75,like barcelona,catalon,madrid(500,000 to 1 million) worked together in the anarchy of post government spain, there are no limits to where community can work, on smaller levels they go to bigger federated levels(like the cnt and fai). 74 is what a good collective could be but in a federation of collectives it can be millions.
peoples collectives is a anarcho-syndicalist state being withered away at this moment. socialism is instituted here so there is no longer a need for the state apparatus.(i should have choosen anarchy when i started)
we are located and in the anti fascist workers bloc. we left the anti capitalist alliance becuase of the amount of dictators that were in the alliance. need be we will stand alone then work with dictators that will repress their peoples and become imperialists just like the ussr,china, and others.
signed
cpc-information collective

sisters and brothers in revolutionary struggle,
in spain in 1936 city over the population of 75,like barcelona,catalon,madrid(500,000 to 1 million) worked together in the anarchy of post government spain, there are no limits to where community can work, on smaller levels they go to bigger federated levels(like the cnt and fai). 74 is what a good collective could be but in a federation of collectives it can be millions.
peoples collectives is a anarcho-syndicalist state being withered away at this moment. socialism is instituted here so there is no longer a need for the state apparatus.(i should have choosen anarchy when i started)
we are located and in the anti fascist workers bloc. we left the anti capitalist alliance becuase of the amount of dictators that were in the alliance. need be we will stand alone then work with dictators that will repress their peoples and become imperialists just like the ussr,china, and others.
signed
cpc-information collective

I wonder just how many people realize that money only has value because they think it's worth something. This belief, in part, keeps capitalism alive.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

sisters and brothers in revolutionary struggle,
in spain in 1936 city over the population of 75,like barcelona,catalon,madrid(500,000 to 1 million) worked together in the anarchy of post government spain, there are no limits to where community can work, on smaller levels they go to bigger federated levels(like the cnt and fai). 74 is what a good collective could be but in a federation of collectives it can be millions.
Yes I know, when I said 74 it was the idea of a single community, not a collective of communities. Such collectives would have to happen with population levels and concentrations like we have now.

Wouldn't everyone have to move around alot to get the commune size down to 100 people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

nah, there'd just be a lot more political bodies around. the basic direct democracy level would be individual workplaces and neighborhoods, which would work together within the larger cities and regions.

Given that many people say it can't work, what are some common objections and the solutions you have for them?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Perhaps offtopic, but whatever... regarding Spain, i saw that example popped up multiple times. But there were and are ofcourse other examples. Amsterdam in the 80's had quite a big autonomous network (and Nijmegen, which resides near German borders, too). The military police lost these battles over there so much (for example during squat evictions), that the army was used eventually. The army even planned a coup d'etat. I'm not aware of details of other smilair situations in other countries; i'm eager to know! Especially regarding detailed stories (ie. a diary) of your experiences during that time.

I think also that the resistance movement needs to go a new, creative way instead of the current forms. One way which seems rather damaging than constructive is because of the new hype around terrorism, activists (for example animal rights activism) being accused of terrorism, with the common people eating that for breakfast :cry: if or one am looking forward to the destruction of centralized media of TV and radio. Though the internet will not and can not solve the centralisation problem completely, it is a space for innovate, creative grassroot platforms already 8)

I have heard there is an optimum number of people in a community, about 74 or something. This was worked out by some research into communities.

Is this info online somewhere in a detailed manner?

there are a couple types of common objections. they go something like this:
1) human nature isn't good enough for anarchism to work.
2) people need leaders - most people cannot function on their own.
3) we require centralized political and economic power in order to have a complex industrial or post-industrial society.

number 1 is my favorite, and one of the most common. the argument goes that human nature is either fundamentally bad or just not good enough to get along without the state. the assumption is that anarchism requires "perfect" people in order to work. what people making this argument forget is that the state us run by people. if people are so bad that we cannot trust them to play nice, why the hell would it be a good idea to give a tiny number of them a huge amount of power and authority over the rest of us?

number 2 is a sort of non-objection. first off, nobody thinks that they need to be bossed around and watched over. this is always in reference to other people. and secondly, even if it were true, why would the fact that some people aren't good at thinking and acting independently mean that everyone has to be ruled by others? besides, most people seem to get along just fine most of the time - and i suspect that they would get along even better in a society that valued people thinking and acting and being responsible for themselves more. and if some people still don't want to or can't think for themselves, at least we are offering everyone the chance.

number 3 is an empirical claim that hasn't been tested much, though the example of spain seems to indicate that complex society can get on reasonably well - even under conditions of civil war (which can hardly be described as favorable conditions). people put it up as fact, when the only evidence we have seems to disagree with it. even if its true, if it comes down to a choice between a dvd player and freedom i know what i'll choose.

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.

You obviously know little about Anarchism. There is no irony is that.

I have heard there is an optimum number of people in a community, about 74 or something. This was worked out by some research into communities.

Is this info online somewhere in a detailed manner?

i looked it up in a book i have, and somebody named robin dunbar plotted out the ratio of the neo-cortex to entire brain size against the social group sizes in primates. the line this graph produced gave 150ish as the approximate group size for the human brain ratio. then he looked into it and found all sorts of example where 150 or so actually shows up in human societies - like neolithic village sizes and basic military units. let me go check the internet...

aha!
http://www.bcg.com/strategy_institute_gallery/gorilla2.asp

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.

you know what was an even better part? the part where you read the thread so that you had a better understanding of anarchism and what it stands for. i liked that part.

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.

you know what was an even better part? the part where you read the thread so that you had a better understanding of anarchism and what it stands for. i liked that part.

If I cared enough about an impossible system of "government" to read the entire post, I wouldn't be mocking you and your ideas. Good day, sir.

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.
you know what was an even better part? the part where you read the thread so that you had a better understanding of anarchism and what it stands for. i liked that part.
If I cared enough about an impossible system of "government" to read the entire post, I wouldn't be mocking you and your ideas. Good day, sir.
The fact that anarchism involves organisation, just not authority has been covered extensively in many of the previous pages. Over and over again in fact, as more and more non-anarchists have come in to say something false and ignorant like you have, without reading explanations, debates, definitions. You are just the latest.

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.
you know what was an even better part? the part where you read the thread so that you had a better understanding of anarchism and what it stands for. i liked that part.
If I cared enough about an impossible system of "government" to read the entire post, I wouldn't be mocking you and your ideas. Good day, sir.
The fact that anarchism involves organisation, just not authority has been covered extensively in many of the previous pages. Over and over again in fact, as more and more non-anarchists have come in to say something false and ignorant like you have, without reading explanations, debates, definitions. You are just the latest.

The latest and the greatest baby!

The best part about this thread is the beginning, where whats-his-name calls on all anarchists to organize here....anyone else see the irony? No? Well, whatever, I thought it was funny.
you know what was an even better part? the part where you read the thread so that you had a better understanding of anarchism and what it stands for. i liked that part.
If I cared enough about an impossible system of "government" to read the entire post, I wouldn't be mocking you and your ideas. Good day, sir.
The fact that anarchism involves organisation, just not authority has been covered extensively in many of the previous pages. Over and over again in fact, as more and more non-anarchists have come in to say something false and ignorant like you have, without reading explanations, debates, definitions. You are just the latest.
The latest and the greatest baby!
Errr... no.

Haha, it's ok. Don't worry about me, I'm not on a crusade to destroy anarchy....you guys seem to be doing fine anyway.

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

an·ar·chy **
n. pl. an·ar·chies

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

I see the irony in calling a forum or meeting for any group claiming themselves to be "true anarchists".

1st definition: True, calling for discussion has nothing to do with political authority. However, calling for a meeting does. Any time people get into groups, they must form a hiarchy in order to get something accomplished (which is what this thread was designed to do. See below)

2nd definition: Um... the originator of the thread said ORGANISE (sic). If he was a true anarchist, he would have not used those words or wished that the thread be organized and coherant. It goes against the basic ideology behind true anarchy.

3rd definition: The common purpose here was to unite anarchists under one umbrella, so to speak. However, this simply cannot logistically work because in order to unite, a group must be formed. With a group comes order, beit social, inherent, or earned. The originator, in this case, has decided to be the leader (as most threads are). His reference to "steering back on topic" shows an inherent power that he himself has deemed necessary.

If this were a true anarchy, no one could object to me talking, say, about pink elephants or how polar bears can never eat penguins. Because, you see, there is no organization, no rules, and nobody to tell me otherwise. Because if you do, you are going with the order set up, and that is against the very thing anarchy is based upon.

Gotta love those paradoxes, huh? lol

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

an·ar·chy **
n. pl. an·ar·chies

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

I see the irony in calling a forum or meeting for any group claiming themselves to be "true anarchists".

1st definition: True, calling for discussion has nothing to do with political authority. However, calling for a meeting does. Any time people get into groups, they must form a hiarchy in order to get something accomplished (which is what this thread was designed to do. See below)

2nd definition: Um... the originator of the thread said ORGANISE (sic). If he was a true anarchist, he would have not used those words or wished that the thread be organized and coherant. It goes against the basic ideology behind true anarchy.

3rd definition: The common purpose here was to unite anarchists under one umbrella, so to speak. However, this simply cannot logistically work because in order to unite, a group must be formed. With a group comes order, beit social, inherent, or earned. The originator, in this case, has decided to be the leader (as most threads are). His reference to "steering back on topic" shows an inherent power that he himself has deemed necessary.

If this were a true anarchy, no one could object to me talking, say, about pink elephants or how polar bears can never eat penguins. Because, you see, there is no organization, no rules, and nobody to tell me otherwise. Because if you do, you are going with the order set up, and that is against the very thing anarchy is based upon.

Gotta love those paradoxes, huh? lolNo paradoxes here. You apearantly have no idea what anarchism is. Perhapy you should actually read some of this thread before commenting on it.

See? Weitzel is right. Thats what I said....except I didn't say it like that. I don't like researching things before I spout off at the mouth, but this time I was right. Can I get a booyah?

Haha, it's ok. Don't worry about me, I'm not on a crusade to destroy anarchy....you guys seem to be doing fine anyway.So many damned fools have of late
obstructed constructive debate
with their outbursts
the cause? first things first:
Brother and sister should never mate!

Haha, it's ok. Don't worry about me, I'm not on a crusade to destroy anarchy....you guys seem to be doing fine anyway.So many damned fools have of late
obstructed constructive debate
with their outbursts
the cause? first things first:
Brother and sister should never mate!

Oooh, clever. Using a stranger's words to insult a stranger. I admire your originality. I don't understand the hate, I'm just posting my point of view.

double post...sorry

S/he says it in a dictative way. That is all. Funny thing is, that happens a lot. It's a part of our languages, and it has a variety of purposes. Even Go! is one. Now, the point is wether s/he can force anarchists to post here; impossible.

Anarchy does not mean the abscence of criticism. From my experience, the absence of hierarchy actually implies criticism! In consensus, there's a lot of criticism, though that may not be necessarily true. Your 2nd term is not a term i'm gonna discuss since i find it bull. The original meaning never talked about that, some people thought and think that would be the result of anarchy. Doesn't need to be true.

Thanks for the URL Spiritual Anarchy. It says 150, and well, that would be under the best circumstances -- thus leaving aside ie. drones, narcist disorder types, etc.

Haha, it's ok. Don't worry about me, I'm not on a crusade to destroy anarchy....you guys seem to be doing fine anyway.So many damned fools have of late
obstructed constructive debate
with their outbursts
the cause? first things first:
Brother and sister should never mate!

Oooh, clever. Using a stranger's words to insult a stranger. I admire your originality.

There is not the tinyest danger
that I plagiarized some word-aranger
my freind, I'll be terse
I authored the verse
And I to myself am no stranger

See? This guy is right. Thats what I said....except I didn't say it like that. I don't like researching things before I spout off at the mouth, but this time I was right. Can I get a booyah?

BOOOYAH!!!

I have read several books about anarchy, and political science in general. You may ask "why hasn't anybody created a government that was anarchist in nature?" The answer is IT DOESN'T WORK. Whenever you have a group of people with no set of laws or principals (what true anarchy is about) then they will still strive to create order in one way or another. It is human nature.

(btw, I still believe Webster and the American Abridged Dictionary. :-))

As for reading your posts, I did read most of them. To me they are nothing but contradiction after contradiction.

Try getting something done without authority, without any organization whatsoever. I challenge you to go build a bridge, go write software code, or go into business for yourself without any rules, authority, or organization.

You see, two heads really are better than one. Each of these tasks are too involved and too complicated to do yourself, and if there aren't any order and authority, the project will never get done. Try having a crew of people that lack discipline and a common purpose. Try to get them to do something. Unfortunately if you do you have some sort of order, and badda bing! no anarchy.

And that is why anarchy never works. :-)

Apearantly you know absolutly nothing about Anarchism. Anarchism does not propose an absence of common principles and organization. Just the opposite in fact.

Please be so kind as to tell us which sources you have gathered your silly misinformation from.

Haha, it's ok. Don't worry about me, I'm not on a crusade to destroy anarchy....you guys seem to be doing fine anyway.So many damned fools have of late
obstructed constructive debate
with their outbursts
the cause? first things first:
Brother and sister should never mate!

Oooh, clever. Using a stranger's words to insult a stranger. I admire your originality.

There is not the tinyest danger
that I plagiarized some word-aranger
my freind, I'll be terse
I authored the verse
And I to myself am no stranger

Well, I stand corrected....it seems anarchists are good for something. Now, sing me another song, jester! The king demands entertainment!

You'll have to content yourself with my collected works. :wink: http://drink.to/limericks

Apearantly you know absolutly nothing about Anarchism. Anarchism does not propose an absence of common principles and organization. Just the opposite in fact.

Please be so kind as to tell us which sources you have gathered your silly misinformation from.

Whatever dude. Just keep thinking that.

No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority.

Consider the amount of people that have posted just in this forum the fact that you are not a true anarchist. And trust me, they aren't all stupid. You may think that, but you'd be severely mistaken and very conceded to do so.

You may enjoy your rights. You may enjoy the fact that it would be nice to have no authority telling you what you can and cannot do. However, in order to achieve that you must band together to become stronger (my main point of my last post), and that requires authority, which goes against what true anarchy is all about.

Don't tell me I know nothing of anarchy. I know enough to point out your contradictions and logical flaws in said system.

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
an·ar·chy **
n. pl. an·ar·chies

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

I see the irony in calling a forum or meeting for any group claiming themselves to be "true anarchists".

1st definition: True, calling for discussion has nothing to do with political authority. However, calling for a meeting does. Any time people get into groups, they must form a hiarchy in order to get something accomplished (which is what this thread was designed to do. See below)

2nd definition: Um... the originator of the thread said ORGANISE (sic). If he was a true anarchist, he would have not used those words or wished that the thread be organized and coherant. It goes against the basic ideology behind true anarchy.

3rd definition: The common purpose here was to unite anarchists under one umbrella, so to speak. However, this simply cannot logistically work because in order to unite, a group must be formed. With a group comes order, beit social, inherent, or earned. The originator, in this case, has decided to be the leader (as most threads are). His reference to "steering back on topic" shows an inherent power that he himself has deemed necessary.

If this were a true anarchy, no one could object to me talking, say, about pink elephants or how polar bears can never eat penguins. Because, you see, there is no organization, no rules, and nobody to tell me otherwise. Because if you do, you are going with the order set up, and that is against the very thing anarchy is based upon.

Gotta love those paradoxes, huh? lol
What you are calling anarchy is not what is meant by by anarchy for anarchists, and never has been.

Dictionary definitions are never much use, they are usually not informed by an understanding of historical anarchist theory and practice, but instead by mainstream orthodox propaganda and ignorance.

There is no irony in calling for anarchists to get organised or form a group.

Threads on this forum are started by one individual, that's part of how the internet works. What is your assumption about what that means for anarchism?

Anarchy involves organisation, and can involve rules.

Anarchy is order.

There are no paradoxes in the way you imply.

Read the rest of the thread.

You'll have to content yourself with my collected works. :wink: http://drink.to/limericks

I would if it weren't for your amazing amount of typos.

There once was a guy in a forum
Who mocked people out of sheer boredom
The masses replied
And although they tried
Couldn't convince the guy to believe in their horrible system of "government" because he is a capitalist.

Sorry about the end...my poetry skills aren't what they used to be.

Apearantly you know absolutly nothing about Anarchism. Anarchism does not propose an absence of common principles and organization. Just the opposite in fact.

Please be so kind as to tell us which sources you have gathered your silly misinformation from.

Whatever dude. Just keep thinking that.

No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority.


Don't tell me I know nothing of anarchy. I know enough to point out your contradictions and logical flaws in said system.You have yet to point out a single contradiction. Common principles and organization are by no means the same as authority and coersion. Please go beyond your dictionary and read something that an actual anarchist wrote about anarchism. I highly recomend Mikhail Baunin, Peter Kroptkin or Noam Chomsky.

See? This guy is right. Thats what I said....except I didn't say it like that. I don't like researching things before I spout off at the mouth, but this time I was right. Can I get a booyah?
BOOOYAH!!!

I have read several books about anarchy, and political science in general. You may ask "why hasn't anybody created a government that was anarchist in nature?" The answer is IT DOESN'T WORK. Whenever you have a group of people with no set of laws or principals (what true anarchy is about) then they will still strive to create order in one way or another. It is human nature.

(btw, I still believe Webster and the American Abridged Dictionary. :-))

As for reading your posts, I did read most of them. To me they are nothing but contradiction after contradiction.

Try getting something done without authority, without any organization whatsoever. I challenge you to go build a bridge, go write software code, or go into business for yourself without any rules, authority, or organization.

You see, two heads really are better than one. Each of these tasks are too involved and too complicated to do yourself, and if there aren't any order and authority, the project will never get done. Try having a crew of people that lack discipline and a common purpose. Try to get them to do something. Unfortunately if you do you have some sort of order, and badda bing! no anarchy.

And that is why anarchy never works. :-)

"why hasn't anybody created a government that was anarchist in nature?"

A government cannot be anarchist in nature. If it's anarchist it has no government.

"Whenever you have a group of people with no set of laws or principals (what true anarchy is about) then they will still strive to create order in one way or another. It is human nature."

I've written on many pages of the thread about the human nature argument, and in other threads too.

"As for reading your posts, I did read most of them. To me they are nothing but contradiction after contradiction."

Examples?

"Try getting something done without authority, without any organization whatsoever."

You are talking about authority and organisation in the same breath as if they are the same thing. Authority is a hierarchical structure, where someone imposes their will on others. Organisation is simply a group of people acting in concert rather than separately and randomly. Organisation doesn't require authority.

Lack of order is not what anarchy is. Anarchy is order without rule, without imposition.

I have read several books about anarchy [...]

Does not correlate with

You may ask "why hasn't anybody created a government that was anarchist in nature?"

Whenever you have a group of people with no set of laws or principals (what true anarchy is about)

will still strive to create order in one way or another.

Created a government and anarchist in nature cannot correlate.
Order != hierarchy
Principles can very well exist on individual layer. When multiple people agree, they're still principles.

(btw, I still believe Webster and the American Abridged Dictionary. :-))

Do you think the word is a native English word? What i meant is the original Greek meaning of the 2 words.

Try getting something done without authority, without any organization whatsoever.

Again, you make the mistake thinking there is no organisation. I think you should try it instead btw ;)

I challenge you to go build a bridge, go write software code, or go into business for yourself without any rules, authority, or organization.

Again the organisation claim. Regarding writing software, i would not claim all Free software projects are non-hierarchical structures. I would claim however, that this is the case in the Debian GNU/Linux project and that concensus counts there.

Honestly, i ignored the rest of your post.

Just at my fingertips, I have the following sources:

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?t=s&sid=4366&m=3&f=b&v=1.4&c=7657&r=http%3A//dictionary.reference.com/&d=f

Beebe, Steven A. Susan Beebe, and Diana Ivy. Communication: Principals for a Lifetime. Sec Ed. Pearson, Boston Mass.

Headley, James Professor of Political Science, Eastern Washington University. From lecture dated April 7, 2003 11:05 pm PST.

www.qrow.com/type/archives/2003_01.php (logical interpretation)

And quite a few more interesting sites (Around 100k of them) here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=anarchy+impossible&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

Anyways, that's what I have. What do you have? :-D

You'll have to content yourself with my collected works. :wink: http://drink.to/limericks

I would if it weren't for your amazing amount of typos.

There once was a guy in a forum
Who mocked people out of sheer boredom
to teach him they tried
but he was too snide
and obnoxious so he ignored 'em
Read the disclaimer hippie!

4) All fictions potrayed here are personal. Any coherant order of words, or the corect spelling thereof is purely coincidental.


As for 'human nature': I suggest that you read Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

Apearantly you know absolutly nothing about Anarchism. Anarchism does not propose an absence of common principles and organization. Just the opposite in fact.

Please be so kind as to tell us which sources you have gathered your silly misinformation from.
Whatever dude. Just keep thinking that.

No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority.

Consider the amount of people that have posted just in this forum the fact that you are not a true anarchist. And trust me, they aren't all stupid. You may think that, but you'd be severely mistaken and very conceded to do so.

You may enjoy your rights. You may enjoy the fact that it would be nice to have no authority telling you what you can and cannot do. However, in order to achieve that you must band together to become stronger (my main point of my last post), and that requires authority, which goes against what true anarchy is all about.

Don't tell me I know nothing of anarchy. I know enough to point out your contradictions and logical flaws in said system.

"No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority."

Of course they don't. It's what we are specifically against. So what? We want order, organisation, life, without authority, rule, the state, government, imposed will.

"Consider the amount of people that have posted just in this forum the fact that you are not a true anarchist."

??? what are you talking about? Has there been a group of people saying Eugenia is not a true anarchist? Where? How do these people know what the true history of anarchism is?

"However, in order to achieve that you must band together to become stronger (my main point of my last post), and that requires authority"

No it doesn't, it just requires organisation, people working together, co-operating, agreeing on things, pooling resources, combining talents. It doesn't require a hierarchy of power.

"I know enough to point out your contradictions and logical flaws in said system."

You've pointed out the flaws in a straw man, something no anarchist has ever believed. It's galling to have someone so ignorant about the subject trying to tell me so dogmatically a bunch of ill-informed misconceived falsehoods.

You'll have to content yourself with my collected works. :wink: http://drink.to/limericks

I would if it weren't for your amazing amount of typos.

There once was a guy in a forum
Who mocked people out of sheer boredom
to teach him they tried
but he was too snide
The obnoxious so he ignored 'em

Read the disclaimer hippie!

4) All fictions potrayed here are personal. Any coherant order of words, or the corect spelling thereof is purely coincidental.


As for 'human nature': I suggest that you read Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
First off, im confused...did you edit MY post? and second....you still screwed that up. What does "The obnoxious" refer to? Oh, and yeah, I couldn't read the disclaimer (be it on your personal limerick page or somewhere in this thread, because i read neither.)

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

Niccolo Machiavelli. Hehehehe. Very funny! It can be argued current capitalist society and politics are grounded on his works. I take it you've readed that book. Can you show us some important quotes from Him which proof your point?

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

Thats why it is in quotes. I don't know what to call it...it's not an organization, and it's really not being implemented en masse, so I guess I could call it a theory or maybe an idea, but like I said, am I going for accuracy? No. Am I going for rational debate? Not usually. How much do I care? Less than you'd imagine from the amount of posts I have in this thread...really, I'm just killing time until I can sleep.

Just at my fingertips, I have the following sources:

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?t=s&sid=4366&m=3&f=b&v=1.4&c=7657&r=http%3A//dictionary.reference.com/&d=f

Beebe, Steven A. Susan Beebe, and Diana Ivy. Communication: Principals for a Lifetime. Sec Ed. Pearson, Boston Mass.

Headley, James Professor of Political Science, Eastern Washington University. From lecture dated April 7, 2003 11:05 pm PST.

www.qrow.com/type/archives/2003_01.php (logical interpretation)

And quite a few more interesting sites (Around 100k of them) here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=anarchy+impossible&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

Anyways, that's what I have. What do you have? :-D

What do you mean, you have the following sources? What is the relevance of these sources?

And what do you mean "what do we have"? However, this link has often been the most useful: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

And what is your answer to the points we've made against you? When are you going to read the previous thread, so you know what our answers are to some of the basic points, of which you are ignorant?

What is the point for us in going to the trouble of answering you in detail when you are ignorant about the basics, and when we have already given our answers in previous pages?

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.

You know what, you can just keep your "anarchy" as you view it. I really don't care. I am not afraid of it, nor do I think it is even possible.

Btw, at least I had the common decency to read all of your post and evaluated it accordingly. It's a shame you didn't do the same for me.

Perhaps in the future you should read all the anti-anarchists posts here and consider their viewpoint...

At any rate, I have a Physics final tomorrow, and had better get to sleep.

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.The fact that you have not seen something (or rather did not recodnize it when you saw it) does not prove anything. I myself have seen plenty of instances of organization without authority and I have yet to see a lasting soliderity based solely on coercieve authority.

I don't know if anybody can read this but for me, something funny has happened to the thread, technically. Below a certain point the page does not display the posts correctly.

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.The fact that you have not seen something (or rather did not recodnize it when you saw it) does not prove anything. I myself have seen plenty of instances of organization without authority and I have yet to see a lasting soliderity based solely on coercieve authority.

Yeah, well, by your logic, Keanu Reeves can fly, because I saw him do it in the Matrix. The fact is, there have always been people in a position of authority, and if you see that changing on a large scale anytime soon, you're either way too optimistic or ignorant.

I don't know if anybody can read this but for me, something funny has happened to the thread, technically. Below a certain point the page does not display the posts correctly.

Same here. Damn bugs, *squash*.

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.The fact that you have not seen something (or rather did not recodnize it when you saw it) does not prove anything. I myself have seen plenty of instances of organization without authority and I have yet to see a lasting soliderity based solely on coercieve authority.

Yeah, well, by your logic, Keanu Reeves can fly, because I saw him do it in the Matrix.

No. A personal experience can be an proposition in a discussion to support one's argument. It is up to others to approve or disapprove that prop. Also, i cannot comprehend how what you say here above is a result of logical thinking as a reaction on Free Outer Eugenia's post. Seems like black vs. white thinking; while there's a midle way between truth and untruth.

The fact is, there have always been people in a position of authority

Not on all layers of relation.

and if you see that changing on a large scale anytime soon, you're either way too optimistic or ignorant.

Who has said the goal is to implement it on a large scale anytime soon? Can you predict the future? :)

You know what, you can just keep your "anarchy" as you view it. I really don't care. I am not afraid of it, nor do I think it is even possible.

Btw, at least I had the common decency to read all of your post and evaluated it accordingly. It's a shame you didn't do the same for me.

Perhaps in the future you should read all the anti-anarchists posts here and consider their viewpoint...

At any rate, I have a Physics final tomorrow, and had better get to sleep.
I've got to get to bed myself soon, but I've just got to answer this first or it'll be on my mind. The above is the post of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about running away from a thread where he stuck his neck out and got informed experience knocking down his ignorance in reply. Almost everything Weitzel said about anarchy and anarchism is false. He dogmatically defines anarchy according to dictionary definitions, and make no account of anarchists definitions/senses because he doesn't know them and thinks that dictionary's opinions are more important. He then attacks anarchism as if it has a load of qualities it doesn't, in line with his straw man dictionary sense of the word. There is only one real appropriate answer, rather than a lot of fiddly detailed answer, you don't know what you are talking about, you are ignorant and ill-informed, you are presuming to tell people involved in the thing what for as tho you know better than them what they are about, etc. etc. If anarchists talk about organisation, anarchists want organisation! Anarchism therefore involves organisation! If your sense of anarchy/anarchism doesn't involve that, it's your sense that's wrong!

Try *asking* what we believe in, rather than telling us. I *think* we are going to know a little better than you.

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.The fact that you have not seen something (or rather did not recodnize it when you saw it) does not prove anything. I myself have seen plenty of instances of organization without authority and I have yet to see a lasting soliderity based solely on coercieve authority.

Yeah, well, by your logic, Keanu Reeves can fly, because I saw him do it in the Matrix.

No. A personal experience can be an proposition in a discussion to support one's argument. It is up to others to approve or disapprove that prop. Also, i cannot comprehend how what you say here above is a result of logical thinking as a reaction on Free Outer Eugenia's post. Seems like black vs. white thinking; while there's a midle way between truth and untruth.

The fact is, there have always been people in a position of authority

Not on all layers of relation.

and if you see that changing on a large scale anytime soon, you're either way too optimistic or ignorant.

Who has said the goal is to implement it on a large scale anytime soon? Can you predict the future? :)

Not on all layers of relation? I have no idea what you're talking about there. And yes, I can predict the future...to a point. Right now, as I'm looking into my crystal ball, I can see me playing some more pointless video games waiting for you guys to post and then going to bed.

their horrible system of "government"
Where do you get this idea from that anarchism is a system of government?

its not an organization. Where did you get that idea? It is most certainly a form of organization. Not an organization, but how people are organized.

Well, from personal experience, and I'm sure the one other non-anarchist in here will agree, organization cannot occour without some form of authority. Ergo, anarchy cannot be an organization.The fact that you have not seen something (or rather did not recodnize it when you saw it) does not prove anything. I myself have seen plenty of instances of organization without authority and I have yet to see a lasting soliderity based solely on coercieve authority.

Yeah, well, by your logic, Keanu Reeves can fly, because I saw him do it in the Matrix.

No. A personal experience can be an proposition in a discussion to support one's argument. It is up to others to approve or disapprove that prop. Also, i cannot comprehend how what you say here above is a result of logical thinking as a reaction on Free Outer Eugenia's post. Seems like black vs. white thinking; while there's a midle way between truth and untruth.

The fact is, there have always been people in a position of authority

Not on all layers of relation.

and if you see that changing on a large scale anytime soon, you're either way too optimistic or ignorant.

Who has said the goal is to implement it on a large scale anytime soon? Can you predict the future? :)

Not on all layers of relation? I have no idea what you're talking about there.

Well -- the discussion has so far been about governments. I took my example about Debian (http://www.debian.org) which is based on concensus and non-hierarchical organisation. There are more examples, on all kind of layers in which people are involved. Other collectives for example (the Loesje (http://www.loesje.org) collective for example). Relationships between people for example. And the list of both relations and examples goes on and on.

And yes, I can predict the future...to a point. Right now, as I'm looking into my crystal ball, I can see me playing some more pointless video games waiting for you guys to post and then going to bed.

Evading the argument.

No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority.

well of course not - if you go looking for things that aren't true you aren't likely to find them.

hey, i have an idea, why don't we see what an encyclopedia has to say about "anarchism" or "anarchists" instead? how about the encyclopedia britannica?

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/av.jpg, and http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/aoxn.jpg, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.

If, it is contended, society were organized on these principles, man would not be limited in the free exercise of his powers in productive work by a capitalist monopoly, maintained by the state; nor would he be limited in the exercise of his will by a fear of punishment, or by obedience towards individuals or metaphysical entities, which both lead to depression of initiative and servility of mind. He would be guided in his actions by his own understanding, which necessarily would bear the impression of a free action and reaction between his own self and the ethical conceptions of his surroundings. Man would thus be enabled to obtain the full development of all his faculties, intellectual, artistic and moral, without being hampered by overwork for the monopolists, or by the servility and inertia of mind of the great number. He would thus be able to reach full individualization, which is not possible either under the present system of individualism, or under any system of state socialism in the so-called Volkstaat (popular state).

The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already, even though state socialism may find a temporary favour with the reformers. The progress of modern technics, which wonderfully simplifies the production of all the necessaries of life; the growing spirit of independence, and the rapid spread of free initiative and free understanding in all branches of activity - including those which formerly were considered as the proper attribution of church and state - are steadily reinforcing the no-government tendency...
[cut because its huge]
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html

that is the intro to the 1910 encyclopedia britannica article on anarchism, which was written by one of the most widely known anarchist thinkers of the time, petr kropotkin. obviously the encyclopedias disagree with your understanding of anarchy and anarchism.

http://www.qrow.com/type/archives/2003_01.php

you linked to a blog of somebody that can't see the difference between the rules of a game of tag and the authority of the state. there is a functional and important difference between cooperation and coercion. when we play a game by certain rules it is not because the state compels us to, it is because those are the rules that allow us to do something we want to do. and if we want to do something different, we can change the rules to suit our purposes. try doing that with the laws of the state and you will quickly find yourself in jail (assuming you aren't a member of the ruling class anyway). so the difference is between rules that we as a group decide to play by and that we can change if we need or want to, and rules that are imposed on us by a tiny minority of the population that claims to have the 'right' to force us to obey them.

which seems to be a blindingly obvious difference to me.

I'm going to try something. When I see a teenager with an anarchy symbol drawn on his bookbag or something, I'll ask him if he is for anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, or anarcho-capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

I hate to say it, but dollars to donuts he'll ask you if those are bands.

Good point. I doubt any of them have ever actually done any research on anarchism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

There certainly is a lack of understanding of just what anarchism is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Good point. I doubt any of them have ever actually done any research on anarchism.

but on the upside, just asking the question may get them to consider the fact that they don't know. after all, some percentage of those kids must wind up actually becoming anarchists. not me though, i never drew a circle a until after i had made the jump from generalized "radical leftist" to anarchist.

I hate to say it, but dollars to donuts he'll ask you if those are bands.

hey, wanna start a band? mr. moneybags and the anarcho-capitalist band. we'll have songs entitled "whose streets? my streets!" and "freedom (to privatize everything)".

I consider myself a minarchist. For those of you who do not know, a minarchy would be a government that has NO power over your personal life. In my perfect minarchy, there is a government, but a minimal one. (minarchist) Taxes are also minimal, and are only for the basic necessities of a government (such as fire stations, public schools, police, military defense). Freedom of speech is not hindered in any way whatsoever. People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it is not stealing, killing, rape or vandalism. No social welfare. Pretty much unhindered economic freedom, except for monopolies and such. Nearly total democracy, except constitutional to protect the minority.

Christ, you're a freaking libertarian. Get over yourself and stop making up stupid terms. This is almost exactly the platform upon which the US Libertarian Party stands.

Discordian

Christ, you're a freaking libertarian. Get over yourself and stop making up stupid terms. This is almost exactly the platform upon which the US Libertarian Party stands.

Discordian

i'd personally rather they call themselves minarchists. it'll help clear the confusion caused by them trying to call themselves libertarians, which causes people to try to argue that there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist/communist.

Discordian is exactly right.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

What, you don't women with small waists and really big butts? You need better material.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

Christ, you're a freaking libertarian. Get over yourself and stop making up stupid terms. This is almost exactly the platform upon which the US Libertarian Party stands.

i'd personally rather they call themselves minarchists. it'll help clear the confusion caused by them trying to call themselves libertarians, which causes people to try to argue that there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist/communist.

Well, as such, there isn't really. Libertarian socialism/left libertarianism are terms Noam Chomsky/Murray Bookchin made up to get around the automatic negativity the media has towards anarchism. It's almost an in-joke (not really funny, but...)

Pope Vassilly Deferns the Discordian

Minarchy is a real word. And I am not a libertarian because I am not right winged.

Oh yes you are.

No social welfare. Pretty much unhindered economic freedom.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is, as such, the ultimate welfare state and is the foundation of both anarchism and communism. Economic freedom? Again right wing, left-wing means anti-capitalist.

Vas.

Minarchy is a real word. And I am not a libertarian because I am not right winged.

Oh yes you are.

No social welfare. Pretty much unhindered economic freedom.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is, as such, the ultimate welfare state and is the foundation of both anarchism and communism. Economic freedom? Again right wing, left-wing means anti-capitalist.

Vas.

He certainly is right wing and very much so. He even sides with the WN's.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am right wing about tax and that is about it. When it comes to marijuana, abortion, homosexuality and shit like that I am "left-wing".You have a few things confused. There are many scales that have been invented to measure. Two of which are Civil freedoms and economic freedom. You describe yourself as a libertarian on both scales - making you a true libertarian, or one who condems almost any government involvement. You differ to Communists and Anarchists. They believe a lot more in sharing, an authotarian view on the economic scale.

www.politicalcompass.org is a nice site to visit. If a bit long.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am right wing about tax and that is about it. When it comes to marijuana, abortion, homosexuality and shit like that I am "left-wing".

Eh, no you're not, those are LIBERAL issues and liberalism is centrist (only Amerians who think Communism is anti-American say that liberalism is left-wing). And personal freedom issues like these are in keeping with the Libertarian Party platform.

I quote:
"The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade."

http://www.lp.org/

You ARE a libertarian.

Vas.

He's right. You sound a lot like The Global Market, a well-known libertarian on this forum.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

OH WELL.

Ya see, it's really annoying for real anarchists when people come up with oxymoronic variations on the concept. Anarchism means anti-capitalist and anti-authority. If you're not anti-capitalist, then you're not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism really means "not really an anarchist", as does your definition of "minarchist". Libertarians are anti-authority, pro-capitalist, which state communists are pro-authority and anti-capitalist. Anarchism shares elements with both, but is also diametrically opposed to both on another level.

Vas.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Ya see, it's really annoying for real anarchists when people come up with oxymoronic variations on the concept. Anarchism means anti-capitalist and anti-authority. If you're not anti-capitalist, then you're not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism really means "not really an anarchist", as does your definition of "minarchist". Libertarians are anti-authority, pro-capitalist, which state communists are pro-authority and anti-capitalist. Anarchism shares elements with both, but is also diametrically opposed to both on another level.

Vas.

This is, in my opinion, a very self serving definition of 'Anarchism'. In order to maximize accuracy, I think it is necessary to simply define anarchism as any political theory with a complete decentralization of 'governing' power. Anarchism does not tell us anything (and really shouldn't tell us anything) about the economic or social makeup of society; clearly these societies will be formed through mutual consent based on priorities and none of us should try and predict how they will actually work. I suspect that were government to be disolved, there would be both socialist anarchist communities and capitalist anarchist communities (and syndicalist as well). Anti-Captialist anarchist should properly define themselves as 'anarcho-socialists', while capitalist anarchists should define themselves (and largely do define themselves) as 'anarcho-capitalists'.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Anarcho-capatalism seems more anarchic than anarcho communism. And how would anarcho-communism work, if it requires the individual submitting to the collective? That would not be anarchic.

"anarcho"-capitalism, like all capitalism, is based on wage labor and private ownership of capital. the owners of capital are granted despotic power for no reason other than because they are owners. the wage laborers have to do what the boss says or else. just because the "or else" won't necessarily involve going to jail doesn't mean that the relationship isn't one of power and authority (but of course it actually will involve jail - privately owned jails, privately owned courts, privately owned cops. these aren't likely to side with your average person). if you have a system where some are above others, where some give orders and others have to follow them, you do not have anarchy.

capitalism involves the individual submitting to the collective too. only under capitalism, your average person has little say (none) in the collective decision making process. you toe the line or you are out. at least we offer everyone input into the process of defining the line together, instead of it being defined for us by the bosses/rulers.

...

Apearantly you know absolutly nothing about Anarchism. Anarchism does not propose an absence of common principles and organization. Just the opposite in fact.

Please be so kind as to tell us which sources you have gathered your silly misinformation from.

Whatever dude. Just keep thinking that.

No where in a dictionary or encyclopedia have I ever found that anarchists enjoy authority.

Consider the amount of people that have posted just in this forum the fact that you are not a true anarchist. And trust me, they aren't all stupid. You may think that, but you'd be severely mistaken and very conceded to do so.

You may enjoy your rights. You may enjoy the fact that it would be nice to have no authority telling you what you can and cannot do. However, in order to achieve that you must band together to become stronger (my main point of my last post), and that requires authority, which goes against what true anarchy is all about.

Don't tell me I know nothing of anarchy. I know enough to point out your contradictions and logical flaws in said system.

FOE mentioned organization and common principles, NOT authority...if you really HAD done your homework, you would know that the dictionary-definition is NOT the definition CREATED by anarchists...

Paraphrased from earlier in the thread and from infoshop.org, the terms, "anarchist," "anarchism," and "anarchy" were created by anarchists themselves from two Greek words, "an" and "archos," meaning "no rulERs" NOT "no rules," as you seem to think.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.

Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft". Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue. Without capitalism, there would be no need for the state. The main flaw with state communism is that does not remian communism, it has always degenerated into state capitalism. Anarchism is only possible in a non-monetary economy. To say that anarcho-capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-socialism/communism/collectivism is a pointless argument, as it's unlikely that people would want to pay for something that is freely distributed elsewhere.

Anarcho-capitalism, as a term, is a conscious and deliberate denigration of anarchism, it's the capitalist's equivalent of Lenin's "bourgeois individualist". So-called "anarcho-capitalism" is libertarianism - pro-capitalist, anti-authoritarianism.

Vas.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.

that's no flaw on our part. we're going to ban fascism too, while 'anarcho'-capitalism encourages it.

Anarcho-capitalism is opposed to the basic principle of anarchism - "Property is theft".

Again, this is an entirely self-serving definition. Anarcho socialism holds that property is theft, but this is not necessarily true for all anarchists. Anarchism should be best described as an absence of central government; this is the most accurate and entails the fewest debateable points. Moreover, anarcho-socialism DOES NOT necessarily make 'all property theft. My understanding is only the means of production must be collectively owned (which again seems like a restriction of freedoms) and collective ownership is still ownership. Moreover, if Jack and Bill each get 5 loaves of bread, clearly Jack has a legitimated ownership over his bread; otherwise, it would be perfectly fine for Bill to take Jack's 5, and have all 10.

Anarchism is not opposed to the state because the state is the root of oppression, the state is a symptom of the domination of capital. The state exists to defend the interests of the capital owning class, thus it is not the main issue.
Sure, in your opinion. I disagree. Note labour laws, weekends, social welfare, etc...

To say that anarcho-capitalism can co-exist with anarcho-socialism/communism/collectivism is a pointless argument, as it's unlikely that people would want to pay for something that is freely distributed elsewhere.
It's not freely distributed. It is received in exchange for work, just like capitalism. If I refuse to work, I will not eat, regardless of the economic system.


Anarcho-capitalism, as a term, is a conscious and deliberate denigration of anarchism, it's the capitalist's equivalent of Lenin's "bourgeois individualist". So-called "anarcho-capitalism" is libertarianism - pro-capitalist, anti-authoritarianism.

Again, only in your opinion. It seems like a much more accurate and salient term than libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalism has a clear and accurate meaning.

that's no flaw on our part. we're going to ban fascism too, while 'anarcho'-capitalism encourages it.

How does anarcho-capitalism encourage facism? That's a contradiction in terms. If a facist state were to arise, it would no longer been anarcho-capitalism. Besides, where do you get off banning facism? If a facist organization is freely and consensually entered into, and does not exert coercive power on others, you have absolutely no basis to ban it.

I'm going to try something. When I see a teenager with an anarchy symbol drawn on his bookbag or something, I'll ask him if he is for anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, or anarcho-capitalism.

:shock: :evil: :!:

For the record, I am 13 and a half years of age, I am NOT into "punk" rock musc or "heavy metal" (jazz, actually, mostly bebop and jazz fusion), and I am certainly not "Goth".

Good point. I doubt any of them have ever actually done any research on anarchism.

but on the upside, just asking the question may get them to consider the fact that they don't know. after all, some percentage of those kids must wind up actually becoming anarchists. not me though, i never drew a circle a until after i had made the jump from generalized "radical leftist" to anarchist.

Exactly.

Ya see, it's really annoying for real anarchists when people come up with oxymoronic variations on the concept. Anarchism means anti-capitalist and anti-authority. If you're not anti-capitalist, then you're not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism really means "not really an anarchist", as does your definition of "minarchist". Libertarians are anti-authority, pro-capitalist, which state communists are pro-authority and anti-capitalist. Anarchism shares elements with both, but is also diametrically opposed to both on another level.

Vas.

This is, in my opinion, a very self serving definition of 'Anarchism'. In order to maximize accuracy, I think it is necessary to simply define anarchism as any political theory with a complete decentralization of 'governing' power. Anarchism does not tell us anything (and really shouldn't tell us anything) about the economic or social makeup of society; clearly these societies will be formed through mutual consent based on priorities and none of us should try and predict how they will actually work. I suspect that were government to be disolved, there would be both socialist anarchist communities and capitalist anarchist communities (and syndicalist as well). Anti-Captialist anarchist should properly define themselves as 'anarcho-socialists', while capitalist anarchists should define themselves (and largely do define themselves) as 'anarcho-capitalists'.

Furthermore, I think that anarcho-socialism contains a flaw which anarcho-capitalism does not; socialism necessitates coercive power of either reeducation or redistribution; in a functioning anarcho-socialist world, capitalism would be outlawed. However, anarcho-capitalism can quite easily encompasses anarcho-socialist groups within it.

A little of both...

The terms "anarchy," "anarchist," and "anarchism" *were* created by and for anarchists and were meant to mean anti-authority and anti-capitalist, at the time they were created.

However, times have changed (as they always have, will, do, and should) and now the term "anarchist" is a vague and fuzzy definiton to the layman.

As I've said/quoted/paraphrased on the "Anarchy" region's board from "The Illuminatus! Trilogy":

'Left-anarchists believe that people will choose to co-operate in total freedom (their definition of "total freedom" being different from the definition of Right-anarchists) while Right-anarchists believe that people will choose to compete in total freedom'

Anarcho-capatalism seems more anarchic than anarcho communism. And how would anarcho-communism work, if it requires the individual submitting to the collective? That would not be anarchic.

"anarcho"-capitalism, like all capitalism, is based on wage labor and private ownership of capital. the owners of capital are granted despotic power for no reason other than because they are owners. the wage laborers have to do what the boss says or else. just because the "or else" won't necessarily involve going to jail doesn't mean that the relationship isn't one of power and authority (but of course it actually will involve jail - privately owned jails, privately owned courts, privately owned cops. these aren't likely to side with your average person). if you have a system where some are above others, where some give orders and others have to follow them, you do not have anarchy.

capitalism involves the individual submitting to the collective too. only under capitalism, your average person has little say (none) in the collective decision making process. you toe the line or you are out. at least we offer everyone input into the process of defining the line together, instead of it being defined for us by the bosses/rulers.

But some/many anarcho-capitalists ('Right-anarchists') *believe* in the inherent rightness of what they stand for and preach.

I don't agree with the principles of anarco-capitalism and I think this website's namesame (the book "Jennifer Government," by Max Barry) makes a fairly good case against them.