ANARKY! In the G.Net (An Anarchist Discussion Thread)

[DepthsofSpace]

I'm sure somewhere there are threads concerning anarchism, but this is differant. This is a thread dedicated to the true freedom and liberty of this great little, and often misunderstood, political philosophy of Anarchism.

First off: AnCaps? AnComs? Play nice. Target all hatred towards the State, please. (Note: That was a request that you may voluntarily adhere to, not a order that you will be coerced into following).

There, thank you. (=

That said this is a thread for those of us who subscribe to anarchist thought to discuss Anarchism, talk about events and protest that will have little relevance to those outside the Circle-A, etc.

Those of you who are anarchist, join in and let us first know what branch of anarcho thought you come from. Those who aren't Anarchist, please take part, so we may convince you to leave your Statist ways (voluntarily, of course).

(SoD, just respond to my post in the music forum here)

[killer_asian_Dax]

Originally Posted by DepthsofSpace

, please take part, so we may convince you........

Convince? What if the person is not looking to change their school of thought other than to gain more knowledge about something which they know very little of?

Such as myself, I have no interest in becoming an anarchist, but I would like to know more about the premise thereof from those who openly subscribe to such a party.

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by killer_asian_Dax

Convince? What if the person is not looking to change their school of thought other than to gain more knowledge about something which they know very little of?

Such as myself, I have no interest in becoming an anarchist, but I would like to know more about the premise thereof from those who openly subscribe to such a party.

T'was a joke.

I wouldn't use the term 'party', as anarchist are not part of the political system (though some do vote for canidates that espouse a more libertarian or minarchist platform).

Anarchism means, litterally, 'without State', and thus anarchist usually seek to 'Smash the State', or in gentler terms, dismatle any system of Government. Myself, as an anarchist, hold the view that most problems are not solved by government, rather they are caused by government. Since in my book the use of force to coerce an outcome from someone else is morally wrong, and the purpose and use of government is all about force, then the State is an inherently evil system. Since as a Christian, a rational human being, an individual and one concerned for the welfare of humanity, I can not justify such a system, nor believe that the supposed order it brings is better than an alternitive.

That's a very open-ended, and simplfied version of anarchist thought. It could go one for volumes of works, and often does.

[Rorschach Twin]

anarchy usually occurs when a government collapses, but is quickly overrun by a bigger group of "pigs" (cough.. Animal Farm.. cough.) I myself believe the only form of government that can truly work is Marxism, in very VERY small communities. In essence, that is anarchy. Of course, I might add, I'm rather new to what I'd call "political philosophy", for I've never taken an interest in that branch of logic until recently. (Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy though.)

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Rorschach Twin

I myself believe the only form of government that can truly work is Marxism, in very VERY small communities. In essence, that is anarchy.

It's been a long time since I read The Communist Manifesto, but as I recall Marxism still provides for the existance of a state in some form, so it's not anarchy.

I personally describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist, though I admire a lot of the more prominent contributors to the other school of thought, particularly Bakunin.
I'm pretty cyncial in regard to the prospect of a functional anarchist society being realized in any way within my lifetime, so I tend to avoid brooding over and contemplating politics to the extent that others do *coughflagsforumscough*.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

It's been a long time since I read The Communist Manifesto, but as I recall Marxism still provides for the existance of a state in some form, so it's not anarchy.

In its final stage, Marxism is stateless.

I consider myself an anarchist, and I know that there are at least a few others who hang around GNet. But I think the OP will need to raise a rather more specific topic if he wants a real discussion.

Drake

[Delkaetre]

Anarchy is a pleasing theory, but unfortunately would require that society was systematically rearranged. For anarchy to flourish and not descend in violence and chaos, it requires the strong and competitive to shelter those who cannot otherwise shelter themselves. If current British society were to suddenly lose government, then a lot of selfish and violent individuals would be likely to start looting and fighting. If, on the other hand, anarchy came about as the final conclusion of a slow political evolution, society would be educated enough about the need to respect others that such violence would be unlikely and anarchy could work.
I enjoy the theory of Anarchy, and find that Ursula K. LeGuin's 'The Dispossessed' was an excellent theoretical treatise on the subject- and an entertaining science fiction novel. I would heartily recommend it to anyone who wishes to consider of the pros and cons of an anarchist society, as it raises questions about the effect of the self-based individual in a collective society and about the manner in which work and be organised.
Work *would* have to be organised in some manner to ensure that roads were maintained and enough crops of the right kind were farmed. If everyone did their own thing, it's possible that too much wheat would be produced, but not enough apples and carrots. A work-rota of some kind would be required- not a government or leadership, I wish to assure you, but some kind of central database whereby it can be determined what the needs of the populace actually *are* so that they can be met accordingly.

[JCC]

Anarchy is fucking bullshit.
You really expect society to all get along harmoniously just because they're suddenly free of the government?
When you have the freedom to do whatever you want, that means people have the freedom to do whatever they want to you. Therefore, life in an Anarchist state is not a life of freedom, it's a life of fear.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Alright disregard my thread I created. I hadn't checked the other threads and was not aware of this thread yet, woops! I haven't had enough Jolt yet. Anyways I prefer anarchy without objectives although I like to read about all types of anarchy. I have read many manifestos include Marx's little red book, but never really agreed with any of it to much. I've become quite fed up with the police in my town and the things they do and don't do. I'll leave with a quote by Crass "Do they owe us a living? Of course they fucking do!" I love that song!

[Delkaetre]

JCC- see my previous point. That 'suddenly' free of govt thing won't work, I acknowledge this, but a gradual silent paradigm shift will work. And read the book.

[JCC]

How do you know it will work? The fact is that our society has been built around rules since it began, anarchy is a flawed argument that would never work outside of our fantasies. It's a lovely idea, it really really is, but society needs control. Society needs a hierarchy. The only choice we have is whether we peak the hierarchy or whether we're obedient to it.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Although true JCC, you could make the argument that these "rules" are flawed. Obedience is for dogs, not me.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

Although true JCC, you could make the argument that these "rules" are flawed. Obedience is for dogs, not me.

That's cute. But also false.

Did you go to school?
Do you buy things?
Have you ever been in hospital?
Have you ever been immortal?

We all obey some rules. Your statement further reiterates that anarchism is merely a dream.

[Delkaetre]

Allow me to rephrase- "Will be considerably more likely to work and stands a chance of success".
Society is built around rules, yes. But when there is no government, other rules develop within society. Consider cultural taboos, village trends. These are not codified rules, not a government of individuals, but rather social habits which discourage acting out in a manner detrimental to society.
Anarchist theory is not a hatred of society, to my mind, but is a hatred of governments made of individuals- governments are easy to corrupt, and often place considerable emphasis on detrimental habits such as war and poor ecological planning. Governments can make arbitrary rules whereby sections of the community are marginalised.
It is believed that in a society where there has been a gradual paradigm shift away from centralised power, ties of mutual respect will have built up within the small communities. Consider the often remarkably strong town spirit of small towns- these ties are not built from rules, but from a sense of respect for one's neighbours. I cannot explain the theory as eloquently as Ms LeGuin, and would again advise that you read The Dispossessed, which considers potential flaws in anarchist communities, as well as considering ways around them.

[Rorschach Twin]

I'd venture to say that most forms of government work in small groups. Most problems occur when groups grow and get larger.

Obviously, civilizations growing can't really be avoided. Well.. I guess in some sense, you could somehow make them form another civilization, but who knows...

[JCC]

Yes, societies can form their own rules. The Aztecs did it, they were a free society. They also sacrificed people.

People need to be controlled.

[Wormboy]

Anarchy is only useful as a tool for revolution. That is it's great irony. Anarchy only exists to make new governments. ^_^

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

Anarchy is only useful as a tool for revolution. That is it's great irony. Anarchy only exists to make new governments. ^_^

Did you somehow find my old myspace, haha? I said the exact same thing in a philosophy debate over myspace.

Let's be friends.

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by JCC

Yes, societies can form their own rules. The Aztecs did it, they were a free society. They also sacrificed people.

People need to be controlled.

From everything you said, I would say I'm not going to care for you too much, but I do like to be civil.

Errr, anytime a system exist that harms the individual, whether religious or political, there is not freedom. I'd say the Aztecs are an extreme example of a theocracy. Control, the cure for the 'dangers of freedom', is often worst than the 'disease'.

People seek order, and I could argue, this is why often we end up with governments, even though they only worsen the human condition.

If in the UK, as the example was made, government suddenly vanished, true voluntary order and Anarchy would not last, nor form, for any reasonable length of time. You'd have three agents within the population that would see Anarchy's demise.

First you have the fearful. Unable and unwilling to take control of their lives, to embrace freedom, they would scream for the artificial order of government, the only source of order and providence they know. They don't wish to run their lives, or fend for them. They are the lazy ones, and they would enable the next category.

The power seeker, the one who desires to control others, would rise to their call, and promise to bring the State and control back, in return for giving up 'just a little freedom'. Of course, as in these early days of anarchy, in the age of ordering, there would be those who took advantage of the situation to run wild, thinking the ultimate expression of freedom is harm to your fellow man. This last category gives the power-seeker his excuse for slavery.

And thus, that is how liberty and anarchy dies. Thus what we saw in Somalia. Though many were willing to seek freedom, and disband the State; power seekers, both foreign and domestic, used the actions of radical elements (often other power-seekers [the warlords, many funded by outside governments]) to cause some to call for a rebuilding of the State.

This is why anarchist policies would have to be introduced piece-by-piece. Which is very hard, and the State has to be violently killed at some point, because the state is violence and won't die submissively. The problem is, rarely do you have an effective counter-state set up to replace the State when the people tear it down, thus leading to more government, sometimes worse that what you started with.

Work *would* have to be organized in some manner to ensure that roads were maintained and enough crops of the right kind were farmed. If everyone did their own thing, it's possible that too much wheat would be produced, but not enough apples and carrots. A work-rota of some kind would be required- not a government or leadership, I wish to assure you, but some kind of central database whereby it can be determined what the needs of the populace actually *are* so that they can be met accordingly.

This is the beauty of anarcho-capitalism, because the state is slowly replaced with private entities (not huge, multinational corporations, which are products of the State). Yes, most businesses do have hierarchies, but they are voluntary systems, not mandatory. The problems you addressed there often are considered by collective anarchist thought, and in anarcho-syndicalist thought, often have direct democracy to control the means of production, in the hands of the workers. Free market systems leaves the means of production in individual hands, and let's market forces of supply and demand, dictate the needs of the people. It's a much more fair way, as direct democracy contains the inherent evil of democracy, which is 51% of the people can force their will upon the other 49%. Market forces leave only choice, and the choice is up the individual.

Anyone planning on mounting an attack on capitalism based on the actions of huge monopolies in the early 20th-century, should be forewarned that without the state protecting them, they would have fallen victim to a) market forces and negative PR, or like the State, become victim to armed uprisings if they used force to coerce others. The State is the reason the 'robber Barons' weren't found dangling from a tree, or on the street penniless after consumers and workers walked out on them. Also, we are a much more progressive society today, with more access to information.

FYI: Marxism is a evolutionary process that is suppose to phase out the state. Problem is, you can't get the Marxist state to fade away (hence why Soviet Russia wasn't an anarcho-syndicalist state in the 1930s... Leninism took control sometime shortly after the revolution.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Here here! Now that's a rebuttle! I got into anarchism because of the facist police state and its unfair and tyranical policies.

[DepthsofSpace]

Originally Posted by Stormtrooper of Death

Here here! Now that's a rebuttle!

That's called forty-five callibur killin'. B-) In a non-physical, verbal way, that is.

My path towards anarchism started with me moving away from social conservitive positions, but still admiring the free market. I first called myself a libertarian (I'm actually a member of the Libertarian Party, though I don't see them really doing as much as they should), after a while I saw that no State, no matter how you construde it, can keep from being organized force. I think after reading a lot from the Reason and von Misses insititute, as well as Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, I was convinced of the state being not a 'necessary evil', as Thomas Paine put it, but an unnecessary evil that brings much harm to the world and people. About the time I started getting into more Goth-ic music was the same time I decided that minarchism, though a good goal, should not be an end, and that the end of the State is the begining of a new era for humanity.

I just wonder if the sheeple of the world will ever realize this. I can work in the system, but I'll never accept it as anything remotly good or just.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by JCC

Anarchy is fucking bullshit.

Well, that settles that. Thank you for lending your razor-sharp analytical skills to the discussion. Exactly the kind of top flight thinking we expect from a person who thinks that the Aztecs were an anarchist society, and that being mortal means you are not an anarchist.

Drake

[KontanKarite]

Anarchy. Heh. It's a good thing. I take it more on a spiritual/faith thing though.

First, you have to decide on how much of your life you want to be responsible for. Then, you actually have to have full responsibility for your life.

It came to me as "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".

And it makes sense. As a suggestion, it would be good to read The Book of The Law. Some call it a fictional philosophy. I see it as a means of gaining anarchy and freedom by spiritual and self explorative means.

The thing that many people fail to realize is that in an anarchistic society, you can still have your leaders and your bosses if you so choose. The difference is, if the bosses you choose starts impeding on your own True Will, then you can willfully leave with no consequence to you.

The thing is, there ARE people out there who wont think for themselves. But I have to have faith in something.

There are some saying that there are laws in place to keep people in control, yet these laws are broken every day anyway.

Why do we insult the intelligence of the common man by assuming that he can't keep himself under control from his own efforts?

Out of EVERY SINGLE person on this forum. I would like to see one member say that if there was no law against killing people, that it is something that they would really do. Kill people. If you need laws to tell you not to kill people, then in an anarchistic society, I'll be glad to suggest that you don't just run around killing people for no good reason. It's bad form.

To think, I became more of an anarchist AFTER being in the service. I suppose I know how bad the repression and the oppression can get.

[raggedyanne]

link here.

[JCC]

From a Thomas Hobbes book:

"I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things."

Control is freedom. People running rampant? That's chaos.