What Sort Of Anarchist Am I?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Right, wierd question i know... BUT, I have been a self claimed anarchist for a few years now, i pretty much fell into it straight after i dumped nationalist beliefs after seeing its failings and falseness....
I dont believe in communism, on paper i do, but in practice it is too oppressive, in my oppinion....
I believe that all people are born free, and it is our natural right to want to maintain our freedom... I believe that there should be no government, but should be a sort of 'committee' that is not an authority, but a voluntary council where anybody can go to discuss any international issues that there may be at any given time...
I do believe in private ownership of housing, but with capped priceing to avoid class divide and profiteering, though at first all housing would be social, then for example if someone wanted to move house they could buy into it if it is free, and depending on owners consent (or somthing like that, havent really given this side much thought)...
I believe that there should be no police, but replaced with real community support officers that actually HELP THE COMMUNITY that is their main job... And if a 'crime' is taking place then they stop it...
I believe EVERYONE IS INDIVIDUAL BUT SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL OPPERTUNITIES...
My other beliefs are the well known antifacist and anticapitalist that is usually associated with anarchism...

I know there are different sections to anarchism, but i have always thought that giving somthing a lable makes it redundent, and calling myself an anarchist was good enough.. but was just wondering what 'lable' i would come under....

[Invincible Summer]

I dont believe in communism, on paper i do, but in practice it is too oppressive, in my oppinion....

The goal of an anarchist is to bring about a communist society. Communism = classless and stateless.

All the "communist" revolutions that have taken place in history were/are arguably not communist then or now. Don't take these as examples of the true goals of Marxist-communists (and anarchists!) alike.



I believe that all people are born free, and it is our natural right to want to maintain our freedom... I believe that there should be no government, but should be a sort of 'committee' that is not an authority, but a voluntary council where anybody can go to discuss any international issues that there may be at any given time...
International? Why? Generally, I think that worker's federations should only really vote on/discuss at length issues that affect them. What's the point of having a vote/discussing how the bunch of worker's collectives 500 km away want to allow consensual polygamy?

Anarchism seeks to create a decentralized society - Collective A has no more meaningful power over Collective B than Collective C does. Decentralization also means that decisions made within a collective (or even for a federation of collectives) don't automatically apply to other federations/collectives, unlike when a national gov't creates national laws/regulations.

So, debating action on international issues that aren't of paramount importance seems sort of unnecessary and potentially un-anarchistic.



I do believe in private ownership of housing, but with capped priceing to avoid class divide and profiteering, though at first all housing would be social, then for example if someone wanted to move house they could buy into it if it is free, and depending on owners consent (or somthing like that, havent really given this side much thought)...
Why not just.. provide the housing? Communists are fine with people owning their own houses. But what's the point of making people pay at all, especially if money is abolished as many advocate?


I believe that there should be no police, but replaced with real community support officers that actually HELP THE COMMUNITY that is their main job... And if a 'crime' is taking place then they stop it...
So long as this is rotated, voluntary shift work with a majority (if not all) able members of the community involved.


I believe EVERYONE IS INDIVIDUAL BUT SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL OPPERTUNITIES...
My other beliefs are the well known antifacist and anticapitalist that is usually associated with anarchism...

I know there are different sections to anarchism, but i have always thought that giving somthing a lable makes it redundent, and calling myself an anarchist was good enough.. but was just wondering what 'lable' i would come under....

Why do you want a specific label? This thread about "What makes an Anarchist?" is quite good. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-anarchist-anarchisti-t24725/index.html?t=24725) See if you agree.

I too identify as an Anarchist, although I don't agree with some of the individualists and lifestylists. I tend to sometimes just call myself a Communist.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I dont believe in communism, on paper i do, but in practice it is too oppressive, in my oppinion....


It's because they were/are oppressive. All the attempts at putting Communism in practice have swayed away from authentic Marxism.


I do believe in private ownership of housing,

Alot of people take Communism's ideas of collective ownership way too literally at this point. You still own your house, your clothes, etc.


I believe that there should be no police, but replaced with real community support officers that actually HELP THE COMMUNITY that is their main job... And if a 'crime' is taking place then they stop it...


"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". These jobs such as policing will be passed around from time to time.

Anyway, i'm no expert on Anarchy, but i'll have to take a wild guess and say Anarcho-Communist. :)

[Brother No. 1]

I dont believe in communism, on paper i do, but in practice it is too oppressive, in my oppinion....

Comrade Communism has never come to this planet. If you see the pratice as "too oppressive" then your seeing the Socialist states that Tried to create Communism.




I do believe in private ownership of housing,

you seem to take the collective ownership to seriously. by this is doesnt mean your stuuf belongs to all it means to bussiness,production,money,ect all owned by all. You still have cloths,a house, and ect. When people take it to seriously then they think that Communism means EVERYTHING and by everything to them it truely means everything is owned by all.





I believe that there should be no police, but replaced with real community support officers that actually HELP THE COMMUNITY that is their main job... And if a 'crime' is taking place then they stop it...

I believe this quote explains it.

Said by Karl Marx
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

it really also depends what you mean by "police" also. The job oh policing the community may be passed on from person to person or it may come from the community its self.

[Knight of Cydonia]

I know there are different sections to anarchism, but i have always thought that giving somthing a lable makes it redundent, and calling myself an anarchist was good enough.. but was just wondering what 'lable' i would come under....

Anarchism without adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives) , i guess... because you seem to accept many other leftism thoughts and theory.

[LOLseph Stalin]

believe this quote explains it.

Said by Karl Marx
Quote:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

You totally just copied me. :closedeyes::cursing:

[Brother No. 1]

You proved a point and i supported it.

[LOLseph Stalin]

You proved a point and i supported it.

No offense, but you basically just re-stated what I said but with different wording.

[Brother No. 1]

[quote]No offense, but you basically just re-stated what I said but with different wording. [quote]
Very well I'll take the post away comrade.

[pastradamus]

Who cares what kind of anarchist you are? Dont go out of your way to fit a group or context

[Diagoras]

I dont believe in communism, on paper i do, but in practice it is too oppressive, in my oppinion....What exactly do you mean when you say 'communist'? One thing you will need to quickly learn as a socialist of any stripe (but especially as an anarchist) is that past (and current) regimes that are often labeled 'Communist' in no way fit any sort of proper definition of socialism or communism. Communism is a stateless and classless society. Equality in the processes of decision-making, equal power relations, non-exploitation. Does this sound like the USSR, PRC, or... any "Communist state"? The two conclusions to choose from are either that we need to re-write communist theory to fit the convenience of a few dictatorships masquerading as leftists, or... these regimes are in no way "communist". So, what we need to oppose is not "communism", but the authoritarian regimes that undeservedly usurp the title of "Communist".


I believe that all people are born free, and it is our natural right to want to maintain our freedom... I believe that there should be no government, but should be a sort of 'committee' that is not an authority, but a voluntary council where anybody can go to discuss any international issues that there may be at any given time...All anarchists oppose compulsory coercive authority. In making personal decisions that do not harm others, all anarchists would agree that you are free to do as you will. When common issues arise that affect multiple people, or society at large, then direct democracy is the method of choice for determining most issues (where to put that hospital, where resources should be allocated, environmental pollution issues, etc.).


I do believe in private ownership of housing, but with capped priceing to avoid class divide and profiteering, though at first all housing would be social, then for example if someone wanted to move house they could buy into it if it is free, and depending on owners consent (or somthing like that, havent really given this side much thought)...Most anarchists do not oppose private 'ownership' of homes for families, or have ever suggested that everyone needs to live in communal housing. The issue here is how we understand property as anarchists, versus property as defined by capitalists. Property under capitalism can be any thing deemed acceptable to purchase... everything from shoes to land tracts larger than some countries. For anarchists generally, acceptable property is that which you actively use, rather than that which you simply hold a state-enforced deed to ownership for (and can use, or let go to hell). A family living in a house that is large enough for them, and working on an area of land that they can use without having to employ anyone else, is generally seen as fine. Personal trinkets are also seen as fine to "own". The use and claim upon luxury goods would depend on the scarcity and economic conditions at the time and location. A family of four owning a 10 bedroom house for themselves alone is out of the question. Regardless, the pertinent issue with an anarchist understanding of property is 'use'. If you leave a home empty to go live elsewhere for a few years, and someone needs it back in the place you left, an anarchist society would not likely respect any claim to ownership of that house, unless the community felt that some extenuating circumstance warranted it.


"I believe that there should be no police, but replaced with real community support officers that actually HELP THE COMMUNITY that is their main job... And if a 'crime' is taking place then they stop it...
I believe EVERYONE IS INDIVIDUAL BUT SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL OPPERTUNITIES...
My other beliefs are the well known antifacist and anticapitalist that is usually associated with anarchism..."All of these things are compatible with all varieties of social anarchism.

What "type" of anarchism might apply or be preferable in one area may not be the same as another, and most anarchist ideas are not mutually exclusive. Some areas may prefer, or only have the resources to operate in a manner of anarchism that uses labor credits to determine access to some resources. Other communities may be able to and prefer to adopt a more communistic approach, with a total abolition of currency, and free access to resources within the framework of a much more democratically planned (gift) economy, and few "markets" to speak of, beyond simple barter. This is not like many Trotskyites, where one must possess the correct theoretical platform in order to advance the revolution. If you oppose capitalism, and you find individual liberty, direct democracy, and fighting exploitation and hierarchy to be virtues, then you are a social anarchist. Read some of the writings of prominent anarchists in particular schools, and decide which ideas you like, and which you don't. Discuss with others if you can to challenge the ideas and see which ones stick with you. If you like the ideas of folks like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman, then you are most likely an anarcho-communist. If you like a focus on workplace agitation and radical industrial unions, you could consider yourself an anarcho-syndicalist. If you are like many anarchists, you could very well be a part of a revolutionary syndicalist union, AND be an anarcho-communist. It really isn't that important, as most disagreements are simply superficial matters of focus or emphasis, not irreconcilable issues ;). In the end, whether you call yourself a member of the Judean Peoples' Front or the Peoples' Front of Judea is unimportant if the ideas all fit well with eachother.

[InTheMatterOfBoots]

Who cares what kind of anarchist you are? Dont go out of your way to fit a group or context

Why is that helpful? There are good reasons why people identify with different revolutionary traditions and much that they can learn from them.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism without adjectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_without_adjectives) , i guess... because you seem to accept many other leftism thoughts and theory.

Great answer.

Seriously, it doesn't matter shit what sort of anarchist you are. If you hate oppression, hate hierarchy, love freedom, then that should be enough.

Personally, I am an anarchist without adjectives (or, as I like to say, "adjective free anarchist"), that is, I don't mind much if we have anarchist communism, or anarchist mutualism (though I think that it is more probable that different communities will try different things, and I fully support that).

Also, to those who say, 'anarchism = communism', no it doesn't. Anarchism is a lot more than just communism, anarchism doesn't force the communal ownership of the means of production, the only thing it does is force freedom.

[MilitantAnarchist]

I agree with everything said here, and for pastradamus im not trying to fit a context, as i said ive always been against that sort of thing....
It is probibly because i have always seen communism as meaning 'everyone lives in a council house and is on miniumum wage' sort of society, where as that is good for some, but it is a case of that only applying to the working class, the ruling class dont live by that rule.... i think that, THAT SORT OF COMMUNISM is a dangerous that nobody should hold special... i dont appose social housing, but i do reject the council houses of today (im from uk, so if you from states or wherever u mite not no wat i meen), the same as i reject benefits, i dont want nothing from a government i appose, i'd sooner squat or rent (as i will rent student accomodation soon) i do reject renting out property for profit too, but its either help out a rich **** or help out the government... its a lesser of too evils.... but that is just my oppinion, but my point on housing and other things is to me anarchy meens 'freedom' and if someone say 'you cant own anything for yourself' then its back to the start....
I know its common sense to know it doesnt meen that, but some people do take the 'property is theft' to the max... I beleive in that statement but to me, the extreem of that is worse then the 'fat cat ownership' itself, because it is us that put the thought into practice..... if you get me,
Thanks to everyone who commented anyway, and look forward to wat you gotta say next :D

oh, and as Emma Goldman said 'I wouldnt want a revolution I couldnt dance to'

[MilitantAnarchist]

Somthing else i didnt say, about fitting a context or a lable... in my oppinion i dont draw to any of them, i sort of resent calling myself an 'anarchist' but it is what i am.... Lables are divisive... and say people who call them selves left wing or right wing, i dont... i dont class myself as in the middle.... because on that 'jumbo jet' of ideas, i aint on that flight, i let lables fit to me, i wont fit to any mould that is out there, because we are all individual.... im sure a famous philosopher once said 'if 12 people agreed to one thing, it would be unstoppable'... which is true, because i find it impossible to get two people to agree on anything (and if 12 people agree with what i just said, it aint contradictory or ironic... ITS FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY!!! HAHAHA)

[Pogue]

Somthing else i didnt say, about fitting a context or a lable... in my oppinion i dont draw to any of them, i sort of resent calling myself an 'anarchist' but it is what i am.... Lables are divisive... and say people who call them selves left wing or right wing, i dont... i dont class myself as in the middle.... because on that 'jumbo jet' of ideas, i aint on that flight, i let lables fit to me, i wont fit to any mould that is out there, because we are all individual.... im sure a famous philosopher once said 'if 12 people agreed to one thing, it would be unstoppable'... which is true, because i find it impossible to get two people to agree on anything (and if 12 people agree with what i just said, it aint contradictory or ironic... ITS FUCKING REVOLUTIONARY!!! HAHAHA)

Well I'm the opposite I guess. I like labels, as something I can self identify with. I'd describe myself as an Anarchist, but if I was asked to specify, anarcho-syndicalist and from that anarcho-communist. I think labels aren't devisive, but naturally opinions are. If you believe a state transition stage is shit for example you will be divided from Leninists, regardless of whether you call yourself anarchist or not. These divisions naturally exist.

I think you will fit into a label. What sort of economic and social arangement do you see in a post-revolutionary society?

[Sean]

As you might have noticed in a few people's signatures, theres a website called political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). Its results aren't entirely perfectly accurate, but give you a good ballpark figure of where you sit on the polical spectrum compared to other people. I'd say its worth checking out although some of the results are suprising, such as:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif
What the hell are the BNP doing on the left hand side!!:laugh:

[MilitantAnarchist]

In a post-revolutionary society.... i see the destruction of all corporate business in favour of small autnomous businesses and locally grown foods for its own communities (where possible), the abolishment of all nuclear and coal burning powerstations in favour of green energy and all future cars powerd by hydrogen, an obvious classless society, and the closure of the stock market, we dont need it in my oppinion, and all open all borders (in uk) and give all the empire back,
All i can think of off the top of my head (but will be back later this evening to discuss more)

[apathy maybe]

I agree with everything said here, and for pastradamus im not trying to fit a context, as i said ive always been against that sort of thing....[etc.]

From what you posted, I'll say you seem more like an individualist or mutualist anarchist (if you really wanted to label yourself).


Some threads that might interest you:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/individual-anarchism-t55798/ (ignore the confrontational tone that I took with some members, I wasn't going through a good time)
http://www.revleft.com/vb/39-s-so-t50381/index.html?t=5038
http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-individualism-v-t79790
http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-one-argue-t99186/index.html

Also have a look at this http://www.anarchistfaq.org/ very in depth discussion of different aspects of anarchism.

[ZeroNowhere]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".
Technically, he was quoting Louis Blanc. In reference to something completely different from your topic of discussion.


As you might have noticed in a few people's signatures, theres a website called political compass. Its results aren't entirely perfectly accurate
The results are, however, perfectly inaccurate.
Well, for us socialists anyways. Because the quiz is completely capitalism-centric.

[MilitantAnarchist]

yea i tried that, i was in the little green bit, at bottom left (as i guess most are here) but more to the right then left.... but that was because when it said 'if someone has the ability to work but dont, should society support them? and i put i 'disagree', because although i would love to say 'nah let em fuck about', it is only a recent oppinion that i disagree tho i must add.... but my view is it isnt like it is 'one of us' that might not be working... in my expierience (have ive said before) i'll use an example, i no a bloke (who is in jail for assault at the minute) and he is racist, has beaten up a woman on more then one occasion, he has 8 kids, drinks around £60 of booze a day, takes money of his dad and beats him up, all of this paid for by benefits, and has never worked a day in his life because he has 'violent tendancies' which classes him as disabled... but he is a computer wizz, he can build computers n shit like that.... its unfair that he dont wanna work and uses excuses when people who do want to work cant work, and cant get fuck all for it....... i no it sounds a little 'right wing' i guess, but i aint putting my life or freedom on the line to fight for a revolution to support ****s like that... in my oppinion.... but every case is individual...... it goes alot deeper then one case i know, and it is a waste of freedom sat rotting in a factory or a office, and i hate it... but it is a necessary evil i guess, but most people actually want to work, but doing somthing that isnt so pointless, and DEFFINATLY NOT doing somthing to line some fat cats pockets... (does anyone agree with what ive said, or am i alone on this one?)

but back to the case in hand, about 'types of anarchist', surely putting lables on 'anarchy' is toatally contradictory, it meens 'without rulers' it is something totally against being told what to do, and following rules to be an anarchist... to me its bollocks, but i was just wondering what 'category' i would fall into if i cared enough about the label that is stuck on me.... (i'll self label myself, im one of those annoying anarchists who is always fucking awkward about everything lol)

[Jack]

Anarcho punk, because it doesn't seem like you take it seriously.

[Diagoras]

but back to the case in hand, about 'types of anarchist', surely putting lables on 'anarchy' is toatally contradictory, it meens 'without rulers' it is something totally against being told what to do, and following rules to be an anarchist...

Anarchy does not mean absolutely anything. Most anarchists would reject the notion that "anarcho"-capitalism is actually a type of anarchism, for example. Labels aren't a "bad" thing. They necessarily describe what something is or isn't. Even if you choose not to use a label, your beliefs can be classified in some fashion, and that fashion needs a name... a label. Labels are a negative thing when they consume your identity (becoming little more than fashion statements), and when you treat them as rigid dogmas that obstruct your critical thinking, or pigeon-hole you into a little sectarian box.

As far as the fellow you know, there is no absolute obligation for a community to provide unlimited resources to persons that are perceived as harming the community... especially persons that are violent patriarchs with an alcohol addiction. This person sounds like they need to be hospitalized, not just on the dole.

[Diagoras]

Anarcho punk, because it doesn't seem like you take it seriously.

Oh come now, play nice.

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=6265106

[MilitantAnarchist]

But how can anarchy be 'communist' thinking, where does that come into it? Anarchy meens WITHOUT RULERS! And if you are saying 'well anarchism means this, and anarchism means that' it is a complete contridiction in terms... How the fuck can there be rules to being an anarchist?
And what is not serious about Anarcho Punk? Its thanks to that scene alot of people are into anarchism.
Also an observation of mine, most people who call themselves anarchists on here aint no comrade of mine.
And seriously thinking about it, i dont beleive in a revolution because its always just been talk... What we need to do is build communities (similar to your so called 'non serious' anarcho punks Crass) through squatting and living off the land, and reject all forms of government and authority including their dole cheques and benefit system.
Become self sufficent and watch the world follow....
Somthing like that, it is more realistic then a 'Che' styled revolution...

[Sean]

But how can anarchy be 'communist' thinking, where does that come into it? Anarchy meens WITHOUT RULERS! And if you are saying 'well anarchism means this, and anarchism means that' it is a complete contridiction in terms... How the fuck can there be rules to being an anarchist?
And what is not serious about Anarcho Punk? Its thanks to that scene alot of people are into anarchism.
Also an observation of mine, most people who call themselves anarchists on here aint no comrade of mine.
And seriously thinking about it, i dont beleive in a revolution because its always just been talk... What we need to do is build communities (similar to your so called 'non serious' anarcho punks Crass) through squatting and living off the land, and reject all forms of government and authority including their dole cheques and benefit system.
Become self sufficent and watch the world follow....
Somthing like that, it is more realistic then a 'Che' styled revolution...
Well if thats the case then the label that describes you best is a lifestyle anarchist.

[F9]

But how can anarchy be 'communist' thinking, where does that come into it? Anarchy meens WITHOUT RULERS! And if you are saying 'well anarchism means this, and anarchism means that' it is a complete contridiction in terms... How the fuck can there be rules to being an anarchist?
And what is not serious about Anarcho Punk? Its thanks to that scene alot of people are into anarchism.
Also an observation of mine, most people who call themselves anarchists on here aint no comrade of mine.
And seriously thinking about it, i dont beleive in a revolution because its always just been talk... What we need to do is build communities (similar to your so called 'non serious' anarcho punks Crass) through squatting and living off the land, and reject all forms of government and authority including their dole cheques and benefit system.
Become self sufficent and watch the world follow....
Somthing like that, it is more realistic then a 'Che' styled revolution...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:You consider Anarchocommunism "contradictory" term, and "anarcho"punk not?:rolleyes:My kind sir, have you got ANY idea what anarchocommunism is?Rulers?Rules, why not?You dont set rules in your own?What makes someone punk?Wait wait that means there are rules to be punk, so this means punk is baad, but wait, so does Anarchism.Not everyone is Anarchist, there are some "rules" to be an Anarchist, and my friend you dont know them...Study, read, get them in your mind, and then come and judge, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, especially reffering to Communism, so get some books, ask some questions, learn and then when you know come back and judge if all those you are saying are completely nonsene or not.

Fuserg9:star:

[nuisance]

But how can anarchy be 'communist' thinking, where does that come into it?
Communism is a classless stateless society running along the lines of a gift economy. Within the realms of anarchist-communism, it means that the social organisation is run through anarchist forms of organisation- workers councils, assemblies etc, all brought together through federalism. Communism is the economic system advocated, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'.


Anarchy meens WITHOUT RULERS! And if you are saying 'well anarchism means this, and anarchism means that' it is a complete contridiction in terms... How the fuck can there be rules to being an anarchist?
Anarchism is not about doing whatever the fuck you like, it is a defined ideological position and there is alot more to it than a mere rejection of leaders. It is not a contradiction in any shape or form. You are an anarchist if you agree with the tenants of anarchism- call them rules if you will but that is the staple of being an anarchist.



And seriously thinking about it, i dont beleive in a revolution because its always just been talk... What we need to do is build communities (similar to your so called 'non serious' anarcho punks Crass) through squatting and living off the land, and reject all forms of government and authority including their dole cheques and benefit system.
All talk? Please explain.
So if it is decided that we all 'drop out' the capitalist property relations and the State that maintains them will drop off the face of the Earth without resistance? Then there's the problem at the capitalists own the tools of production which we need to satisfy our needs and so on.


Become self sufficent and watch the world follow....
Somthing like that, it is more realistic then a 'Che' styled revolution...
Hippie communes and camps have existed for yonks, they are not revolutionary and only serve to alienate themselves from the people that can actually bring true change around.
What do you consider a '"Che" styled revolution'? Revolutionary anarchists are advocates of social revolution, were the workers exproriate the means of production and we see the organs towards a libertarian society flourish through our class organising among itself within our communities and workplaces. We agitiate towards this and partake in structures that exist to strengthen the class against attacks from the capitalists.