Log in

View Full Version : Does anarchism presume objective truths?



Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
18th May 2009, 07:27
Marx's socialist stage pragmatically considers the issue of social norms. Given that capitalist society has people not just believe, but condition to believe, an X amount of flawed premises, a socialist state addresses this. I'm not saying it works, but it accounts for an issue. I'm scared of spiders because of psychological conditioning.

If individuals realize a belief is not self-serving, they can theoretically self-discipline themselves out of it. However, this is really idealistic. Self-discipline isn't unlimited.

Marx suggests individuals can be socialized out of false beliefs by the state. They know "I'm being stupid," but they need an authority to help them. It's similar to giving someone the key to lock you in during a drug recovery.

The problem with this, obviously, is that any society is formed from the people. Unless they necessarily give up sufficient power to be controlled, they will fail. If they give up sufficient power to be controlled, they will give it to someone they can trust to give it back. By necessity, they can't do this. If the person with the key gives you it, you can't force the recovery upon yourself, can you? You either blindly trust someone to give you the key when you're cured, and they likely become corrupted, or you don't do anything? That's current society. I suppose it gets a little bit done.

However, when we talk about anarchism, people are suddenly motivated to establish an ideal society - to discipline themselves? Is this implying that the goals of anarchism are innate. That any logical system that attempts to socialize them away, then, will necessarily have them reemerge. Once they do, a person will necessarily believe them - becoming a homosexual despite a Christian background is a prime example.

Thoughts? If this motivations are innate, do we just keep arguing and fighting with people like atheists versus the religious? I'm a little pessimistic today.

apathy maybe
18th May 2009, 11:22
Anarchism doesn't presume anything (and hates to be anthropomorphised).

Anarchists want a free society, and believe that it is possible.

But "objective truth"? Anarchism isn't a philosophy of meta-physics. It is (if anything), an ethical philosophy.

Talking about objective truth doesn't mean anything.

(I get the feeling I haven't answered your question. Maybe because I'm not so bright today, and don't know what it is you are trying to ask. Try again for me?)

Schrödinger's Cat
18th May 2009, 17:06
Who teaches the authority? Is that innate?

blackstone
18th May 2009, 17:54
Social anarchists believe that "the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.", a slogan popularized by Flora Tristan in the 1830s.

Anarcho-syndicalists take Flora Tristan's slogan about working class self-liberation quite literally. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the working class can liberate itself from structures of oppression and exploitation by developing, "from below," its own mass social movement based on a wide-spread solidarity in the course of struggles with the dominating classes. Rocker stated, "the serious, final, complete liberation of the workers is possible only upon one condition: that of the appropriation of capital, that is, of raw material and all the tools of labor, including land, by the whole body of the workers."

We can learn from this two things.

That these workers' organizations create "not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself" in the prerevolutionary period, that they embody in themselves the structure of the future society.

The motivation to create a anarchistic society, one based on mutual aid, free association, self-management, etc, aren't innate but are developed out of class struggle.