Introduction to Anarchism [Archive]

FreeFocus

27th June 2009, 18:28

Thanks guys. I have one question though. Is anarchism against all authority?

Anarchism is against illogical and illegitimate authority, i.e., most authority. Generally, authority is deemed acceptable and/or desirable only under certain situations and conditions - that is, it is rare that you'll be able to say "this authority is legitimate" in absolute terms. Noam Chomsky is fond of using the example of a parent holding a child's hand to prevent them from running across the street, but it doesn't follow that one could generalize it to say "the authority of a parent over a child is legitimate."

The Ungovernable Farce

27th June 2009, 18:52

For "starting" the best book is one..ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman
Others are goods too, but i consider that, they way he writes, his approach etc to be the best.

Berkman is an excellent starting point. Grannie Made Me An Anarchist by Stuart Christie is a good accessible autobiography that also covers the basics of anarchist thought. Also, check out the texts online here (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets.html) - Beyond Resistance (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/87-beyond-resistance-a-revolutionary-manifesto.html) is kind of heavy, but a really good summary of anarcho-communist thought at the start of the 21st century, and Anarchism - As We See It (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/86-anarchism-as-we-see-it.html) and Aspects of Anarchism (http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/90-aspects-of-anarchism.html) cover most of the basics.

As for your other question, Free Focus puts it pretty well.

Thunder

27th June 2009, 20:26

Thanks guys. I have one question though. Is anarchism against all authority?
FreeFocus covered it pretty well.
But there are anarchists who do claim to be against ALL authority.

Manifesto

27th June 2009, 21:00

The Anarchist Cookbook?

StalinFanboy

27th June 2009, 21:13

The Anarchist Cookbook?
What? No.

Anything by Malatesta. Honestly, one of the greatest.

27th June 2009, 21:38

The Anarchist Cookbook?

loool.that thing isnt Anarchist...at all!its sad its name connects it with Anarchism.
Its old terrorism methods and other shit.Definitely stay away from it, it has to offer nothing unless you are interest how they used to make bombs that were very dangerous and worthless.

Fuserg9:star:

DÃ³chas

27th June 2009, 21:50

The Anarchist Cookbook?

oh jesus no!!!! stay away from that book!! i read it a while ago but it has no anarchist theory in ti at all just recipes to make seriously dodgy "bombs" and general chaos which is what most people think anarchism is

Sasha

27th June 2009, 22:02

i recomend (auto)biografies over political theory, and emma goldmans "living my live" is then an awsome start
(espacely in combination with berkmans abc of anarchism, it shows then clearly that other famous treat of anarchism, apreciation for the fact that even the greatest minds and hero's are failabel humans in the end)

Jack

27th June 2009, 22:10

The Conquest of Bread lays out what is to be done.

heylelshalem

27th June 2009, 22:57

oh jesus no!!!! stay away from that book!! i read it a while ago but it has no anarchist theory in ti at all just recipes to make seriously dodgy "bombs" and general chaos which is what most people think anarchism is

the recipes in the book are all pretty much fake. ie they wont work and can damage you. But fortunately you can get the information on the internetz for free.

Absolut

28th June 2009, 02:18

Anarchism is against illogical and illegitimate authority, i.e., most authority.

A good example of this would be to quote Bakunin;

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker."

As the boot-maker has more authority than him when it comes to making boots, he accepts the authority that the boot-maker has over him. Do note that this authority comes from the boot-makers own skill and knowledge and not from anything else. I would say that this is a legitimate and logical authority.

heylelshalem

28th June 2009, 02:24

so pretty much Anarchism is not so much about authority but the "oppression" of authority..one man forcing his power over another???

Absolut

28th June 2009, 02:32

so pretty much Anarchism is not so much about authority but the "oppression" of authority..one man forcing his power over another???

Well, yes, depending on who you ask.

As Ive understood anarchy (and I consider myself an anarchist), it means that illegitimate authority is to be rejected whereever and whenever it rears its head. There is a difference between authority that has been forced upon you by factors that you have no control of and authority that you willfully subject to, such in the case of the boot-maker and pretty much any kind of similiar services, where you need to respect the authority of a more skillful and knowledgeable person to do the work for you (while you may contribute in other ways).

thinkerOFthoughts

28th June 2009, 02:58

For "starting" the best book is one..ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman
Others are goods too, but i consider that, they way he writes, his approach etc to be the best.

Fuserg9:star:

I recommend this as well!! I started reading that a while ago...kinda stopped tho. Its very good, and if I'm not mistaken you can read it online somewhere (sorry...I forget where)

28th June 2009, 03:01

I recommend this as well!! I started reading that a while ago...kinda stopped tho. Its very good, and if I'm not mistaken you can read it online somewhere (sorry...I forget where)

True. Link (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
You can find some other books here too all concerning Anarchism: here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=302)

taryn

28th June 2009, 03:03

Chomsky on Anarchism is a good start and any Goldman or Berkman (which are easy to read and you can find online). I liked TAZ by Hakim Bey (just ignore the personal scandal).

heylelshalem

28th June 2009, 03:10

chomsky on anarchism is a good start and any goldman or berkman (which are easy to read and you can find online). I liked taz by hakim bey (just ignore the personal scandal).

taz!

21st Century Kropotkinist

28th June 2009, 03:31

I'm surprised that no one recommended An Anarchist FAQ. As far as current works, this is one of the most thorough looks at anarchism, and how the anarchist lens views the spectacle of life. The other suggestions are great,i.e., The Conquest of Bread for anarcho-communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker gives the reader an excellent history of the labor movement in Europe vis-a-vis the anarchist movement from the split in the International, and works by Goldman and Chomsky are always good. No Gods No Masters is an excellent anarchist anthology, as well. It starts with Stirner and Proudhoun, goes through some lesser-known names, and really covers the Spanish Civil War with the writings of figures like Durruti. I think certainly after reading any of this, you would have a clear understanding of anarchism. Just stay away from fraudulent pseudo-anarchist writings like right-wing buffonery of anyone who calls themself "anarcho"- capitalist,which has nothing to do with anarchism.

And to answer your question about anarchism being against all authority: anarchism seeks to abolish domination. Hence, anarchists do not like authoritarian hierarchies. Anarchists favor decentralization in every facet of life. So, anarchists oppose the State, capitalism, but also homophobia, racism, patricentricity, environmental destruction by 1% of the human population, etc. In its place we favor voluntary, free-associating loose federations of communities, or something like that. Anarchists do not reject that someone can be an "authority" in, say, history, or chemistry. They simply must justify themselves. Hope this helps.

the last donut of the night

28th June 2009, 14:26

Thank you guys so much.

Manifesto

8th July 2009, 00:07

Wow I really did not think I would get so many responses from mentioning one book. Who does not know that thing is not really Anarchy.

Invincible Summer

8th July 2009, 07:50

The Conquest of Bread is better than ABC of Anarchism, IMO.

The Feral Underclass

8th July 2009, 07:53

Noam Chomsky isn't an anarchist.

x359594

8th July 2009, 15:03

I can recommend Communitas by Paul and Percival Goodman, People or Personnel and Decentralizing Power both by Paul Goodman. Goodman was most articulate about practical anarchism and the daily struggle to create community.

Kyrite

8th July 2009, 15:12

Noam Chomsky isn't an anarchist.

I thought he was :confused:

bricolage

8th July 2009, 15:25

I thought he was :confused:

He calls himself a libertarian socialist I think but does have anarchist sympathies, in the Foucault debate he says anarcho-syndicalism would be the ideal form of societal organisation.

Stranger Than Paradise

8th July 2009, 15:37

He's a "radical liberal" really. His support for Obama is proof.

How did he support Obama? I've seen him telling it like it is in many videos about Obama.

Nwoye

8th July 2009, 16:14

He's a "radical liberal" really. His support for Obama is proof.
he definitely did not support Obama.

Nwoye

8th July 2009, 19:55

well he actually expressed it as voting "against mccain", and he certainly never said that he supported Obama. besides he qualified the statement with saying that the rhetoric and excitement around Obama would devolve into a standard centrist presidency. to say he "supported Obama" and that he is therefore a liberal is just intellectually dishonest.

Stranger Than Paradise

8th July 2009, 21:51

At best he can be a radical liberal or an anarcho-syndicalist.

And that means he is one of us....

So what do you mean? By the way I think you are right, he is an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

#FF0000

8th July 2009, 22:27

kNpNzDoH1II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II

Oh god the left in this country is so bankrupt.

x359594

9th July 2009, 01:32

At 80 years of age I think we can cut Chomsky some slack here.

He has a long history of activism going back to his anti-war activities in Boston starting in 1963 (very prescient considering that anti-war activism on a nation-wide scale didn't get going until 1965.) He counseled draft resisters, committed civil disobedience, got busted at the Pentagon march, endured several audits by the IRS and has 1,000 plus page FBI file.

Chomsky has given tirelessly of his time and energy to opposing the state through his writing and activism. And he's paid the price for it too; he received his share of death threats, defamations and marginalization.

I know that he doesn't subscribe to the "worse is better" school of social change, so it makes sense to avoid the eviler of two evils. Chomsky is old enough to remember what happened in Germany when the Comintern forbade a coalition between the KPD and the SPD (denounced as "social fascists".) I know that he personally doesn't bother voting in presidential elections but votes in local elections where issues that affect his community are stake.

No, Chomsky is not a "pure" anarchist. I don't think anyone is, even though some people describe themselves as such. I think he can be fairly described as an anarchist to the extent that anyone can practice anarchy in a capitalist and statist society that the USA is today.

A_Ciarra

9th July 2009, 05:59

:cool: I don't think Red would like Rudolph Rucker, or any of the insurrection/individualist anarchism much since he's religious. The inssurectionaries are the one's who take concepts of authority very seriously, they even object to democracy on any formal group organized level. I bet he'd take more interest in Social anarchism, that is quite organized on the group level. I'd definitely suggest Murray Bookchins essay here, starting with Communialism - the Demoratic Demension of Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bookchin/BookchinCW.html) since goes to acceptable authority and organizing as groups. He's very well spoken and a Social Anarchist..

And Red if you can watch videos and don't have a lot time, there is a good little anarchist video intoduction series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sPMqzJr-nQ) that takes about an hour and a half to get through all the key basics including types of anarchism.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9sPMqzJr-nQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9sPMqzJr-nQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:closedeyes: I think Noam Chomsky is a Syndicalist/Democratic Socialist

A_Ciarra

9th July 2009, 06:02

Don't know why that video didn't show up, it was there in my preview

A_Ciarra

10th July 2009, 06:40

Hi Red,
I confused Rudolph Rucker with Errico Malatesta, ignore that Rucker was an Insurrectionary Anarchist - that is Maltesta. Sorry about any confusion.

I looked Rucker up today and he was a Syndicalist, but he might hold some immediate interest to you because he was also raised a Catholic - maybe you can find his views about it somewhere. I myself would not be able to comment in much detail on syndicalism though since I don’t know too much about it. Basically syndicalists are focused with unions, labor groups within community, and revolution from the work place. As far as revolution goes that’s all very important.

But if I wasn’t very clear above, the reason I think social anarchism is more to your curiosity, is because it is focused on working as groups within a community, where insurrectionary anarchism rejects the group concept, and formal organization and finds it to be an authority (the two branches are rather at adds odds with each other). Catholicism is definitely a collective group or organization though - if you want a Catholic community for yourself you would be co-operating along those shared values with other Catholics (“social”).

*Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin were social anarchist’s, Proudhon not…

Links:
Social/Collectivist Anarchism
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12009
And click on Murray Bookchin in my signature if want his writings

Insurrectionary/Individualist Anarchism
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/insurrectionary_anarchism
http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no10/anarchy.htm

x359594

10th July 2009, 19:27

...the reason I think social anarchism is more to your curiosity...- if you want a Catholic community for yourself you would be co-operating along those shared values with other Catholics (“social”)...

As far as Roman Catholic anarchism goes, there's the Catholic Worker movement founded by Dorothy Day, still in existence and doing good work. Ammon Hennacy was a prominent Christian anarchist and founded the Joe Hill Hospitality House in Salt Lake City, Utah. Also, the Fellowship of Reconciliation is de facto anarchist in its organization and structure.

By the way, the name is Rudolf Rocker, not Rucker. His book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice is as close to a definitive account of this school of anrachism as there is. Rocker, by the way, learned Yiddish and revived the anarchist movement among Jewish workers in England. His biography is titled The Anarchist Rabbi.

A_Ciarra

10th July 2009, 20:24

Hi X,

I misspell constantly, that's my dyslexia. Sorry if it looked like a political oversight. It especially affects me if it's a busy day for me and/or I have a lot to write and can't really go independently Google up each word, or just moving fast and have a lot of words to check over. There is no authentic way to really correct it, it's like asking a very right brained artist to become a mathematical person. Dyslexic brains don't imprint words well.

I'm not religious myself, but in a nutshell, do you know how Ammon Hennacy approaches authority? Is it that she views the term authority strictly as a concept, and concentrates on her values and such?

She no doubt embraces the application of autonomy very very well. People fear religious people so deeply becuase many of them feel they have the right to control others via state powers. She is interesting to me though because she obviously poesses a very high degree of development with anarchist and religious concepts. Your feedback much appreciated :)

the last donut of the night

12th July 2009, 02:27

Hey guys. I just began today my first dangerous excursion into anarchism.:rolleyes: I bought a general book on the subject with illustrations from Sanyu -- the pictures help me out.:laugh:

Dervish

12th July 2009, 03:35

Hey guys. I just began today my first dangerous excursion into anarchism.:rolleyes: I bought a general book on the subject with illustrations from Sanyu -- the pictures help me out.:laugh:

I haven't read it, but I've seen very critical reviews of it here - http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-Beginners-Marcos-Mayer/product-reviews/1934389323/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Always be critical.

x359594

12th July 2009, 04:00

...I misspell constantly, that's my dyslexia...
I'm not religious myself, but in a nutshell, do you know how Ammon Hennacy approaches authority?

Sorry comrade, about the dyslexia, but in case some newbie tried to follow up with a search they'd need the name right.

One of Hannacy's notable remarks is, "An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do."

About Hennacy and Christian anarchists in general, their over riding idea is that no earthly authority has precedence over the individual, and that includes the authority exercised by religious institutions which, in their view, are entirely human created power structures meant to serve their own needs under the guise of guarding religious truth. So Christian anarchists are in the tradition of religious dissenters like George Fox of the Quakers (who was also an opponent of the death penalty in England during the 17th century.) Individual conscience and the good of the community are the basic principles of Christian anarchism according the the people I've talked to who call themselves Christian anarchists.

Os Cangaceiros

12th July 2009, 04:09

Dervish

12th July 2009, 04:14

I don't think that Chomsky self-describes himself as an "anarchist", does he? I know that he admires the anarchist tradition, but he seems just as fond of the Left Marxists and council communists (folks like Pannekoek, Mattick, etc.)

Chomsky identifies as an anarchist, and seems to be very sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism. When he discusses the differences between Marxism and anarchism, he usually mentions left communists and council communists and them being more sympathetic to anarchism.

Dervish

12th July 2009, 04:17

...in case some newbie tried to follow up with a search they'd need the name right...

...Hannacy..

...Hennacy...

lol

Os Cangaceiros

12th July 2009, 04:26

Chomsky identifies as an anarchist, and seems to be very sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism. When he discusses the differences between Marxism and anarchism, he usually mentions left communists and council communists and them being more sympathetic to anarchism.

Yeah, I have the book Chomsky on Anarchism, and have listened to a number of his presentations, but I've never heard him say "...and that's why I'm an anarchist," or anything to that effect.

I'll take your word for it, though.

Dervish

12th July 2009, 04:33

Yeah, I have the book Chomsky on Anarchism, and have listened to a number of his presentations, but I've never heard him say "...and that's why I'm an anarchist," or anything to that effect.

I'll take your word for it, though.

In this (http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/chomsky_anarchism_marxism.html) interview he pretty much identifies as an anarchist. If I recall correctly this interview appears in Chomsky on Anarchism.

"RBR: First off, Noam, for quite a time now you've been an advocate for the anarchist idea. Many people are familiar with the introduction you wrote in 1970 to Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, but more recently, for instance in the film Manufacturing Consent, you took the opportunity to highlight again the potential of anarchism and the anarchist idea. What is it that attracts you to anarchism?"

"CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way. Beyond such generalities, we begin to look at cases, which is where the questions of human interest and concern arise."

A_Ciarra

12th July 2009, 08:11

Sorry comrade, about the dyslexia, but in case some newbie tried to follow up with a search they'd need the name right.Thanks for understanding and covering my back there. Yep, if anyone were to look him up, they may not have found him to easy there. I was just throwing one in for the dyslexic community there myself.

One of Hannacy's notable remarks is, "An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do."Nice motto. :thumbup: *Self responsibility & anti-authority in one*

About Hennacy and Christian anarchists in general, their over riding idea is that no earthly authority has precedence over the individual, and that includes the authority exercised by religious institutions which, in their view, are entirely human created power structures meant to serve their own needs under the guise of guarding religious truth. So Christian anarchists are in the tradition of religious dissenters like George Fox of the Quakers (who was also an opponent of the death penalty in England during the 17th century.) Individual conscience and the good of the community are the basic principles of Christian anarchism according the the people I've talked to who call themselves Christian anarchists.Comrades against state power, and authority indeed.

I wanted to get some feedback on the board as to just what anarcho_Christains stand for – lend them a little support really.

Honestly I think the word authority can get problematic for a few of the anarchist’s out there. A few do tend to place emphasis on where anarcho_Christians receive their direction (Christ), rather than understanding that they are right in the trenches against authority with us. Anarcho_Christian’s aren't FOR authority then of course, just take their direction from one. I sure don't take issue with that. It does bother me to see a few anarchist's making some sort of issue over a word, apply it in a black and white manner and mistake our comrades for hostiles. It drives great folks away from anarchism.

To those exploring anarchism, I hope it doesn't cause any confusion.

the last donut of the night

14th July 2009, 11:46

I have a question here: What exactly is the difference between Bakunin and Kropoktin?

The Feral Underclass

14th July 2009, 12:30

At 80 years of age I think we can cut Chomsky some slack here.

What does his age have to do with anything? Don't be so patronising!

He has a long history of activism going back to his anti-war activities in Boston starting in 1963 (very prescient considering that anti-war activism on a nation-wide scale didn't get going until 1965.) He counseled draft resisters, committed civil disobedience, got busted at the Pentagon march, endured several audits by the IRS and has 1,000 plus page FBI file.

Chomsky has given tirelessly of his time and energy to opposing the state through his writing and activism. And he's paid the price for it too; he received his share of death threats, defamations and marginalization.

That doesn't make his politics any less shit.

No, Chomsky is not a "pure" anarchist.

He's not an anarchist on any level.

x359594

14th July 2009, 15:28

What does his age have to do with anything? Don't be so patronising!...

Age is a factor in a lot of things. It was Orson Welles who said, "Old age is like a ship wreck." I'm 58 myself, I work building maintenance, as I grow older the work gets harder. Comrade, I presume you're human, so old age is going to get you too, then you'll see what age has to do with it.

That doesn't make his politics any less shit.

Well, the world is a shitty place in many respects. As Allen Ginsberg wrote, "For the world is a mountain/of shit: if it's going to/be moved at all, it's got/to be taken by handfuls"

He's not an anarchist on any level.

Not on your level anyway.

The Feral Underclass

14th July 2009, 21:51

Age is a factor in a lot of things.

In the same as any other arbitrary thing is, sure.

Comrade, I presume you're human, so old age is going to get you too, then you'll see what age has to do with it.I'm sorry, but that's horse shit. Age has as much to do with anything as being white or being gay. There maybe stereotypes and prejudices that people use but they are no more universally truthful than any all black people listen to hip hop and gay people like musicals.

I'd also like to point out that ageism is not acceptable on this forum.

Well, the world is a shitty place in many respects. As Allen Ginsberg wrote, "For the world is a mountain/of shit: if it's going to/be moved at all, it's got/to be taken by handfuls"The world is a shitty place in many respects therefore it's OK to have shitty politics? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your train of thought.

Not on your level anyway.Chomsky is a statist, which pretty much negates him as an anarchist on any level due to the fact that being anti-statist is pretty much a fundamental qualifier.

Nwoye

14th July 2009, 21:55

Chomsky is a statist, which pretty much negates him as an anarchist on any level due to the fact that being anti-statist is pretty much a fundamental qualifier.
how so?

Dervish

14th July 2009, 22:05

This isn't any 'conclusive evidence' but the discussion could benefit from it:

Evan Solomon: "What state does function according to what you call the minimal levels of honesty? Is there a state?"

Chomsky: "None. States are power centers. The only thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force or their own populations. That's exactly why the intellectuals who we're talking about are so adamant at preventing people in the United States and Britain from learning the most elementary facts about themselves. . . . At the end, I think states ought to dissolve because I think they're illegitimate structures, but that's a long time."