Question for Anarchists.

[Skramz]

I identify as an Anarchist-Communist, but that's besides the point. What I want to know is if I am Anit-ana, thinspo and all that, does that make me any less of an Anarchist?

Obviously it's fine to be against it, but I wish that something would be done about it. Not sure about making it illegal, but if I were to lean that way I'd go again something strong in Anarchism where the idea is that 'it's their body, not yours'.

A simple answer will work. If you have no idea what I'm talking about do a google search. ;\

Thanks

[#FF0000]

Nah I wouldn't worry about that. You're talking about a mental disorder here. Believing that people ought to be treated for a disease isn't really authoritarian.

[yuon]

(To save other people the trouble of doing a web search, the person is anti-anorexia.)

I would have to say that so long as you don't try to pass laws against anorexia, or against spreading pro-ana material, I'm sure that you can claim anarchism.

However, otherwise I would suggest that you wouldn't be an anarchist, just a person with anarchistic tendencies, perhaps some sort of libertarian communist. (Which is still nothing to be ashamed of, being much better than being a capitalist.)

The thing is, as an anarchist, you should be very much for the right of people to do what they want with their own bodies. Even if that means hurting, or harming themselves (smoking drugs, or engaging in risky behaviour like sky diving). Because, it isn't your body, it's theirs. (You already know this of course.)

So, again, if you want to force people to eat, that's not anarchistic, if you want to physically prevent someone from spreading "pro-ana" material, then you fall down there as well.

Personally, I think that in a sensible anarchist society, there wouldn't be the sort of crap that says young people (or anyone) needs to be thin to be pretty. There will be a decent, supportive, society that will assist people in appreciating themselves as they are. Etc. :):cool::closedeyes:

[Skramz]

(To save other people the trouble of doing a web search, the person is anti-anorexia.)

I would have to say that so long as you don't try to pass laws against anorexia, or against spreading pro-ana material, I'm sure that you can claim anarchism.

However, otherwise I would suggest that you wouldn't be an anarchist, just a person with anarchistic tendencies, perhaps some sort of libertarian communist. (Which is still nothing to be ashamed of, being much better than being a capitalist.)

The thing is, as an anarchist, you should be very much for the right of people to do what they want with their own bodies. Even if that means hurting, or harming themselves (smoking drugs, or engaging in risky behaviour like sky diving). Because, it isn't your body, it's theirs. (You already know this of course.)

So, again, if you want to force people to eat, that's not anarchistic, if you want to physically prevent someone from spreading "pro-ana" material, then you fall down their as well.

Personally, I think that in a sensible anarchist society, there wouldn't be the sort of crap that says young people (or anyone) needs to be thin to be pretty. There will be a decent, supportive, society that will assist people in appreciating themselves as they are. Etc. :):cool::closedeyes:
Thanks for the post. While I agree with the last paragraph, we're not an Anarchist society yet. I'm not sure if making it illegal or banning websites would do anything, it'd probably just become more of a problem than it is now. I think a movement(maybe the wrong word)but something like that, that shows the dangers of it would be better. But to be quite honest, deep down I really do wish it was illegal/banned. If that makes me any less of an Anarchist, so be it. I still stand for everything else.

and thanks Loveschach for the post.

[Chicano Shamrock]

(To save other people the trouble of doing a web search, the person is anti-anorexia.)

I would have to say that so long as you don't try to pass laws against anorexia, or against spreading pro-ana material, I'm sure that you can claim anarchism.

However, otherwise I would suggest that you wouldn't be an anarchist, just a person with anarchistic tendencies, perhaps some sort of libertarian communist. (Which is still nothing to be ashamed of, being much better than being a capitalist.)

The thing is, as an anarchist, you should be very much for the right of people to do what they want with their own bodies. Even if that means hurting, or harming themselves (smoking drugs, or engaging in risky behaviour like sky diving). Because, it isn't your body, it's theirs. (You already know this of course.)

So, again, if you want to force people to eat, that's not anarchistic, if you want to physically prevent someone from spreading "pro-ana" material, then you fall down there as well.

Personally, I think that in a sensible anarchist society, there wouldn't be the sort of crap that says young people (or anyone) needs to be thin to be pretty. There will be a decent, supportive, society that will assist people in appreciating themselves as they are. Etc. :):cool::closedeyes:
Fuck all that noise. No offense but who are you to tell anyone what they should be for "as an anarchist". What is pro-anorexic material? I wouldn't think that would be allowed. I sure as hell wouldn't allow it around me in a free society. When I think of pro-anorexic material I think of the advertisements that we have now.

Being an anarchist does not mean everyone should be completely free. If you saw somebody hurting themselves than you shouldn't just stand by and watch because you are an anarchist. That is fucking ridiculous.

Honestly Yuon I don't mean to be a dick but you need to think about what anarchism means a little more. Just because we want to be free doesn't mean you will have no control to step in and make things right. It would just be a non-hierarchical style of stepping in.

Skramz you wouldn't be thought down upon for thinking that a mental disorder was bad. That is not what anarchism is. Stick around here and keep learning. Be careful who you listen to and always trust your own instincts above what someone else tells you.

[yuon]

The way I see it, it's simple. I am able to say what is anarchistic and what isn't, because I exist. And I say, that if you step in, against a person's will, and prevent them from doing something to themselves which they wish to do (even if it may or will harm them), then you are acting authoritarian (and thus not anarchisticily).

Would you agree that a person has the right to smoke tobacco, marijuana and similar drugs? I would suggest that the right to smoke this stuff is the same as the right to starve oneself.

And, if you don't think a person has the right to smoke (or starve), and you would stop them, then that is not anarchistic.

Oh, and distributing pro-ana stuff? I don't really know what that stuff is. I don't read it, and I take little interest in it. But, if someone makes some paper and a pencil, and writes down this stuff, and then offers to give it to anyone, and you went up and physically stopped them from handing it out (perhaps preventing anyone from taking it as well), well you would be acting in a manner that wasn't anarchistic.

----

"It would just be a non-hierarchical style of stepping in."
It is not just about hierarchy. It is also about authority. And power.
----

See, I have been thinking about anarchism for longer than you might think. I've known what anarchism is, and have been able to provide a decent explanation since 2003 (though I have not been an anarchist for that entire period).

I know what I think anarchism is, and going around stopping people do something that isn't harming others isn't anarchistic.

[Invincible Summer]

You want people with eating disorders to be jailed? Uh.. okay...

[What Would Durruti Do?]

It would just be a non-hierarchical style of stepping in.

should this make sense?

[Skramz]

You want people with eating disorders to be jailed? Uh.. okay...
No.. I don't want to throw them in jail. What I want is for them to not have the thoughts and if doing away with the websites is one step toward that, I am for it.

Thanks for the other posts, btw

[Invincible Summer]

No.. I don't want to throw them in jail. What I want is for them to not have the thoughts and if doing away with the websites is one step toward that, I am for it.

Thanks for the other posts, btw

Doesn't this sound sort of Orwellian? I mean your intentions are good, but this sort of thought control leads one down a shady path.

And what are these "pro-anorexic" websites and stuff? I've never seen a website that's like "KILL FAT GIRLS WEIGH 80LBS EAT RICE CAKES YA YA YA!"

Also, eating disorders are not necessarily due to (although definitely can be influenced by) media images of skinnier women. Some people have them as a coping mechanism due to some sort of problem in their lives. It's a mental disorder - there's a discernible difference from wanting to be skinny and actually being diagnosed with an eating disorder.

[Skramz]

Doesn't this sound sort of Orwellian? I mean your intentions are good, but this sort of thought control leads one down a shady path.

And what are these "pro-anorexic" websites and stuff? I've never seen a website that's like "KILL FAT GIRLS WEIGH 80LBS EAT RICE CAKES YA YA YA!"

Also, eating disorders are not necessarily due to (although definitely can be influenced by) media images of skinnier women. Some people have them as a coping mechanism due to some sort of problem in their lives. It's a mental disorder - there's a discernible difference from wanting to be skinny and actually being diagnosed with an eating disorder.
What I'm talking about is directly influenced by the pictures. I can't post the links but if you google 'thinspo' the first link will show you what I am talking about. Here's a definition.

Thinspo -
Abbreviation for thinsporation aka pictures of bone-thin women that girls with ana/mia use to remind themselves of their goals to become thin.

If it matters I have been personally affected by this.(Not me, a friend) So I may take a special interest in it because of her, but overall the whole thing is just disgusting and it's horrible what the girls/males are doing to their bodies. Yes it's their body, but this is a mental illness and something should be done to help. ;\

[Invincible Summer]

What I'm talking about is directly influenced by the pictures. I can't post the links but if you google 'thinspo' the first link will show you what I am talking about. Here's a definition.

Thinspo -
Abbreviation for thinsporation aka pictures of bone-thin women that girls with ana/mia use to remind themselves of their goals to become thin.

If it matters I have been personally affected by this.(Not me, a friend) So I may take a special interest in it because of her, but overall the whole thing is just disgusting and it's horrible what the girls/males are doing to their bodies. Yes it's their body, but this is a mental illness and something should be done to help. ;\

I sympathize, but at the same time, are you going to put a ministry into power that is in charge of ensuring that every single photo published will have the picture of someone who is of "normal" body proportions?

If my girlfriend (who is very skinny, but just because that's the way she is) wants to put up a picture of herself on the internet, will your ministry delete it and keep tabs on her because she may "make" people anorexic?
Yes, it is a mental illness, but instead of blaming skinnier people, isn't there something to be said about the individual who has the illness? There's always going to be someone skinnier than someone else, and there will always be people who are going to do stupid things because they notice those people who are skinnier than themselves.

I don't know why I'm even pursuing this... this topic doesn't even seem to have that much relevance to revolutionaries.

[ls]

I think that "pro-ana" and "anti-ana" are very confused terms, from what I can find out about them (not much tbh).

If you're against girls being malnourished, that's obviously fine. If you're anti-skinny girls or something then yeah.. that's not really alright, drawing the line at the right place of what constitutes promoting anorexia vs help and understanding between/with anorexics is quite different.

If we're going to cure this outside or inside a revolutionary society, we must completely rethink the way it's dealt with, banning "pro-ana" sites is definitely not the solution, it will just force anorexics to stay more quite about their suffering.

[Jethro Tull]

yes, skramz, you are an anarchist.

yuon and rise like lions are confusing anarchism with bourgeois pseudo-individualism.

anyone who distributes pro-ana material should have it grabbed out of their hands and torn up. they should then be forcefully told to leave the community. yes, this is very authoritarian. it is also very anarchistic.

anarchism upholds the independence of the individual will but the truly marvelous individual will has the insight to realize that the individual is totally dependent upon, and would not exist without the individual's relationship to the community. yes individual freedom is a pillar of anarchism but the individual should not be allowed the freedom to shit all over the community. if you drink yourself to death, die of a heroin overdose, kill yourself for some stupid reason, or starve yourself, you are not simply making a decision about yourself, you are also making a decision about the dozens of people who are effected by your existence.

if pro-ana people are allowed to distribute their propaganda in our communities, what next? am i allowed to bear false witness against my neighbor? even though that is as much a hurtful, malicious act as physical assault?

part of real individualism, not liberal pseudo-individualism, is recognizing there are some circumstances where excerting authority and power over others is necessary. for example, it will be necessary for us to obtain the power to force the burgeoisie out of control. if my five-year-old child said "i'm going to stick my hand in the garbage disposal and turn it on", i would physically force the child not to. (is that "authoritarian"? bo hoo...it was "authoritarian" of the kid to force its way out of my vaginal cavity when i was giving birth to it) i would do the same thing to an adult i cared about. does that make me an "authoritarian"? maybe...i'm not giving this person total freedom over their own body. i'm also preventing my kitchen from being covered in blood, i'm also preventing the person from causing myself and her other loved ones emotional trauma, making them feel like they've wasted the decades of emotional and material support they've given this persn. (you can't just accept emotional and material support from someone for years and then get indignant when they ignore your individual "right" to kill yourself slowly and painfully over a totally stupid and unhealthy manner)

in short, anyone who doesn't forcefully and violently dismantle the pro-ana movement, by any means necessary, cannot call themselves an anarchist.

[yuon]

"in short, anyone who doesn't forcefully and violently dismantle the pro-ana movement, by any means necessary, cannot call themselves an anarchist."

Funny enough, what if I were "pro-ana" and called myself an anarchist?

Anyway, I don't agree to forcefully and violently dismantling the "pro-ana" movement, especially not "by any means necessary". I feel that that would be distinctly anti-anarchistic. I would question which part of anarchist theory you get that from, because I've never seen "by any means necessary" promoted in any anarchist writings.

Violent means would presumably include beating up anorexic kids, throwing them out of the community (you've already said that) so that they can't get any support or help for their problems, and even worse.

You say that "authoritarian" means are actually OK, and anarchistic. Again, I would question where you are getting this from, and ask for some sources.



anarchism upholds the independence of the individual will but the truly marvelous individual will has the insight to realize that the individual is totally dependent upon, and would not exist without the individual's relationship to the community. yes individual freedom is a pillar of anarchism but the individual should not be allowed the freedom to shit all over the community. if you drink yourself to death, die of a heroin overdose, kill yourself for some stupid reason, or starve yourself, you are not simply making a decision about yourself, you are also making a decision about the dozens of people who are effected by your existence.
So, you would physically prevent someone from killing themself? Jumping off a bridge, popping pills, shooting oneself, or overdosing on heroin are all possible ways of killing yourself.

Yeah, fuck your "anarchism" if you would prevent someone from having control over their own body. That isn't any anarchism I would support or subscribe to.

[Leaf]

I find this really interesting.
You all make persuasive arguments.
I just want to add that I don't think that those who are against the pro ana movement want to restrict personal freedom per se.
I think an anarchist would recognise the right of individual to starve. But it's the websites I have a problem with. So I think the argument could be - are these sites harmful? Maybe it's because (like the other person) I have seen the damage pro ana sites can cause first hand. The pro ana movement isn't victimless.

Yuon, it's not really about having control over your body in my opinion. I think most people on revleft support that kind of individual freedom.

What about other websites that endorse behaviour that harms others?

Please correct me with anything I've said. I'm not knowledgable about anarchism at all really.
Also, in a communist or anarchist society, everyone would make democratic decisions for society right? What if we decided to, for example, not allow people to create pro-ana sites?
Maybe anarchists would argue that, in a communist, anarchist, free society, no one would want to create such a site it would fade away -thus there is no need to exert power and ban the sites...?

[FSL]

Is there a right to be anorexic/boulimic/alcoholic?


There is a right to be free of all these plights that mostly appear as a result of massive stress. So, I couldn't see an anarchist not being against them.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Personal freedom is a right of all and no one should be able to enforce their will upon people living a certain lifestyle. I also would question whether Anorexia would exist in Anarchist society. I am not sure of the specific roots of the condition but I feel that Capitalist society and the portrayal of women in consumer culture is a large part of the causes of this condition. If people choose to be very skinny then they should be allowed, if they don't want to be they will be helped.

[Jethro Tull]

Funny enough, what if I were "pro-ana" and called myself an anarchist?

you can call yourself whatever you want but any "anarchist" who promotes anorexia as a lifestyle is perpetuating patriarchal ideology, and thus, from my perspective, incorrectly applying the term "anarchist" to themselves.


Anyway, I don't agree to forcefully and violently dismantling the "pro-ana" movement, especially not "by any means necessary".

that's probably because you aren't emotionally attached to anyone suffering from anorexia.


I feel that that would be distinctly anti-anarchistic.

is it "distinctly anti-anarchistic" to forcefully and violently dismantle capitalism? most anarchists are for that...

what about forcefully and violently dismantling rival political movements we view as oppressive? such as fascists? most anarchists are for that too...


I would question which part of anarchist theory you get that from, because I've never seen "by any means necessary" promoted in any anarchist writings.

i guess malcolm x is not part of your dogmatic-sectarian canon of honky "anarchist theory". oh well....


Violent means would presumably include beating up anorexic kids, throwing them out of the community [...] so that they can't get any support or help for their problems, and even worse

nice strawman asshole.
if someone is part of the community, then they get benefits from that community. if someone has a disease such as anorexia, it cripples them and reduces their capacity to contribute to the community. most cripples did not make the choice to be crippled, however alcoholics and anorexics are choosing to cripple themselves.

i'm not talking about beating up anorexics and throwing them out of the community so they can't get any medical treatment for their condition. i'm talking about the community forcing them to get treatment, and no longer supporting them if they continue to deny they have a mental illness.

the people who should be beaten up and thrown out of the community are the activists who promote the lie that anorexia is a healthy lifestyle. if i went around from door to door distributing a free flyer that claimed to list wild edible plants, but in fact listed plants with deadly toxins, i would expect to be publically exposed, thrown out of the community, and possibly beaten up. your ideology seems to be rooted in the classical liberal notion that "rights" are these sacred statues protected by god, the state, or who knows else that give us liberty to run around doing whatever we want, and if anyone doesn't like it, their hands are bound. rights are something the individual will protects and insures through exhertion of power. the pro-ana movement, while a minor foe, (minor does not mean unworthy, however) is one that i believe individuals should exhert their power to overcome, through collective action.

if you disagree, that's fine. you can fight to defend the alleged "rights" of the pro-ana movement, but in this circumstances we will be fighting for opposing forces.


(you've already said that)

no i didn't. nice try.


You say that "authoritarian" means are actually OK

in certain circumstances, yes, authoritarian means are fine.

1) do you think it's wrong to accept the advice of someone who is more experienced or learned than yourself?
2) do you think it's wrong to protect your body, your freedom, your posessions, etc. from harm through force?
3) do you think it's wrong to save your friends, family, and other loved ones from self-destructive behavior? (you've alreay hinted that your answer to this one might be positive, which is disturbing)
4) do you think it's wrong to build a fence to keep your cows from eating your onion patch?

all of those things require some degree of "authoritarianism...that's part of life


So, you would physically prevent someone from killing themself?

depends on the context. if i was 40, and the person in question was 14, definitely. if i was 20 and the person in question was 95, and in chronic physical pain from aging, probably not.

if the person was killing themselves out of, say, dishonor, that would be one thing, if the person was killing themselves out of, say, heartbreak, that would be another.

it depends on the context, but yes, it's possible to be an anarchist and to prevent someone from killing themselves. i can't believe this is even a debate.


Jumping off a bridge, popping pills, shooting oneself, or overdosing on heroin are all possible ways of killing yourself.

yes, they are...what's your point?


[Yeah, fuck your "anarchism" if you would prevent someone from having control over their own body.

as an anarchist i think people should exhert total control over their body. if you want absolute freedom you can live in a house built by yourself away from everyone else. but you can't enjoy the benefits of a society, and then not accept the responsibility. if you kill yourself (especially in a long, drawn-out way such as anorexia or hard drug addiction) you are inflicting emotional pain on others.

i believe in balance. all worthwhile and healthy societies believe in individual freedom but they also recognize that an individual is a product of relationships. you didn't give birth to yourself, you gave another body hemmerhoids, stretchmarks, etc. in order to bring you into this life. the vast majority of us have not survived thus far entirely on our own means, but through the gifts, both material and emotional, given to us by friends, family, strangers, etc. when you live with someone, make love to someone, bond with someone, you are entering into their life, weaving your experiences with theirs. when you kill yourself for no damned good reason, you are forcefully and violently ripping out the threads of your life that you have interwoven into that other person's being. you are committing a violent, abusive act. is it "authoritarian" to stop a loved one from offing herself when you know she's doing it for a reason that's trite and brash? yes, but how is it not "authoritarian" to kill yourself out of some stupid, selfish motivation (for example, starving yourself to death because you want to look like a barbie doll) without considering the psychological consequences it will have on your loved ones?


That isn't any anarchism I would support or subscribe to.

that's because your anarchism is for selfish young jackasses who have no idea how to run a community.

[Skramz]

Personal freedom is a right of all and no one should be able to enforce their will upon people living a certain lifestyle. I also would question whether Anorexia would exist in Anarchist society. I am not sure of the specific roots of the condition but I feel that Capitalist society and the portrayal of women in consumer culture is a large part of the causes of this condition. If people choose to be very skinny then they should be allowed, if they don't want to be they will be helped.
Being skinny isn't the problem. I do not 'hate' skinny people, what I am against is how they become skinny, Forcing yourself to throw up, starving yourself, creating websites that show ONLY skinny girls and gives 'tips' on how to starve yourself is what I am against.

While I doubt the problem would exist in an Anarchist society, the problem is America, or any other part of the world is not Anarchist, which is why we must focus on it and help those who need it. Would banning websites help? I'm not sure, but keeping them isn't helping either. ;\

Thanks Jethro Tull for the posts and everybody else as well.

[Chicano Shamrock]

The way I see it, it's simple. I am able to say what is anarchistic and what isn't, because I exist. And I say, that if you step in, against a person's will, and prevent them from doing something to themselves which they wish to do (even if it may or will harm them), then you are acting authoritarian (and thus not anarchisticily).

Would you agree that a person has the right to smoke tobacco, marijuana and similar drugs? I would suggest that the right to smoke this stuff is the same as the right to starve oneself.

And, if you don't think a person has the right to smoke (or starve), and you would stop them, then that is not anarchistic.

Oh, and distributing pro-ana stuff? I don't really know what that stuff is. I don't read it, and I take little interest in it. But, if someone makes some paper and a pencil, and writes down this stuff, and then offers to give it to anyone, and you went up and physically stopped them from handing it out (perhaps preventing anyone from taking it as well), well you would be acting in a manner that wasn't anarchistic.

----

"It would just be a non-hierarchical style of stepping in."
It is not just about hierarchy. It is also about authority. And power.
----

See, I have been thinking about anarchism for longer than you might think. I've known what anarchism is, and have been able to provide a decent explanation since 2003 (though I have not been an anarchist for that entire period).

I know what I think anarchism is, and going around stopping people do something that isn't harming others isn't anarchistic.
I didn't say you haven't been thinking about anarchism for a while and I really don't want to sound like a jerk but you have it a bit mixed up. It is not that we are against authority. That is just a punk rock catch phrase. We are against illegitimate authority. Parents should have complete authority over their children. That would still be anarchistic.

This is from Mikhail Bakunin in his writing What is authority?:


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognise no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

Source: http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html

You told Jethro that you don't want any part of his kind of Anarchism. That is what anarchism... well is. We don't believe in "No Authority" and "Complete Freedom". That is for cavemen on a deserted island. We believe in democratic laws agreed upon by the community. We won't let someone harm others around them in the name of freedom. That would be a childish and petty political theory.

Edit****
In funny twist of irony I just passed up my lunch break to write this so I don't get to eat dinner. : D

[yuon]

Yeah, I've read that Bakunin quote before...

It is not that we are against authority. That is just a punk rock catch phrase. We are against illegitimate authority. Parents should have complete authority over their children. That would still be anarchistic.
No, we aren't against "all authority", but we are (or at least should be) against the type of authority that is meant when most people use the term, they don't mean knowledge, they mean power.
Parents shouldn't have complete authority over their children. Parents should not have the right to abuse their kids, either physically or mentally (sending them to church for example). Parents have limited authority over children, and only a reactionary society would have it any other way. Indeed, it has been suggested that parents should have no more right to be part of the upbringing of their children than anyone else.

The only reason parents have any authority is because of age and strength. And as children grow older, their parents lose that authority.

As for "illegitimate authority", all power over others, all authority over others (as opposed to, having knowledge, which is how Mikhail uses the term in the quote you quoted) is "illegitimate" when it is non-consensual (and even, many times, when it is consensual, as in "I consent to being ruled by living in a country").

You quoted Mikhail, and now I will also quote from that text (and I added all the emphasis to the quote).

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed on me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed on me by my own reason. I am conscious of my own inability to grasp, in all its detail, and positive development, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.

This same reason forbids me, then, to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority, because there is no universal man, no man capable of grasping in all that wealth of detail, without which the application of science to life is impossible, all the sciences, all the branches of social life. And if such universality could ever be realised in a single man, and if he wished to take advantage thereof to impose his authority upon us, it would be necessary to drive this man out of society, because his authority would inevitably reduce all the others to slavery and imbecility. I do not think that society ought to maltreat men of genius as it has done hitherto: but neither do I think it should indulge them too far, still less accord them any privileges or exclusive rights whatsoever; and that for three reasons: first, because it would often mistake a charlatan for a man of genius; second, because, through such a system of privileges, it might transform into a charlatan even a real man of genius, demoralise him, and degrade him; and, finally, because it would establish a master over itself.
What is he saying here? He is saying that he isn't against "all authority", perish the thought!, but that he is against authority when it means "power". I would have thought on this forum when "authority" is used, people would have understood it to be meant as a synonym for "power" in most cases.


You told Jethro that you don't want any part of his kind of Anarchism. That is what anarchism... well is. We don't believe in "No Authority" and "Complete Freedom". That is for cavemen on a deserted island. We believe in democratic laws agreed upon by the community. We won't let someone harm others around them in the name of freedom. That would be a childish and petty political theory.
So, we, as anarchists, do (or, at least should) be opposed to all authority, all power, hierarchy and so on, except in a few, unlikely and rare, cases where it is truly voluntary.

We oppose people harming others, however, we support an individuals right to have control over their own body.

I know what I think anarchism is, and going around stopping people do something that isn't harming others isn't anarchistic.

And someone starving themselves to death is not harming others enough to justify impinging on their right to freedom! Nor, is handing out "pro-ana" material directly harming others, no matter what people who have experience with anorexia might think.

[yuon]

It occurred to me to check if the question had been raised before on RevLeft. So, I did a search.

There are some quite interesting comments by some people. For example, in a thread from last year looking at the fact that France was outlawing "pro-ana" sites this comment was made:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1133533&postcount=9


There are pro-anorexia sites!

Jesus Christ anorexia can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted fashion culture where everyone has to be stick thin and thus run the risk of developing anorexia?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-anorexia sites.
Just to throw a spanner in the works on change anorexic references to alcohol references.

There are alcohol sites!

Jesus Christ alcohol can kill you, dont the people who run these sites know that young teenagers are vulnerable to this kind of absurd mainstream promoted drinking culture where everyone has to be shitfaced and thus run the risk of developing scirosis?

What kind of sick fuck promotes that kind of shit?

This is a serious illness we are talking about here which can kill the person suffering from it, how utterly careless of the people who run these pro-alcohol sites.


I am not in any way pro-anorexia but the arguement used here many times is where does the censorship stop.

TC made quite a long post in that thread, here's a sample:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1133961&postcount=14

9. Those who want to censor 'pro-ana' websites, skinny models, and confine "anorexic" girls in eating disorder clinics against their will (for their own good), might like to think that if the topic were something primarily effecting fully grown men or even young men or teenage boys, or both genders and age groups equally, they would treat it the same, but the fact is that in reality they don't. Alcohol and tobacco kill many magnitudes more in both raw and percentile terms but no one ever seriously suggests not only banning but criminalizing the promotion of alcohol or tobacco. Hell, even the promotion of illegal hard drugs isn't criminalized (you can still promote heroin just not sell or buy or hold it). Male body builders are every bit as neurotic about compulsively and obsessively wanting to achieve their preferred atypical body type (I know one who is every bit as, well, creepy, about it both clinically and self-identified "anorexic" girls I know) and have more associated physical risks, but no one calls for clamp downs on their sub-culture, or patronizes them by suggesting that they're the result of male models and male sexual objectification taken to an extreme, much less institutionalize them or criminalize promoting their lifestyle. The same is even more obviously true for obesity and over-eating, which is far riskier behavior and far more widespread but as it effects both genders and is more common in older people than young adults and teenagers, is never treated in the same patronizing and pathologizing way even though the health risks are well documented and obese people often have the same sort of fixation on food that "anorexics" have, they just treat it differently.

There are a few other comments made by other people on the topic as well, in various threads. But I didn't just see anything that jumped out at me like the above two quotes did.


Oh, and I should make it very clear, I do not support the existence of "pro-ana" websites. I just, you know, don't believe in censorship, and think that the harm done would out weigh any good that it may achieve.

[yuon]

you can call yourself whatever you want but any "anarchist" who promotes anorexia as a lifestyle is perpetuating patriarchal ideology, and thus, from my perspective, incorrectly applying the term "anarchist" to themselves.
Just to be clear, I'm not promoting anorexia, at all. Oh, and I've just been reading a number of threads on the topic. TC has said to the effect that anyone who is so obsessed with opposing anorexia is, in effect, "perpetuating patriarchal ideology". So, yeah, whatever floats your boat.

Oh, and again, I'm not promoting anorexia, I'm opposing censorship".


that's probably because you aren't emotionally attached to anyone suffering from anorexia.
Yes, it gives me that extra distance doesn't it. You want to use "any means necessary"? Maybe bomb the village to save it?


is it "distinctly anti-anarchistic" to forcefully and violently dismantle capitalism? most anarchists are for that...

what about forcefully and violently dismantling rival political movements we view as oppressive? such as fascists? most anarchists are for that too...
I've seen it argued that such things are unanarchistic. However, you missed my point. First you argued that you were going to use violent means to stop people doing something that was harming no one but themselves, and then you were saying you were wanting to use "any means necessary". Both things are un-anarchistic by any reasonable understanding.


i guess malcolm x is not part of your dogmatic-sectarian canon of honky "anarchist theory". oh well....
Lovely, I'm probably one of the least "dogmatic-sectarian" of anarchists on this website, as I accept more than just communists as anarchists. But, no, I've never heard of Malcom X being referred to as an anarchist.
He was a Sunni Muslim for the last part of his life (and a member of the Nation of Islam before that). Now, I'm not saying that you can't be a Muslim and an anarchist (though I do think the two are contradictory to some extent, the same as Christianity and anarchism), but, it does sort of suggest something. Especially as I can't find any quick reference to Malcolm X being any sort of anarchist.


nice strawman asshole.
Yeah, sort of like the "dogmatic-sectarian canon of honky 'anarchist theory'" jab.

if someone is part of the community, then they get benefits from that community. if someone has a disease such as anorexia, it cripples them and reduces their capacity to contribute to the community. most cripples did not make the choice to be crippled, however alcoholics and anorexics are choosing to cripple themselves.
So?


i'm not talking about beating up anorexics and throwing them out of the community so they can't get any medical treatment for their condition. i'm talking about the community forcing them to get treatment, and no longer supporting them if they continue to deny they have a mental illness.
Why don't you pick another bloody label for yourself. Why do all you people have to go and say "I'm an anarchist". Why can't you just say, "I'm a libertarian communist" or maybe, "I'm an anti-state socialist", or "I'm not a real anarchist, but I like to be thought of as 'edgy' so please call me an anarchist".



no i didn't. nice try.
You said, "they should then be forcefully told to leave the community." Sounds like you want to throw them out of the community to me...



in certain circumstances, yes, authoritarian means are fine.

1) do you think it's wrong to accept the advice of someone who is more experienced or learned than yourself?
2) do you think it's wrong to protect your body, your freedom, your posessions, etc. from harm through force?
3) do you think it's wrong to save your friends, family, and other loved ones from self-destructive behavior? (you've alreay hinted that your answer to this one might be positive, which is disturbing)
4) do you think it's wrong to build a fence to keep your cows from eating your onion patch?

all of those things require some degree of "authoritarianism...that's part of life

Boring. I'm not interested in a semantic discussion.



depends on the context. if i was 40, and the person in question was 14, definitely. if i was 20 and the person in question was 95, and in chronic physical pain from aging, probably not.

if the person was killing themselves out of, say, dishonor, that would be one thing, if the person was killing themselves out of, say, heartbreak, that would be another.

it depends on the context, but yes, it's possible to be an anarchist and to prevent someone from killing themselves. i can't believe this is even a debate.
Oh sure. What if they were 14, and they tried to kill themselves. And you stopped them. And they tried, again, and again. And again. And each time you stopped them. Don't you think, maybe, that you might be doing more harm than good in such a scenario?



f you kill yourself (especially in a long, drawn-out way such as anorexia or hard drug addiction) you are inflicting emotional pain on others.
So? People "inflict" emotional pain on others all the time. That person doesn't love me any more, oh no, that hurts. That person called me a bad name. That hurts as well. That person is fucking up their life, and that hurts me as well. What's the difference between hard drug addiction and nicotine addiction? Someone who smokes tobacco is causing shit loads of damage to themselves. Do you want to stop them?



i believe in balance. all worthwhile and healthy societies believe in individual freedom but they also recognize that an individual is a product of relationships. you didn't give birth to yourself, you gave another body hemmerhoids, stretchmarks, etc. in order to bring you into this life. the vast majority of us have not survived thus far entirely on our own means, but through the gifts, both material and emotional, given to us by friends, family, strangers, etc. when you live with someone, make love to someone, bond with someone, you are entering into their life, weaving your experiences with theirs. [quote]
Wonderful. Now to quote you piece by bloody piece.
[quote]when you kill yourself for no damned good reason
Who are you to decide what is a "damned good reason" and what isn't? If my life appears to me not to be worth living, if I can't find one person who appears to understand what I am going through, if I can't find a group that trusts and understands me, why shouldn't I kill myself? Now, I haven't ever experienced that, but I imagine it's what a lot of teenagers who kill themselves feel.

And you want to tell them that "it'll all be alright, it'll get better", or even worse, "you selfish bastard! think of the pain you will cause others!"? Maybe they are right, maybe no one does understand them, and life isn't worth living, for them.

you are forcefully and violently ripping out the threads of your life that you have interwoven into that other person's being. you are committing a violent, abusive act.
You have a way with words, you know? However, I think that the "violent, abusive act" that would be committed against a person by interfering with their life, may well be worse.


is it "authoritarian" to stop a loved one from offing herself when you know she's doing it for a reason that's trite and brash?
Who are you to decide what is "trite and brash"?

yes, but how is it not "authoritarian" to kill yourself out of some stupid, selfish motivation (for example, starving yourself to death because you want to look like a barbie doll) without considering the psychological consequences it will have on your loved ones?
Anyway, where I think I was going with this is that the harm done by forcibly preventing someone from killing themselves would out weigh any good that it may achieve.


that's because your anarchism is for selfish young jackasses who have no idea how to run a community.
No, that's because my anarchism is actual anarchism. Freedom and all that jazz. I'll leave the running of the community to those people actually living in it.

[ls]

if someone is part of the community, then they get benefits from that community. if someone has a disease such as anorexia, it cripples them and reduces their capacity to contribute to the community. most cripples did not make the choice to be crippled, however alcoholics and anorexics are choosing to cripple themselves.

What an arseholic way of looking at it.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I don't even know what we are talking about anymore.:confused:

I don't think anorexic people should be forced to do anything really against their will. I think they should have the medical option if they choose to use it. I also think that if the situation got bad enough maybe the friends or family of said person could have the right to get them hospitalized as a mental patient.

Maybe not I don't know. Honestly I don't know any anorexic people and I don't think about it/them ever.

[Aeval]

It's always tough with anorexic/bulimic people, simply because it is an illness, they literally see a warped image of themselves and believe that becoming as thin as humanly possibly is the most important thing. It also leads to genuine feelings of panic when confronted with food, even after they've had years of support, so I think it's a little simple to just say 'well, if they want help they can have it, if they don't then it's their body they can do what they like' - most don't want help, that is what anorexia is.

As to whether you should ban it; if someone in a community was schizophrenic and another member of that community actively encouraged their delusional beliefs to the point of encouraging them to hurt or kill themselves I think I would be fine with people stepping in and putting a stop to it. Not all of the pro-ana websites are run by anorexic teenagers, there's apparently a big problem of older men setting up these websites because they like collecting all these emotionally frail, body obsessed women and girls (and men, anorexia is a much bigger problem in men than you would imagine, they just tend to hide it even more than women) in one place where they can encourage what they're doing, kinda like a feeder. Anorexia/bulimia are exacerbated by the patriarchal society we live in, but they are not caused by it, it is a genuine illness with possible genetic and neurobiological factors as well as psychological and social ones, so it will almost certainly still exist after capitalism, it will just be less prevalent.

I think being anti-ana/mia is perfectly fine for an anarchist, it's like being anti-beauty standards; it doesn't mean you're against women who happen to be thin or happen to fit the current beauty standards, it just means you're against other women being made to feel like shit if they don't. Incidentally, not all pro-ana sites are bad, some do offer a lot of support, including the one which google lists first (I think) and unless you trawl through a lot of pages it can be difficult for someone not aware of what anorexia/bulimia is to correctly judge whether the site is being run by professionals trying to give help and support, or total aresholes trying to make people starve themselves to death, so an outright ban would be complicated.

[Code]

Simple definition of the democratic part of anarchy (correct me if i'm wrong):
Each individual having a say in each issue in direct proportion to how it directly effects them.

[Code]

Simple definition of the democratic part of anarchy (correct me if i'm wrong):
Each individual having a say in each issue in direct proportion to how it directly effects them.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Simple definition of the democratic part of anarchy (correct me if i'm wrong):
Each individual having a say in each issue in direct proportion to how it directly effects them.

Yes I would say that. You should talk about how this is achieved also. Democratising means of production, decentralised federations of workers councils etc.

[Jethro Tull]

anyone who is so obsessed with opposing anorexia

so if you're concerned with an issue that hurts people, an issue that's an obvious symptom of capitalist society, an issue where you personally could potentially contribute a lot of help, you are "obsessed"?

i'm sorry all anarchists who don't totally sidestep the anti-patriarchal struggle are "obsessed". i agree, we should just get over our "obsession" with the well-being of our sisters.


Oh, and again, I'm not promoting anorexia, I'm opposing censorship". "opposing censorship" is a bourgeois flag. virtually all anarchists agree with a line in jean-luc godard la chinoise, to the effect that literature should be studied and criticized rather than burnt. we should be opposed to censorship in the sense that we oppose methods that liquidate rather than address ideas in contradiction to our own. this says nothing about the tactical possibility of disrupting our opponents' propaganda efforts, a possibility anarchists definitely need to consider as necessary.

in other words, it would be censorship to, say, destroy every copy of the protocols of the elders of zion. it would not be censorship to prevent nazis from distributing the protocols of the elders of zion, it would be a gesture of courtesy, since the the text is already available virtually everywhere.


Yes, it gives me that extra distance doesn't it.it gives you the privilige not to care.


I've seen it argued that such things are unanarchistic.by tolstoyite pacifists, yes. they've always been a small minority among the anarchists.


First you argued that you were going to use violent means to stop people doing something that was harming no one but themselvesyou're ignoring the premise my argument. the only way anarexia harms "no one but [oneself]" is if one lives totally alone, is totally and absolutely self-sufficient, and has no friends, family, pet animals, or any other lifeforms that benefit either physically or emotionally from one's existence. in that circumstance, yes, i support someone's freedom to starve themselves in solitude.


and then you were saying you were wanting to use "any means necessary". Both things are un-anarchistic by any reasonable understanding.

i could have said "by any means appropriate", however, inappropriate means are, in this case, unnecessary.


Lovely, I'm probably one of the least "dogmatic-sectarian" of anarchists on this websitethat says a lot, considering this is revleft, the home of utterly pointless dogmatic-sectarian leftism.


as I accept more than just communists as anarchists.uhh...what?


But, no, I've never heard of Malcom X being referred to as an anarchist.whether he's referred to or not as an anarchist is irrelevant. (were that the case, all that would be needed to refute your argument is to, say, point out, that a friend of mine referred to malcolm x in our private correspondance of letters, as an anarchist. hell, some third position infiltrators even claim julius evola was an anarchist, while others claim bourgeois imperialist thomas jefferson in the anarchist camp) what's relevant is whether or not his ideas have anarchist implications, which they do.


Now, I'm not saying that you can't be a Muslim and an anarchist [...] but, it does sort of suggest something. it's obvious from this quotation that you are suggesting one cannot be both a muslim and an anarchist, considering this is the only argument you provided for malcolm x's disqualification as an anarchist.

lots of anarchists are muslims. islam means different things to different people, get over it. ("non-sectarian" my ass...:D)


(and a member of the Nation of Islam before that).it's worth pointing out he was very publicly and adroitly critical of that organization once he left it. your comments seem to imply otherwise.


Especially as I can't find any quick reference to Malcolm X being any sort of anarchist. perhaps your academic research into such subjects should extend beyond sporadic and haphazard google searches conducted over "quick" span of time.

(however, it is worth pointing out that a simple google search for "malcolm x anarchist" displays, on the first page, a by illvox, a notorious anarchist blogger, and a quote by another quite useful and excellent anarchist internet library referring to malcolm x specifically as a "revolutionary genius & martyr". this is enough happenstantial evidence to substantiate that malcolm x has had an influence on anarchist thought, contrary to your claims)


So?so, if i'm blinded by accident, or by birth, or if by accident or birth i do not have the use of one or both of my legs, i would expect the community to compensate for the physical abilities i am lacking, in other words, i would expect people to help me out to some degree.

anorexics and alcoholics also require a good deal of help. in other words, a good deal of other peoples' resources. the only difference is that alcoholics and anorexics need to cure their illness by making a specific lifestyle choice. blind people, on the other hand, can't choose not to be blind.


Why don't you pick another bloody label for yourself.because i don't want to concede a useful word to the bourgeois individualists such as yourself.


Why do all you people have to go and say "I'm an anarchist""all you people" = everyone who happens to disagree with you on this one point. you're the boss of who is or isn't an anarchist, now? now who's being authoritarian? :laugh:


but I like to be thought of as 'edgy' so please call me an anarchist". don't worry, i'm not concerned about the "edgy", bart simpson appeal of the term "anarchist" - hence why i give equal preference to the terms "communist" and libertarian"


You said, "they should then be forcefully told to leave the community." Sounds like you want to throw them out of the community to me...yes, that should be an option if they refuse treatment for their self-destructive behavior. (or if they deny that their behavior is self-destructive) why should a firefighter risk her life jumping into a burning building to save someone who's just going to turn around and starve herself to death? if you don't want to participate in society, don't enjoy its benefits. no one, in this hypothetical anarchist world, is stopping you from going off into a lob cabin by yourself and starving yourself to death, but someone's fucked up self-abusive internalized patriarchy has no place in my living room, front porch, town square, or anywhere else where i have to see it taking place.

let's say i'm a woman whose husband is alcoholic. let's say he moved into a house that i inhereted from my grandmother. let's say his alcoholism was of detriment to our romantic relationship. let's say he denied thaty he had a psychological disorder. (as 'pro-ana' advocates do in regards to anorexia) let's say i told him to leave, since he refuses to admit he has a disease that is ruining both our lives. under your bart simpsonite "anarchy", i am being an "authoritarian". and yes, i am exerting power over another person's life. but this is an example of how, as bakunin said, anarchists are not opposed to all authority.


Boring. I'm not interested in a semantic discussion. ok, i'll try not to communicate in semantics anymore.

fjss. fhjbh. fhfhir. fhfhd. djdks sdhffbhsd sjhnd iddhs? djd! ffjsfjsffsjj, fhsff dhaad dhds...:rolleyes::D


Oh sure. What if they were 14, and they tried to kill themselves. And you stopped them. And they tried, again, and again. And again. And each time you stopped them. Don't you think, maybe, that you might be doing more harm than good in such a scenario? no.


So? People "inflict" emotional pain on others all the time. That person doesn't love me any more, oh no, that hurts.those are obviously different circumstances. if my mother died on the same day that my girlfriend of three weeks broke up with me, guess what i'd give more of a shit about?


That person called me a bad name.well yeah, let's say some cracker was standing outside of my black next-door neighbor's house yelling "NIGGER! NIGGER! A NIGGER LIVES HERE!" at the top of his lungs, i'd be tempted to run out and beat him with a tire-iron, because he's using his words to inflict emotional abuse. if a male was walking around, on a public sidewalk, following random women and yelling "I'M GOING TO RAPE YOU!", i'd probably be tempted to do the same.

nothing in "the bible" of anarchism mandates that all self-described anarchists believe in the fallacious principle of unbridled self-expression without logical consequences. what about the "authoritarianism" of preventing those logical consequences from occuring? (for example, the line of riot cops preventing the hundreds of protestors from mobbing the half-dozen costume-nazis)


What's the difference between hard drug addiction and nicotine addiction? Someone who smokes tobacco is causing shit loads of damage to themselves. Do you want to stop them?let's assume we're talking about pure, organic tobacco, here.

the effects of habitual (as in daily) smoking of pure, organic tobacco, (which i don't nessicarily believe the community should allow) is more analgous to say, smoking opium, chewing coca leaves, etc. than, say shooting up heroin. heroin is highly chemically refined and therefore more dangerous. even compared to toxin-laced, commercially available cigarettes, the difference between heroin, which kills in the form of o.d.'s, and tobacco products, which kill in the form of ten years taken off the end of your life, is obvious to me. i could see a community where everyone smokes tobacco every day (while not one i would nessicarily want to live in) functioning a lot better than a community where everyone shoots up heroin every day.


Who are you to decide what is a "damned good reason" and what isn't?someone who presumably intimately knows the person, and who has lived significantly longer than they have?


if I can't find one person who appears to understand what I am going through, if I can't find a group that trusts and understands me, why shouldn't I kill myself?do you honestly think suicide is a sollution to those problems? if i saw a 14-year-old stranger about to jump off a bridge to his death, and physically restrained him from ending it all, and he told me he was killing himself because no one knows what he's going through, and he can't find anyone to trust or understand him, i wouldn't just say "ah geez, well, that's great, i hope you work that out, bye...", i'd obviously try to offer, well, a relationship of understanding and trust. isn't salvaging the person's life a healthier option than watching them kill themselves?

also lots of people, especially teenagers, percieve that they have no one who understands what they're going through, percieve that no one trusts and understands them, when in fact that is obviously not the case. just a good example of how an individual's perception can be flawed, and should not always be the highest authority.


And you want to tell them that "it'll all be alright, it'll get better"no, i don't believe in lying to people. things aren't alright, not everything will turn out alright, and not everything nessicarily gets better. but that doesn't mean i'm going to let every depressed 13-year-old off herself for no good reason.


or even worse, "you selfish bastard! think of the pain you will cause others!"?well yes, sometimes the truth sounds mean.


You have a way with words, you know? However, I think that the "violent, abusive act" that would be committed against a person by interfering with their life, may well be worse. how is it "violent" to save someone from killing themselves? i don't get it.


Who are you to decide what is "trite and brash"? i'm an anarchist, i'm the decider. i act based on my own conscience, by own rational functions, my own instict of what's right and wrong.


the harm donesuch as...what, exactly? one more mouth to feed?


No, that's because my anarchism is actual anarchism."actual anarchism" in the bart simpson / sid vicious sense of everyone running around shooting up heroin, doing rails of various pharmacutical powders, numbing their brains with mass-entertainment, drifting from eating disorder to eating disorder, before eventually dying from a painful death at a young age. "actual anarchism" in the john zerzan / green anarchy! sense of wanting to abolish culture and society and anything but unmitigated stupidity. the television show jackass is the blueprint of your anarchism.


Freedom and all that jazz."freedom dialectically interweaves the individual with the collective. The word freedom has its analogue in the Greek eleutheria and derives from the German Freiheit, a term that still retains a gemeinsch'ftliche or communal ancestry in Teutonic tribal life and law." - bookchin, SAoLA


I'll leave the running of the community to those people actually living in it.well yeah and if in my community a 13-year-old child tries to kill himself, the rest of the community would feel compelled to do something about it. maybe an outsider like you needs to come in and make us behave in a more "anarchist" fashion. hypocrite.

[yuon]

I really don't want to be bothered with this conversation any more. It isn't doing anything for either of us, and I'm no more convinced by that last post, than apparently you were by my previous posts.

So, instead of going line by line, I'll just stab at three or four main issues I have with your post, and that I can be bothered writing about (I am interested in the censorship issue, but I can't be fucked really

The first is Malcolm X and whether he was an anarchist, or whether he had ideas worth taking by anarchists.
Yes, he did have some ideas worth taking, however, he wasn't an anarchist. I direct you to the thread on "What is Anarchism?" in the anarchist group (the first by date), where I discuss what I think anarchism is. Of of the ideas that isn't worth taking is "by any means necessary".
So, Illvox (who I've never heard of), has a video on their site (which for some reason I couldn't view, stupid youtube). With no commentary. http://illvox.org/2009/05/malcolm-x-may-19-1925-february-21-1965/
Then we have "Jaggi Singh" http://colours.mahost.org/articles/singh2.html saying "Malcolm X; not an anarchist".
Well, from that scientific completely random sample of people I would have to say, no, Malcolm X wasn't an anarchist. Especially if we add the completely relevant anecdotal evidence of my never reading anything that supports that idea, despite lots and lots of reading of anarchist material.

Moving on.


"actual anarchism" in the bart simpson / sid vicious sense of everyone running around shooting up heroin, doing rails of various pharmacutical powders, numbing their brains with mass-entertainment, drifting from eating disorder to eating disorder, before eventually dying from a painful death at a young age. "actual anarchism" in the john zerzan / green anarchy! sense of wanting to abolish culture and society and anything but unmitigated stupidity. the television show jackass is the blueprint of your anarchism.
No, that isn't a blueprint for my anarchism. Indeed, it is quite probable that how we see anarchism evolving is quite similar. We just happen to disagree on a fundamental point, which is that "emotional harm" to others, outweighs a person's right to control over their own body.

Using your argument, we could prevent women getting abortions, because it would upset her parents, him, his parents, their catholic friends, and so on. We don't accept that, because we say a women has control over her own body.

Well, actually, to be fair, you accept that a person can do what they want, just not within a community (I should say, your ideal community). I guess it would really depend on the community. I wouldn't live in a community that was straight-edge and outlawed alcohol, tobacco, heroin, marijuana, etc., even though I personally don't use most drugs. I also wouldn't live in a community that encouraged irresponsible use of drugs or similar.




Who are you to decide what is a "damned good reason" and what isn't?
someone who presumably intimately knows the person, and who has lived significantly longer than they have?
Right... And yet you then go on to talk about a community stopping a person. The person who is living their life is the one who knows better what is a damn good reason or not. The older members of a community can offer advice, but it is not up to them to say "thou shalt not kill thouself, or else!". (Indeed, what is the "or else" going to be? Hell? If you try and kill yourself we'll kill you? You can ignore this bit.)


if I can't find one person who appears to understand what I am going through, if I can't find a group that trusts and understands me, why shouldn't I kill myself?
do you honestly think suicide is a sollution to those problems?[/quote]
It is for the person who's just killed themselves.

if i saw a 14-year-old stranger about to jump off a bridge to his death, and physically restrained him from ending it all, and he told me he was killing himself because no one knows what he's going through, and he can't find anyone to trust or understand him, i wouldn't just say "ah geez, well, that's great, i hope you work that out, bye...", i'd obviously try to offer, well, a relationship of understanding and trust.
Sure, I probably would as well. That's normal. However, if they did have a damn good reason (and as I said above, they are the decider, not me, as to what a damn good reason is), and I did repeatedly stop them from killing themselves (whether it is a stranger or not!), I would understand 100% if they started getting violent.

Oh, and then what do you do? A person is prevented from having control over their own body, responds violently, in self defense to try and regain that control. What then?

One final quick point regarding throwing a person out of a community. I never said I objected to free association, the right to which a community has, as much as an individual. I was just point out that you did say that you would throw a person out.

yes, that should be an option if they refuse treatment for their self-destructive behavior.
Fine, whatever floats your boat.

I also just want to explain what I meant by "as I accept more than just communists as anarchists". I also accept mutualists, individualists, non-class-war folk, pacifists etc. Many people around here don't.

[Jethro Tull]

Yes, he did have some ideas worth taking, however, he wasn't an anarchist.

so anyone who identifies as "anarchist" should just have all their ideas accepted uncritically?


So, Illvox (who I've never heard of)they're philly apoc. they got in a lot of shit for disrupting the crimethinc convergence in pittsburgh.


Then we have "Jaggi Singh" http://colours.mahost.org/articles/singh2.html saying "Malcolm X; not an anarchist". that same article is gushingly positive towards malcolm x. what the author obviously means is that malcolm x never identified himself with the word "anarchist". however, to my knowledge he never advocated democratic centralism, etc. therefore he's an anarchist by default.


Especially if we add the completely relevant anecdotal evidence of my never reading anything that supports that idea, despite lots and lots of reading of anarchist material.i imagine it would be impossible to read material on the anarchist tendency among african peoples without finding frequent references to malcolm x.


Using your argument, we could prevent women getting abortions, because it would upset her parents, him, his parents, their catholic friends, and so on.but abortion isn't actually emotionally harmful. those people are just deluded. losing a friend to suicide is emotionally catastrophic, however, i'm not trying to rid the world of emotional catastrophe, i'm just revolting against the notion means that anarchism means an ethos of total individual freedom without consideration for other members of the community. individual freedom must be exhalted, but my individual will does not exist in isolation, surrounded by a vacuum. it is, in fact, dependent on forces greater than myself; the eco-system, the community.

rights are not guarenteed by society. they are guarenteed by exhertion of individual will. i, as an individual will, may attemt to exhert my desire to terminate my physical body. however, an obstacle i should expect to encounter, will be the resistance of any reasonable community, unless my reason for terminating my existence is genuinely noble or understandable.


We don't accept that, because we say a women has control over her own body. i say a woman has to control over her body. but, more specifically, i think a woman should be allowed to perform a harmless medical proceedure on her own body without the permission of some governing authority.

however, i don't nessicarily think it's "right" to go off and perform an abortion on yourself without the supervision of a medical expert, which can lead to death. (unless it's genuinely option) i also think it's not "right" to kill yourself over nothing.


Well, actually, to be fair, you accept that a person can do what they want, just not within a community (I should say, your ideal community). I guess it would really depend on the community. I wouldn't live in a community that was straight-edge and outlawed alcohol, tobacco, heroin, marijuana, etc.conflating heroin with tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol is problematic. marijuana grows freely, as does tobacco, and alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine can be produced easily without using very many resources. producing heroin, on the other hand, is very resource intensive. in my mind, a communist society would prevent heroin abuse by destroying the means of heroin production, and destroying all heroin present within our community. you may disagree, but i support the freedom to erradicate heroin over the freedom to use it.


I also wouldn't live in a community that encouraged irresponsible use of drugs or similar. and i think a responsible adult will not want to produce or consume heroin, cocaine, etc. period.


Right... And yet you then go on to talk about a community stopping a person. The person who is living their life is the one who knows betternot necissarily. chances are, if you've lived through something, there's someone else who's lived through something similar and knows what you're going through.


The older members of a community can offer advice, but it is not up to them to say "thou shalt not kill thouself, or else!".why not?


(Indeed, what is the "or else" going to be? Hell? If you try and kill yourself we'll kill you? You can ignore this bit.)i was thinking more forcefully preventing you from killing yourself.


It is for the person who's just killed themselves. that's if you believe consciousness ends after physical death which i don't. and we should consider more than just the interests of one person. that's what the bourgeoisie does, they put their individual desires above the needs of the millions they exploit.


they are the decider, not me, as to what a damn good reason isi disagree. if you truly believe their reason for killing themselves is irrational, you should trust your own judgment.


and I did repeatedly stop them from killing themselves (whether it is a stranger or not!), I would understand 100% if they started getting violent. understanding why they would get violent is not the same thing as permitting them to kill themselves, though.


Oh, and then what do you do? A person is prevented from having control over their own body, responds violently, in self defense to try and regain that control. What then?too many hypothetical. what if the person trying to kill herself had a gundam? the point is that it's not unreasonable for people to act to prevent someone they care about from committing suicide.


I was just point out that you did say that you would throw a person out. yes, exile is appropriate in some circumstances. what i objected to was the implication that i supported exiling all anorexics. i only suggsted that exile may be an appropriate response to anorexics who absolutely refuse to admit they have problem.


I also just want to explain what I meant by "as I accept more than just communists as anarchists". I also accept mutualists, individualists, non-class-war folk, pacifists etc. Many people around here don't.well, that's good. i'm glad you're not dogmatic.

[yuon]

Yeah, I'm just going to say two things.
The first is that you repeatedly go on about someone killing themselves for "nothing", where as no one kills themselves for "no reason".

The other is that if you really think it's OK to forcibly ("forcefully") prevent someone from doing what they want to their own body, then I ask that you stay well the fuck away from me. I'm not at all interested in living in your puritan religious society. If I want to use any drugs at all, and you try and stop me, I am justified in defending myself, just as if you try and stop me killing myself, and you repeatedly stop me, I'm justified in defending myself. What I'm trying to say here is, if I'm doing something that offers you no physical harm, and I'm living in your society, and you physically stop me, I will respond violently (to the extent necessary to regain my freedom, which may well include killing the people restraining me). And, that will require violence on the part of the person/s restraining me. And so on. All to prevent some "emotional harm", actually physical harm emerges.

What it comes down to is, the sort of society you seem to be promoting would allow people to use physical violence against individuals who offer "emotional harm". And that's really, really, fucked up. No thanks. :glare:

[yuon]

RebelGrrrl you are the queen of my world
RebelGrrrl, RebelGrrrl
I think I wanna take you home
I wanna try on your clothes too

When she talks, the revolutions coming
In her hips, there's revolution
When she talks, I hear the revolution
In her kiss, I taste the revolution

Please be my RebelGrrrl

Oh yeah:

so anyone who identifies as "anarchist" should just have all their ideas accepted uncritically?
Fuck no, where the fuck did you get that from? :confused:

:cool:

[scarletghoul]

This debate raises an interesting point, and the core problem with Anarchism. This is just one issue out of many.

The answer to the question is that Anarchism does not make sense, because authority constantly exists and so if we want to survive in this world, let alone change it, we have to use authoritarian measures. It is only logical to use authority to stop people being anorexic. Same with many other social problems. But this is inconsistent with Anarchism, so you can't agree with this and be an Anarchist at the same time. You must stop calling yourself an Anarchist. Or adopt Anarchism as a false label while you in fact believe in authoritarian measures. The latter case is all too common, and the conflict between many Anarchists and statist socialists lies simply in that the Anarchists do not admit their authoritarian views, being convinced that authoritarianism is inherently evil (when in fact it is constantly existing, so neither inherently good or evil).

[yuon]

"It is only logical to use authority to stop people being anorexic"
If you think that anorexia is a problem, or a problem enough to justify using force to prevent someone from being anorexic.

If you think it is logical, I'm going to guess you are starting from false premises. And that means, no matter how coherent your chain of logic, your entire argument is still false.

[Jethro Tull]

This debate raises an interesting point, and the core problem with Anarchism. This is just one issue out of many.

The answer to the question is that Anarchism does not make sense, because authority constantly exists and so if we want to survive in this world, let alone change it, we have to use authoritarian measures. It is only logical to use authority to stop people being anorexic. Same with many other social problems. But this is inconsistent with Anarchism, so you can't agree with this and be an Anarchist at the same time. You must stop calling yourself an Anarchist. Or adopt Anarchism as a false label while you in fact believe in authoritarian measures. The latter case is all too common, and the conflict between many Anarchists and statist socialists lies simply in that the Anarchists do not admit their authoritarian views, being convinced that authoritarianism is inherently evil (when in fact it is constantly existing, so neither inherently good or evil).

classical anarchists recognize that authority is good. for example, we recognize that a vanguard within the working class will have to agitate for class-war, which is a form of authority. we also hold that an "invisible" (ie: informal) "dictatorship" (ie: decision-making apparatus) is necessary for political organization. and we also recognize the ultimate need to forcefully prevent those who seek to restore bourgeois society from doing so. (a process commonly referred to as "dictatorship of the proletariat") all of these methods are "authoritarian"

however, they are not bureaucratic. we do not appoint magistrates, legislators, administrators. that's what makes us anarchists, not an opposition to "authority". the authority of the community must prohibit certain behaviors, such as advocating anorexia as a healthy lifestyle, or, for example, trying to become a bureaucratic administrator.

[Shin Honyong]

Malcolm X frequently supported the idea of a state and often drew inspiration from nationalists in Africa. I love Malcolm X but he is not an anarchist.

[FSL]

The other is that if you really think it's OK to forcibly ("forcefully") prevent someone from doing what they want to their own body, then I ask that you stay well the fuck away from me. I'm not at all interested in living in your puritan religious society. If I want to use any drugs at all, and you try and stop me, I am justified in defending myself, just as if you try and stop me killing myself, and you repeatedly stop me, I'm justified in defending myself.



That's quite sick indeed.

And thinking that anorexic/boulimic/addicted people make the "choise" -that they aren't forced by a number of reasons- and can thus carry on as they 'd like is even more disturbing.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This debate raises an interesting point, and the core problem with Anarchism. This is just one issue out of many.

The answer to the question is that Anarchism does not make sense, because authority constantly exists and so if we want to survive in this world, let alone change it, we have to use authoritarian measures. It is only logical to use authority to stop people being anorexic. Same with many other social problems. But this is inconsistent with Anarchism, so you can't agree with this and be an Anarchist at the same time. You must stop calling yourself an Anarchist. Or adopt Anarchism as a false label while you in fact believe in authoritarian measures. The latter case is all too common, and the conflict between many Anarchists and statist socialists lies simply in that the Anarchists do not admit their authoritarian views, being convinced that authoritarianism is inherently evil (when in fact it is constantly existing, so neither inherently good or evil).

If someone is suffering from mental illness we will help them. If someone is infringing upon the rest of the communities freedom we will stop them. Anarchism does not reject authority. But what makes us libertarian is our approach. Authority comes from below as opposed to coming from a centralised force. Therefore authority is carried out collectively by the people. This is the difference. We do not agree that people should just be allowed to do whatever they want but we also don't believe in imposing our will on others and using coercive measure to impose Communism, because ultimately it won't be Communism if we were to use such measures.

[scarletghoul]

Anarchism does not reject authority. But what makes us libertarian is our approach. Authority comes from below as opposed to coming from a centralised force. Therefore authority is carried out collectively by the people.
Why not have a centralised force controlled from below, held directly accountable to the people (a democratic state)? It would be more efficient.


We do not agree that people should just be allowed to do whatever they want but we also don't believe in imposing our will on others and using coercive measure to impose Communism, because ultimately it won't be Communism if we were to use such measures.
How can you not use 'coercive measures to impose communism'? This is what revolution is all about.

[scarletghoul]

classical anarchists recognize that authority is good. for example, we recognize that a vanguard within the working class will have to agitate for class-war, which is a form of authority. we also hold that an "invisible" (ie: informal) "dictatorship" (ie: decision-making apparatus) is necessary for political organization. and we also recognize the ultimate need to forcefully prevent those who seek to restore bourgeois society from doing so. (a process commonly referred to as "dictatorship of the proletariat") all of these methods are "authoritarian"

however, they are not bureaucratic. we do not appoint magistrates, legislators, administrators. that's what makes us anarchists, not an opposition to "authority". the authority of the community must prohibit certain behaviors, such as advocating anorexia as a healthy lifestyle, or, for example, trying to become a bureaucratic administrator.
I see. Well I guess this makes sense. Still I think a workers' state is more efficient, but yeah cool

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Why not have a centralised force controlled from below, held directly accountable to the people (a democratic state)? It would be more efficient.

Because centralisation cannot be democratic or controlled from below in our opinion.


How can you not use 'coercive measures to impose communism'? This is what revolution is all about.

You can argue that imposing Communism by not allowing the bourgeoisie to return is authoritarian but that is silly. But what I mean is the centralised body controlling the will of the workers which would not allow for democratic decentralised federations of workers councils.

[The Feral Underclass]

The answer to the question is that Anarchism does not make sense, because authority constantly exists

It exists in a capitalist society because it's a preconceived assumption about how we should organise ourselves. The idea that authority is "constant" is as false as the claim that greed is inherent.


if we want to survive in this world, let alone change it, we have to use authoritarian measures.This is a common misrepresentation of the anarchist position dating back to Engles. Anarchists aren't opposed to using "authoritarian measures" to exact change i.e. the forceful removal of bourgeois power as these 'measures' are, essentially, an act of self-defence. They are an act of the working class to stop themselves being exploited.

Anarchists oppose the centralisation of political authority, this a vast difference to what you're discussing.


It is only logical to use authority to stop people being anorexic.How is it logical? Can you explain that please.

In any case, you have to accept that you as an individual or a state institution have no legitimate claim over the rights of someone's body. You may try and obfuscate that with moralist claims or indeed an appeal to the "rights" of authority, but in an actual, objective sense these claims and appeals hold not firm existence. You are simply mandating yourself the right to stop someone. In reality, you have no legitimate justification to use force to prevent someone from doing something if what they are doing isn't effecting the freedom of someone else.

You may claim that you do, but you couldn't actually substantiate that claim if you get to the heart of that matter.


The latter case is all too common, and the conflict between many Anarchists and statist socialists lies simply in that the Anarchists do not admit their authoritarian views, being convinced that authoritarianism is inherently evil (when in fact it is constantly existing, so neither inherently good or evil).In my 13 years as a political activist I have so often come across people who speak with authority about subjects as if they were versed in the nature of this and that. People speak as if they are instinctively knowledgeable about things.

The fact is, it's clear from what you're saying that you have very little understanding about what anarchism actually is, instead relying on hearsay and stereotype. My suggestion to you would be to read more. Specifically from people who are actually anarchists.

You could start by reading: What is authority? - Bakunin (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm[B)

And perhaps this: Revolution in Practice - Malatesta (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/malatesta/revpra.html)


Why not have a centralised force controlled from below, held directly accountable to the people (a democratic state)? It would be more efficient.

You can't have a centralised state which is democratic.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

classical anarchists recognize that authority is good.

Which classical anarchists are these?


for example, we recognize that a vanguard within the working class will have to agitate for class-war, which is a form of authority. we also hold that an "invisible" (ie: informal) "dictatorship" (ie: decision-making apparatus) is necessary for political organization. and we also recognize the ultimate need to forcefully prevent those who seek to restore bourgeois society from doing so. (a process commonly referred to as "dictatorship of the proletariat") all of these methods are "authoritarian"No one has advocated that since Bakunin and the first international? Even Bakuninists grew to reject these ideas based on realities and necessities of class struggle.

What you're advocating, which is totally out-dated, is no more anarchist than the concept of propaganda of the deed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Are neither of you going to reply...