Why do so many anarchists support the Zapatista's War on Drugs?

[getfiscal]

The Zapatistas are a tiny rural movement in Chiapas, Mexico that has gained international attention because they run themselves in a fairly direct democratic manner. One of their policies is banning alcohol and drugs from their communities.

Do you think the Zapatistas are right to punish or exile people for doing drugs? How does this cohere with your (possible) anarchist views that everything should be legal?

[NoMasters]

Anarchists don't think everything should be legal. My views as an anarchist are that if someone stops me from exercising my rights, they must be stopped. I.e. if a person is drinking and driving, they should be stopped and punished.

The Zapatistas have great reason for banning drugs and alcohol. And yes, banning drugs and alcohol falls in line with anarchism in many ways.

However, I cannot speak for all anarchists since there are so many different views.

[Azraella]

If a community decides(as a whole) that it doesn't want to tolerate drugs and alcohol then it is completely acceptable. I can envision a clean community existing and deciding with anarchist principles to be a clean community.

[getfiscal]

If a community decides(as a whole) that it doesn't want to tolerate drugs and alcohol then it is completely acceptable. I can envision a clean community existing and deciding with anarchist principles to be a clean community.
What do you mean "community (as a whole)" though? If everyone agrees with a rule why do you need a rule? Or do you mean there would be a government with laws? If there is a government with laws, why use the word "anarchism"?

[Leftsolidarity]

What do you mean "community (as a whole)" though? If everyone agrees with a rule why do you need a rule? Or do you mean there would be a government with laws? If there is a government with laws, why use the word "anarchism"?

You can have government without having a state.

[getfiscal]

You can have government without having a state.
Most anarchist organizations say they are against all governments. For example, the Northeast Federation of Anarchist Communists requires members to say they are against government. Beyond that, the idea that a government is not intrinsically a state is a view held only by a small number of people, and baffles most people, probably rightly so.

[Leftsolidarity]

Most anarchist organizations say they are against all governments. For example, the Northeast Federation of Anarchist Communists requires members to say they are against government. Beyond that, the idea that a government is not intrinsically a state is a view held only by a small number of people, and baffles most people, probably rightly so.

Wait, why am I responding to you?

http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/10/10715/10972764.jpg

[Azraella]

What do you mean "community (as a whole)" though?

If a community through concensus decides that it doesn't want drugs in it's community then they are not allowed in them.



If everyone agrees with a rule why do you need a rule?

Because anarchism does not mean that there are no rules/



Or do you mean there would be a government with laws?


No. Not in that sense. All communities and groups have rules, anarchists just want to decentralize power and allow everyday people to have the ability to have a say in the rules of their community.


If there is a government with laws, why use the word "anarchism"?

The state is not the same as a government.

[getfiscal]

Here is a source for my claim, then, from the Common Struggle Libertarian Socialist Federation webpage (formerly NEFAC): "We are also opposed to all forms of Statism and government."

[getfiscal]

If a community through concensus decides that it doesn't want drugs in it's community then they are not allowed in them.If someone wants to do drugs then obviously there isn't consensus in the community. If there is consensus in the community there is no need for a rule. For example, there is no law on the books saying that people must breathe oxygen, because very few people are opposed to doing so.

[NewLeft]

Here is a source for my claim, then, from the Common Struggle Libertarian Socialist Federation webpage (formerly NEFAC): "We are also opposed to all forms of Statism and government."

Well, if they're socialists then they must support some kind of collective representation.

[Lolumad273]

I think the majority of people don't abuse drugs, so it wouldn't effect much to legislate against them. I don't believe that forcing your will on another is cohesive to anarchism.

[getfiscal]

Well, if they're socialists then they must support some kind of collective representation.
Most people refer to these as "states" or "governments", often using the terms interchangeably.

[Azraella]

If someone wants to do drugs then obviously there isn't consensus in the community.

What a nonsense argument. You do realize that there are many different threshholds as to what constitutes as consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus#Decision_rules)?

[getfiscal]

What a nonsense argument. You do realize that there are many different threshholds as to what constitutes as consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus#Decision_rules)?
So your anarchist government operated on non-unanimous consensus will arrest people who do drugs because they disagree with the community?

What if I say I'm an anarchist because I support a democracy based on delegates called "Members of Parliament" that operate in a consensus-run organization called "Parliament" that executes laws through worker militia called "the police" in order to enforce community-supported rules such as "locking up people for smoking marijuana."

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So your anarchist government operated on non-unanimous consensus will arrest people who do drugs because they disagree with the community?

What if I say I'm an anarchist because I support a democracy based on delegates called "Members of Parliament" that operate in a consensus-run organization called "Parliament" that executes laws through worker militia called "the police" in order to enforce community-supported rules such as "locking up people for smoking marijuana."
There are no prisons or jails in Zapatista communities. You perform chores for a day when you violate the alcohol/drug ban; such as chopping extra wood, or helping someone else with repairs on a building.

Councils are made up of the entire community. The community decides what's best for itself. Parliament is hardly self-government.

lady_catherine: don't feed the troll

[Azraella]

edit: deleted.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The truth is that anarchism has historically positioned itself both as a practical political program (involving the obvious things like worker's power etc. etc.) and a philosophical/moral position against hierarchy in all areas of life. Anarchists often phrased this opposition in a manner that was divorced from issues of contemporary political economy, i.e. like they were part of a trans-historical tradition for freedom and against hierarchy that dated back to the first slave revolt or something. This is the origin of anarchists making statements against government or even "authority".

Even well-respected anarchists who were involved in labor issues like Rudolf Rocker, Fernand Pelloutier or Malatesta weren't beyond couching their opposition to the state in this manner. IMO this is why some Marxists make the legitimate criticism that anarchism isn't entirely based on the materialism that Marxists claim to represent. However when issues needing a collective decision were undertaken, the decision making techniques weren't so different from ones undertaken by Marxist organizations, not so different from democratic centralism. Even Stirnerites were sometime advocates of "social individualism".

tl;dr anarchists are often hypocrites

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The truth is that anarchism has historically positioned itself both as a practical political program (involving the obvious things like worker's power etc. etc.) and a philosophical/moral position against hierarchy in all areas of life. Anarchists often phrased this opposition in a manner that was divorced from issues of contemporary political economy, i.e. like they were part of a trans-historical tradition for freedom and against hierarchy that dated back to the first slave revolt or something. This is the origin of anarchists making statements against government or even "authority".

Even well-respected anarchists who were involved in labor issues like Rudolf Rocker, Fernand Pelloutier or Malatesta weren't beyond couching their opposition to the state in this manner. IMO this is why some Marxists make the legitimate criticism that anarchism isn't entirely based on the materialism that Marxists claim to represent. However when issues needing a collective decision were undertaken, the decision making techniques weren't so different from ones undertaken by Marxist organizations, not so different from democratic centralism. Even Stirnerites were sometime advocates of "social individualism".

tl;dr anarchists are often hypocrites
1. Democratic centralism =/= direct democracy / community consensus. Democratic centralism is the party voting on issues, then making those decisions official policy. The Zapatistas, though not "orthodox" anarchists, operate on a variation of direct democracy of the whole community, not a traditional vanguard party. The Zapatistas are a militia, not a formal governing force.

2. nuh-uh ... the same can be said of any political movement ...

[gorillafuck]

it's true that it's not consensus if there are people using drugs and alcohol. because obviously those people didn't consent.

explosive situation hit the nail on the head, btw.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's kind of problematic comparing anarchist groups to the Zapatistas though, because, like you said, the Zapatistas are not anarchists. A lot of the anarchists political organizations of old decided matters through majoritarian democracy...not so different from the way other non-anarchist groups decide matters. The group that the OP mentioned (NEFAC/Common Struggle) is a "platformist" group, which is actually pretty rigid in the way it conducts it's business.

Also, yeah, many tendencies are hypocritical, I'm not just singling out anarchists in that respect.

[gorillafuck]

1. Democratic centralism =/= direct democracy / community consensus.historically, this isn't how anarchists acted. mahkno and the black army completely outlawed opposing political parties. did you know that? I'm always amused when people act as if the bolsheviks were horrible for banning anarchists from participating in government when anarchists outlawed all bolsheviks.

and spanish anarchists removed the right to free speech and all other rights of political opponents in the areas they controlled.

there was no consensus among the people who's rights were being stripped.

and yeah, anarchists have always done majority rules when dealing with their internal affairs. you can't have consensus democracy when you reach a certain amount of people.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

historically, this isn't how anarchists acted. mahkno and the black army completely outlawed opposing political parties. did you know that? I'm always amused when people act as if the bolsheviks were horrible for banning anarchists from participating in government when anarchists outlawed all bolsheviks.

and spanish anarchists removed the right to free speech and all other rights of political opponents in the areas they controlled.

there was no consensus among the people who's rights were being stripped.

and yeah, anarchists have always done majority rules when dealing with their internal affairs. you can't have consensus democracy when you reach a certain amount of people.
I didn't say that Ukraine and Spain should be held up as a perfect anarchist society, nor did I say that the bolsheviks were horrible people. I merely pointed out that democratic centralism and direct democracy / community consensus are not the same thing. If you take a moment to not stereotype me instead of raging, you'll find I take a civil, non-sectarian stance with "other" tendencies.

[gorillafuck]

I didn't say that Ukraine and Spain should be held up as a perfect anarchist society, nor did I say that the bolsheviks were horrible people. If you take a moment to not stereotype me, you'll find I take a civil, non-sectarian stance with "other" tendencies.I know you didn't say that. what I'm doing is I'm demonstrating that anarchism, when push comes to shove, betrays it's ideals of no hierarchy, direct democracy, and the freedoms like free speech, assembly, etc. because anarchism is has to deal with the same political situations as all other ideologies.

[Susurrus]

a. This is why I personally feel "libertarian communist" is a better(or, perhaps, more understandable/sensible) term for most anarchists than anarchist.
b. It is quite arguable that the special conditions in Mexico(ie the drug cartels) justify this, at least as a provisional measure.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I know you didn't say that. what I'm doing is I'm demonstrating that anarchism, when push comes to shove, betrays it's ideals of no hierarchy, direct democracy, and the freedoms like free speech, assembly, etc. because anarchism is has to deal with the same political situations as all other ideologies.
Shouldn't one posit that these adherents may not have been explicitly anarchist if their actions were directly opposed to the basic tenets of anarchist thought?

I think you're conflating actions of well-known individuals (or groups) with the positions held by an entire movement of people. I've done that, too; not trying to rag on you.

Moreover, as a Marxist, shouldn't you understand that because of the material conditions present in both of those areas at those times, some sort of ideological compromise would have occurred, regardless of their professed tendency? That the authoritarian decisions behind the Free Territory and Catalonia/Aragon would have happened regardless of whether the most prominent figures referred to themselves as "Anarchist" or "Trotskyist"? In Spain, particularly, based on opposition from the Communist Party and direct attack from the Carlists / Fascists?


a. This is why I personally feel "libertarian communist" is a better(or, perhaps, more understandable/sensible) term for most anarchists than anarchist.
b. It is quite arguable that the special conditions in Mexico(ie the drug cartels) justify this, at least as a provisional measure.

You're probably right... I try not to worry about labels much, though.

[RevSpetsnaz]

I imagine theyve banned drugs and alchohol because they can act much in same way religion does, ie. "It is the Opium of the people".

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I imagine theyve banned drugs and alchohol because they can act much in same way religion does, ie. "It is the Opium of the people".
I remember reading something about there being a huge domestic violence problem in the indigenous communities and it was widely supported by the people to help combat it, in addition to wanting to keep the drug cartels away, as Susurrus said.

Not that I agree with prohibition or anything...

[Polyphonic Foxes]

I don't if this is known widely, but the area the Zapatistas are in - and the mayan people in general - have had huge drug problems, in the old days basically all the mayans would be addicted to something since it was a way their slave owners kept them in line; and make no mistake, there are still mayans alive today who lived as legal slaves.

tl;dr: the Zapatistas banning substances like this was a very personal thing for them

I can get quotes from actual Zapatistas saying this - it was really close to their hearts and drugs have historically destroyed their communities. The Institute of Anarchist Studies did a very good piece on them, some guy from ireland went to live with them and analysed a lot of their structure and way of life from an anarchist perspective.

In the end this particular veteran anarchist decided they weren't actual anarchists, but they were something we should all keep an eye on. They are not what our future society should be modelled on.

And Zeekloid is right partially, there are stories of anarchists do "the Bolshevik thing" and suppressing capitalist propaganda and whatnot, there's also numerous stories of anarchists allowing old bourgeoisie to keep their land as long as they could take care of it all alone.

But really, when I think of what anarchism is, I don't think of the Spanish Revolution, I think of more modern things like Occupy.

Oh and, I know anarchist organizations say they're against any form of government, but they are wrong, every form of organization is a form of government, there's no getting around that. I think The Anarchist FAQ agrees, and I can't think of a better source on anarchism...ever.

[ClassWarMutualist]

personally I think prohibition goes against the individuals rights. If I'm FAR too intoxicated to drive then that's one thing, but if your breaking down my door because I'm smoking a little pot or shooting dope in the privacy of my own home then you're not respecting my rights. It's my body, I can put whatever I want into it so long as it does not affect another. It'd be like making a law against swallowing thumb tacks. If I wanna swallow em, as stupid as that may be, you can't really tell me no since its not your body.

sure, you could argue that drugs affect others by emotional and social means but this is one of those things that must be allowed for liberties sake. take freedom of speech, should we outlaw the right to say mean things because it might harm others? no, because that sets a dangerous precedent for the creation of a nanny state.

tl;dr if your drug use doesn't physically harm others (drunk driving, neglecting my kids) then I have no right to stop you. Its your body.

[gorillafuck]

Moreover, as a Marxist, shouldn't you understand that because of the material conditions present in both of those areas at those times, some sort of ideological compromise would have occurred, regardless of their professed tendency? That the authoritarian decisions behind the Free Territory and Catalonia/Aragon would have happened regardless of whether the most prominent figures referred to themselves as "Anarchist" or "Trotskyist"? In Spain, particularly, based on opposition from the Communist Party and direct attack from the Carlists / Fascists?that's my point. that anarchists are authoritarian because of class war in the exact same way that "statist" socialists are. you're getting what I'm saying, I just don't think you realize it.


Shouldn't one posit that these adherents may not have been explicitly anarchist if their actions were directly opposed to the basic tenets of anarchist thought?

I think you're conflating actions of well-known individuals (or groups) with the positions held by an entire movement of people. I've done that, too; not trying to rag on you.they were explicitly anarchist.

[Hiero]

I don't if this is known widely, but the area the Zapatistas are in - and the mayan people in general - have had huge drug problems, in the old days basically all the mayans would be addicted to something since it was a way their slave owners kept them in line; and make no mistake, there are still mayans alive today who lived as legal slaves.

tl;dr: the Zapatistas banning substances like this was a very personal thing for them

Substance abuse has been a problem for many indigenous people around the world, but prohbition for indigenous people is always a right wing position.

On another note: White anarchist toke up.

You people are pathetic and racist with your double standards.

[black magick hustla]

the zapatistas arent anarchists the zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchistthe zapatistas arent anarchist

edit: the anarchist apropiation of zapatismo is a deliberate attempt of white people with dreads to inject some sort of "relevance" and say hey, brown people are into our ideas too. fuck anarchists

[Sasha]

The historic anarchist campingsite that hosts the annual pinksterlanddagen (the biggest anarchist gathering in the Netherlands) has always been and still is alcohol and drugs free too, and even the worst of the crustpunks respect that if they are there.
Historically the anarchist and anti-alcohol movement have been very entwined, not for nothing the only quote by domela niewenhuis most people know is "drinkende arbeiders denken niet, denkende arbeiders drinken niet" (drinking workers don't think, thinking workers dont drink).
My socialist great-grandparents where teetotalers (blauweknoopers) too

[Tim Cornelis]

Where did you hear about the alleged widespread support of the Zapatista war on drugs? I have never heard any anarchist speak about it, in fact.

Some of the answers given are really thoughtless though. If a community decides by consensus that they will not allow drugs, why have it as a rule at all? It makes absolutely no sense.


And yes, banning drugs and alcohol falls in line with anarchism in many ways.

No it doesn't. The prohibition of victimless crimes is contrary to anarchism because some authority limits the personal autonomy of another person.

In general, prohibition of victimless crimes is absurd.


I know you didn't say that. what I'm doing is I'm demonstrating that anarchism, when push comes to shove, betrays it's ideals of no hierarchy, direct democracy, and the freedoms like free speech, assembly, etc. because anarchism is has to deal with the same political situations as all other ideologies.

... Well obviously. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that hierarchy will disappear immediately at the arrival of the revolution. Obviously, an anarchist society will not have perfect equality and will be utterly devoid of hierarchy from day one.

What you implicitly assume is that the betrayal of anarchist principles is intrinsic to anarchism, rather than a flaw in the execution by anarchists in a particular time. Which is a petitio principii.

Unless you can demonstrate that anarchism will always degenerate from its principles of direct democracy, free speech, assembly, etc. due to an intrinsic flaw in its theory it is nothing more than a declarative statement.


historically, this isn't how anarchists acted. mahkno and the black army completely outlawed opposing political parties. did you know that?

Which is absolute nonsense. If we look at the Soviet elections in the anarchist Free Territory we can clearly see that members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, the Mensheviks, and even one Bolshevik I believe, was elected as a delegate by the Soviets.

Political parties were not banned, they even actively participated in the soviet-structure.

But even if they banned political parties, the claim is not that they banned opposition parties 9but allowed an anarchist party), but that they banned all political parties because of their opposition to parliamentary politics. But this claim is also false.


It should be mentioned that a myth has sprung up fostered by some Leninists that parties were banned from election to these bodies (for example, Jason Yanowitz’s terrible "On the Makhno Myth" ). These claims flow from basic ignorance of how the soviets were organised during the revolution combined with a misunderstanding of this Makhnovist proclamation from January 1920:

[I]"Only workers participating in work vital to the people's economy should be elected to these soviets. The representatives of political organisations have no place in the soviets of workers and peasants given that their participation in a soviet could turn it into a soviet of party political deputies, thereby leading the soviet order to perdition." [quoted by Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack, p. 164]

...

During the Russian Revolution, the Makhnovists organised soviets and regional congresses at every opportunity and these saw delegates elected who were members of different political parties. For example, members of the peasant-socialist Left-SR party were active in the Makhnovist movement and attended soviet congresses (for example, the resolution of the February 1919 congress "was written by the anarchists, left Socialist Revolutionaries, and the chairman." [Michael Palij, The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921, p. 155]). The Makhnovist Revolutionary Military Soviet created at the Aleksandrovsk congress in late 1919 had three Communists elected to it while there were 18 delegates from workers at that congress, six being Mensheviks and the remaining 12 included Communists [Malet, Op. Cit., p. 111, p. 124] Clearly, members of political parties were elected to both the congresses and the Revolutionary Military Soviet. As such, the idea that libertarian socialism excludes members of political parties standing for election is false. In the words of the Makhnovist reply to a Bolshevik attempt to ban one of their congresses:

"The Revolutionary Military Council . . . holds itself above the pressure and influence of all parties and only recognises the people who elected it. Its duty is to accomplish what the people have instructed it to do, and to create no obstacles to any left socialist party in the propagation of ideas. Consequently, if one day the Bolshevik idea succeeds among the workers, the Revolutionary Military Council . . . will necessarily be replaced by another organisation, 'more revolutionary' and more Bolshevik." [quoted by Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, pp. 103-4]



Political parties were not banned in the anarchist Free Territory!


you can't have consensus democracy when you reach a certain amount of people.

Consensus decision-making is not the same as consensus democracy. Consensus decision-making is when consensus is required for a decision to be passed, while consensus democracy is when consensus is not required but participants work towards it nonetheless.

----------

the zapatistas arent anarchists

edit: the anarchist apropiation of zapatismo is a deliberate attempt of white people with dreads to inject some sort of "relevance" and say hey, brown people are into our ideas too. fuck anarchists

Who is claiming they are though? No one on these forums at least. The question is why many anarchists support the Zapatista war on drugs, not why the Zapatistas ban drugs while they are anarchists.

And the idea that "white anarchists" want to appropriate Zapatismo to show that "brown people" are into anarchism as well is idiotic. Anarchists often cite the Zapatistas to show that anarchic (rather than anarchist) structures work, which has absolutely nothing to do with race, and there is no basis to think so.

[Lord Testicles]

Do you think the Zapatistas are right to punish or exile people for doing drugs?

No.


If a community decides(as a whole) that it doesn't want to tolerate drugs and alcohol then it is completely acceptable. I can envision a clean community existing and deciding with anarchist principles to be a clean community.

That line of thinking doesn't really work, what if a white community decides (as a whole) that it doesn't want any black people to move into the area?

[feral bro]

If a community decides(as a whole) that it doesn't want to tolerate drugs and alcohol then it is completely acceptable.
i fucking hate 'anarchists' like this. tyranny of the majority woop woop.
democracy isn't consistent with anarchy. anarchists aren't democrats. jeez, even malatesta cleared this shit up like a century ago, yo.

[NoMasters]

i fucking hate 'anarchists' like this. tyranny of the majority woop woop.
democracy isn't consistent with anarchy. anarchists aren't democrats. jeez, even malatesta cleared this shit up like a century ago, yo.


This is absurd!

Have you every studied the anarcho-agrarian societies in the former non-exploited Americas? I recommend you do a little research before you post such ridiculous assumptions.

For example, read about Pierre Clastres' work on the Paraguayan communities and how the chief was the moderator on issues through prestige. However, his words were only advice that was usually accepted because the chief gained his prestige through donating and helping society to the full capacity.

And democracy in the way you seem to understand it is institutionalized and probably based around liberal democracy rather than true democracy.

For you to further strengthen your understanding on true "radical" democracy I recommend to read Radical Democracy by C. Douglas Lummis

And in fact, going back to Clastres' work on anarchism is far more in line with freedom within work is almost identical to Marx's idea of work.

[kuros]

The Zapatistas are a tiny rural movement in Chiapas, Mexico that has gained international attention because they run themselves in a fairly direct democratic manner. One of their policies is banning alcohol and drugs from their communities.

Do you think the Zapatistas are right to punish or exile people for doing drugs? How does this cohere with your (possible) anarchist views that everything should be legal?
The Zapatistas are clearly not anarchist, anarchism is not simply local directly democratic government, as is practised by the Zapatistas.

[kuros]

If a community decides(as a whole) that it doesn't want to tolerate drugs and alcohol then it is completely acceptable. I can envision a clean community existing and deciding with anarchist principles to be a clean community.
What about the people who disagree?

[kuros]

I think the majority of people don't abuse drugs, so it wouldn't effect much to legislate against them. I don't believe that forcing your will on another is cohesive to anarchism.
It clearly is.

[kuros]

I don't if this is known widely, but the area the Zapatistas are in - and the mayan people in general - have had huge drug problems, in the old days basically all the mayans would be addicted to something since it was a way their slave owners kept them in line; and make no mistake, there are still mayans alive today who lived as legal slaves.

tl;dr: the Zapatistas banning substances like this was a very personal thing for them

I can get quotes from actual Zapatistas saying this - it was really close to their hearts and drugs have historically destroyed their communities. The Institute of Anarchist Studies did a very good piece on them, some guy from ireland went to live with them and analysed a lot of their structure and way of life from an anarchist perspective.

In the end this particular veteran anarchist decided they weren't actual anarchists, but they were something we should all keep an eye on. They are not what our future society should be modelled on.

And Zeekloid is right partially, there are stories of anarchists do "the Bolshevik thing" and suppressing capitalist propaganda and whatnot, there's also numerous stories of anarchists allowing old bourgeoisie to keep their land as long as they could take care of it all alone.

But really, when I think of what anarchism is, I don't think of the Spanish Revolution, I think of more modern things like Occupy.

Oh and, I know anarchist organizations say they're against any form of government, but they are wrong, every form of organization is a form of government, there's no getting around that. I think The Anarchist FAQ agrees, and I can't think of a better source on anarchism...ever.
So labor unions are a government :rolleyes:

[feral bro]

This is absurd!

Have you every studied the anarcho-agrarian societies in the former non-exploited Americas? I recommend you do a little research before you post such ridiculous assumptions.

For example, read about Pierre Clastres' work on the Paraguayan communities and how the chief was the moderator on issues through prestige. However, his words were only advice that was usually accepted because the chief gained his prestige through donating and helping society to the full capacity.
chiefs and moderators? perhaps you should read up on anarchy. no leaders, you know.
just to add, just cos something has been practiced before doesn't mean it is a good idea.


And democracy in the way you seem to understand it is institutionalized and probably based around liberal democracy rather than true democracy.
no, that's not how i see democracy.


For you to further strengthen your understanding on true "radical" democracy I recommend to read Radical Democracy by C. Douglas Lummis

and in response to your recommendation, try these-
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Various_Authors__Willful_Disobedience_Volume_4__nu mber_2.html#toc3
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Errico_Malatesta__Majorities_and_Minorities.html
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Errico_Malatesta__Neither_Democrats__nor_Dictators __Anarchists.html


And in fact, going back to Clastres' work on anarchism is far more in line with freedom within work is almost identical to Marx's idea of work.
how interesting.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

tl;dr anarchists are often hypocrites
Most anarchists stand by the 4 positions of the Platform:
Rule #1: Don't talk about Fight Club
Rule #2: There are no rules
Rule #3: ?????????
Rule #4: PROFITS!


But in all seriousness, just to hit a few points:

- (Most) anarchists aren't against government. They're against "The State" which is an unjust institution, which the capitalist class uses to its advantage to "justify" exploitation of the working class. Besides exploitation, discrimination, and alienation which all occur in the workplace under capitalism, the current ruling-class uses it's laws, policy, arm, and courts to "justify" exploitation. Anarchists are completely for self-governance.

- Although anarchists can be supportive of open drug use, essentially, communism/anarchism is about open-consensus, direct democracy, and the community. If the majority of people in Chiapas don't want to encourage drugs or alcohols, then the people have spoken. However, if the State were to forcibly say the working people cannot indulge in drugs or alcohol when the workers want to, then that's a problem. Once again, I think anarchism/communism should include (and be about) working-class decision-making.

[Tim Cornelis]

- (Most) anarchists aren't against government. They're against "The State" which is an unjust institution ... Anarchists are completely for self-governance.

Most anarchists certainly are against government. Only on revleft does the idea that anarchism and "government" are compatible circulate, and by no means are those anarchists on revleft the majority of anarchists in the world.

The problem is that in the English language "governance" and "government" (as well as French, Italian, etc.) are similar. Anarchists are not against governance, but they must be against "government".

For example, the German word for "governance" is "Verwaltung", while the German word for "government" is "regierung" (similarly, in Dutch governance = "bestuur" and government = "overheid". Two wholly different words. But since they are so similar in English they are mixed up.

Government is that which controls the state.


Although anarchists can be supportive of open drug use, essentially, communism/anarchism is about open-consensus, direct democracy, and the community. If the majority of people in Chiapas don't want to encourage drugs or alcohols, then the people have spoken. However, if the State were to forcibly say the working people cannot indulge in drugs or alcohol when the workers want to, then that's a problem. Once again, I think anarchism/communism should include (and be about) working-class decision-making.

So your formula of decision-making justice is:

1. When an anarchist/communist commune forcefully prohibits the use of drugs it's completely justified.
2. When the state forcefully prohibits the use of drugs it's completely unjustified.

For example, if an anarchist/communist commune bans alcohol and drugs it's justified. But when a state does the exact same thing it is unjustified.

Or, when an anarchist/communist commune bans interracial relationships it's justified. But when a state does the exact same thing it is unjustified. Or as you formulated it "communism/anarchism is about open-consensus, direct democracy, and the community. If the majority of people don't want to interracial relationships then the people have spoken."

It makes no sense that anarchists would allow for the majority to force their opinion on the minority. Victimless 'crimes' ought not to be crimes at all.

[Bronco]

Surely the debate over "government" is just one over terminology, there would still be governance and bodies of governing but most anarchists would be against the Government as it is today, which it is intrinsically connected with the State

Anyway I don't think the prohibition on drugs is something to support, regardless of whether it's a majority view or not, and I'd like to think that post-Revolution it wouldn't be something we'd see forcefully implemented. The commune should just have to make decisions as best they are able, if a majority imposed a ban on drugs then it will probably turn out to be a hard thing to implement, prohibition is rarely effective when it is enforced, and in practice, and with time, it will probably be shown to be an incorrect policy and the minority will have been vindicated in their opposition to it. Although I also don't think it should be the sort of thing a commune should concern itself with, individual choices and freedoms should remain choices by individuals, and not things decided by a majority vote and forcefully put into practice, it would go against anarchist principles to do so.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Most anarchists certainly are against government. Only on revleft does the idea that anarchism and "government" are compatible circulate, and by no means are those anarchists on revleft the majority of anarchists in the world.

The problem is that in the English language "governance" and "government" (as well as French, Italian, etc.) are similar. Anarchists are not against governance, but they must be against "government".

For example, the German word for "governance" is "Verwaltung", while the German word for "government" is "regierung" (similarly, in Dutch governance = "bestuur" and government = "overheid". Two wholly different words. But since they are so similar in English they are mixed up.

Government is that which controls the state.
Bold for emphasis.
I agree with you. However, I think you're starting to split hairs on a rather minor issue. We are for self-governance. Excuse me! You basically repeated what I said, except replaced the word "The State" with government, and "Government" with governance, yes? Thank you for the correction on words though.

So your formula of decision-making justice is:

1. When an anarchist/communist commune forcefully prohibits the use of drugs it's completely justified.
2. When the state forcefully prohibits the use of drugs it's completely unjustified.I didn't say anywhere that the commune would forcefully prohibit it.

For example, if an anarchist/communist commune bans alcohol and drugs it's justified. But when a state does the exact same thing it is unjustified.To be fair, when the state does it, it's usually against popular belief.

Or, when an anarchist/communist commune bans interracial relationships it's justified. But when a state does the exact same thing it is unjustified. Or as you formulated it "communism/anarchism is about open-consensus, direct democracy, and the community. If the majority of people don't want to interracial relationships then the people have spoken."This is ridiculous. I am not even wasting my time on this, Jesus Christ...

Victimless 'crimes' ought not to be crimes at all.I'm not much aware of how Chiapas is run. Do they punish people for consuming alcohol or partaking in drugs? I'm okay with alcoholic consumption and whatnot, but I think you're trying to twist my words a little too much.

Anyway I don't think the prohibition on drugs is something to support, regardless of whether it's a majority view or not, and I'd like to think that post-Revolution it wouldn't be something we'd see forcefully implemented. The commune should just have to make decisions as best they are able, if a majority imposed a ban on drugs then it will probably turn out to be a hard thing to implement, prohibition is rarely effective when it is enforced, and in practice, and with time, it will probably be shown to be an incorrect policy and the minority will have been vindicated in their opposition to it. Although I also don't think it should be the sort of thing a commune should concern itself with, individual choices and freedoms should remain choices by individuals, and not things decided by a majority vote and forcefully put into practice, it would go against anarchist principles to do so.
Basically my thoughts, better written though.
I don't support the prohibition of drugs/alcohol, but I was given the impression that it's universally accepted down there, so yeah. Typically, personal choices shouldn't be the matter of the commune as long as it isnt endangering the community.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Well right now I'm feeling the effects of a massive hangover, so I think the Zapatistas have the right idea lol.:D

[getfiscal]

Supporting "bodies of governance" that have authority to impose social decisions on largely unwilling individuals is a government. Almost none of the classical anarchists, including the socialist anarchists, supported laws of any sort. They quite literally wanted no rulers, even those that dressed themselves up as democrats. This idea that anarchism is simply "direct democratic socialism" is completely false.

Beyond this, you can trace similar patterns in Marxist thought to see that historically they also thought that the "state" meant all social coercion, including all forms of "governance". For example, Lenin says that the absence of the state means that people will follow traditional rules of morality (like, say, not killing) without fear of punishment from something like a worker's militia or something.

The distinction between a "state" and "governance" is a very recent one, largely promoted by radical leftists that recognize that obviously you need a government, but want to stay within the radical tradition of rejecting contemporary sort of government. Part of the reason why most people are not anarchists is because they think these sorts of splitting of hairs are ridiculous.

[getfiscal]

Do they punish people for consuming alcohol or partaking in drugs?There are limited punishments (extra chores, as someone said). But I believe that if you are identified as a sort of "troublemaker" or something you are exiled from the good government zones.

[NoMasters]

chiefs and moderators? perhaps you should read up on anarchy. no leaders, you know.
just to add, just cos something has been practiced before doesn't mean it is a good idea.


no, that's not how i see democracy.



and in response to your recommendation, try these-



how interesting.


Leaders doesn't mean it voids an anarchist society....

Once again, read up on Clastres' and Lummis' Radical Democracy

You are way off on your understanding on anarchism

[Polyphonic Foxes]

OK: everyone here needs a short lesson on anarchist democracy:

1. Anarchism works on delegation and proxy representation, this means there are moderators that are elected to perform specific tasks for the local council. These delegates are instantly recallable and possess no power per se, they are merely the arms of the people doing on specific thing. Similarly in a large scale industrial workplace managers can be elected by the rest to administrate the workplace, if things go badly and they fear this new moderator is feeling a little too powerful - he get's removed, throughout this he is reminded that he is merely an assistent, not a boss. This basic system exists in all forms of communism, but my particular language is Parecon, simply because - as far as radical stateless theories go - parecon has the best jargon.

2. There is nothing in anarchism that states there can be no charter or constitution in the free territory which specifically forbids certain actions being taken by it's member councils. If one commune/syndicate/whatever breaks the constitution that there would be reprecussions from the rest. This is basically the only way majority democracy working on a national level can work - you need a list of anarchist laws that cannot ever be voted against (like Commune A may never utlaw interracial marriage)

And puleez, whenever an anarchist says "rules" in anarchism, they mean laws, because there is nothing wrong with laws in principle.

This is stateless society 101

[getfiscal]

whenever an anarchist says "rules" in anarchism, they mean laws, because there is nothing wrong with laws in principle.
So, again, I have a delegated consensus assembly I call "parliament"... I have delegates that have no powers beyond what the community gives them to execute a particular task called "police"....

[Bronco]

So, again, I have a delegated consensus assembly I call "parliament"... I have delegates that have no powers beyond what the community gives them to execute a particular task called "police"....

This isn't the case though is it, we all know that Politicians are not representative of people's interests, nor do they always to as they profess pre-election (or in most cases, they rarely do it), and there can never be truly free elections in a Capitalist system. I'm not going to bother going into detail about this because it shouldn't be necessary when we're all leftists. In anarchy the people, the workers, will actually discuss their affairs themselves for the most part, but at times it will be necessary to commission someone to carry out the decisions, this doesn't make them the equivalent of politicians, to quote Malatesta:


Our delegates will not be individuals to whom we have given the right to command us and impose laws upon us. They will be persons chosen for their capacity, who will have no authority, but simply be charged with the duty of executing what the people have decided upon...The various trades in each district, parish, or town, will form associations... Afterwards, when it is desirable to bring several trades or several districts to a common agreement, delegates from each will carry the wishes of those who have sent them to a special congress, and do their best to reconcile the diverse needs and wishes. But their deliberations will always be submitted to the control and approbation of their principals, so that the interests of the people will not be neglected

It's brief and simplistic (as the text it's taken from is intended to be) but in no way would communes/associations/etc. look anything like the Parliament of today, and in no way would the delegates be like the politicians of today

[getfiscal]

we all know that Politicians are not representative of people's interests
I think most politicians work hard and do a pretty good job of representing what large parts of the public want.

[Bronco]

I think most politicians work hard and do a pretty good job of representing what large parts of the public want.

Well I can't say I agree with you there.

[Prometeo liberado]

I think most politicians work hard and do a pretty good job of representing what large parts of the public want.



??????Will it ever cease??????

[getfiscal]

Most of the public in Canada is fairly moderate to conservative and politicians unfortunately reflect that. But most of what they do wrong is because of ignorance caused by self-interest rather than outright evil or something. I've met a lot of politicians and they are good people.

[NoMasters]

OK: everyone here needs a short lesson on anarchist democracy:

1. Anarchism works on delegation and proxy representation, this means there are moderators that are elected to perform specific tasks for the local council. These delegates are instantly recallable and possess no power per se, they are merely the arms of the people doing on specific thing. Similarly in a large scale industrial workplace managers can be elected by the rest to administrate the workplace, if things go badly and they fear this new moderator is feeling a little too powerful - he get's removed, throughout this he is reminded that he is merely an assistent, not a boss. This basic system exists in all forms of communism, but my particular language is Parecon, simply because - as far as radical stateless theories go - parecon has the best jargon.

2. There is nothing in anarchism that states there can be no charter or constitution in the free territory which specifically forbids certain actions being taken by it's member councils. If one commune/syndicate/whatever breaks the constitution that there would be reprecussions from the rest. This is basically the only way majority democracy working on a national level can work - you need a list of anarchist laws that cannot ever be voted against (like Commune A may never utlaw interracial marriage)

And puleez, whenever an anarchist says "rules" in anarchism, they mean laws, because there is nothing wrong with laws in principle.

This is stateless society 101

Rules are not the same as laws. Laws are finalities, rules are not.

[getfiscal]

Rules are not the same as laws. Laws are finalities, rules are not.
"Hi guys, time to make binding social rules that are punishable if broken."
"You mean laws?"
"No! They are enforced by a roving militia formed from workers."
"You mean police?"
"No! They are directed by popular delegates answerable to the community."
"You mean politicians?"
"No! Haven't you read about anarchism?"
"No! And I don't want to anymore!" *goes off to bar*

[NoMasters]

"Hi guys, time to make binding social rules that are punishable if broken."
"You mean laws?"
"No! They are enforced by a roving militia formed from workers."
"You mean police?"
"No! They are directed by popular delegates answerable to the community."
"You mean politicians?"
"No! Haven't you read about anarchism?"
"No! And I don't want to anymore!" *goes off to bar*

Why are you limiting anarchism to social anarchism?

There are so many different strains of anarchism.

[black magick hustla]

OK: everyone here needs a short lesson on anarchist democracy:

1. Anarchism works on delegation and proxy representation, this means there are moderators that are elected to perform specific tasks for the local council. These delegates are instantly recallable and possess no power per se, they are merely the arms of the people doing on specific thing. Similarly in a large scale industrial workplace managers can be elected by the rest to administrate the workplace, if things go badly and they fear this new moderator is feeling a little too powerful - he get's removed, throughout this he is reminded that he is merely an assistent, not a boss. This basic system exists in all forms of communism, but my particular language is Parecon, simply because - as far as radical stateless theories go - parecon has the best jargon.

2. There is nothing in anarchism that states there can be no charter or constitution in the free territory which specifically forbids certain actions being taken by it's member councils. If one commune/syndicate/whatever breaks the constitution that there would be reprecussions from the rest. This is basically the only way majority democracy working on a national level can work - you need a list of anarchist laws that cannot ever be voted against (like Commune A may never utlaw interracial marriage)

And puleez, whenever an anarchist says "rules" in anarchism, they mean laws, because there is nothing wrong with laws in principle.

This is stateless society 101

nobody needs a lesson on anything. if you think anarchism is as simple and monolithic as that then you need to do some reading

[Lord Testicles]

"Every time an anarchist says, "I believe in democracy," there is a little fairy somewhere that falls down dead."

(http://libcom.org/library/democracy)Just saying.
(http://libcom.org/library/democracy)

[feral bro]

Leaders doesn't mean it voids an anarchist society....

Once again, read up on Clastres' and Lummis' Radical Democracy

You are way off on your understanding on anarchism
:lol:

[blake 3:17]

My primary objection to this thread, is it'd is sloppy.

The War On Drugs refers so foreign & domestic policy in the US. A policy which the Zapatistas oppose.



The Zapatistas have never supported The War on Drugs-- it is an ecocidal policy that really has nothing at all with actual drug use other than lined the pockets of State officials and worst drug dealers.. It was Nancy Reagan's dream project. Geroge 1 took it over.

Banning drugs of abuse is a totally legitimate decision totally legitimate for a para state regional organization to take.

[NoMasters]

:lol:

I find this to be the how most anti-anarchists respond to anarchist thought.

Just remember who killed the Spanish commune in the early 1900's....

Hint: Neoliberals, Fascists, and C__M__N_S_S

[ed miliband]

I find this to be the how most anti-anarchists respond to anarchist thought.

Just remember who killed the Spanish commune in the early 1900's....

Hint: Neoliberals, Fascists, and C__M__N_S_S

neoliberals weren't around then

[NoMasters]

neoliberals weren't around then

Well we can argue that they were embedded liberals I guess. But they were neoliberals in international terms, although to be sure it was Great Britain that was responsible for their demise, at least from the Western side. And somewhat in economic terms.

I guess America was not so much neoliberal in international terms. But Great Britain was most definitely internationalistic at that time. Remember that this was happening when the delusional Brits still thought they should own the world....

[smk]

First, they aren't technically anarchist, but claim to have been influenced by anarchism greatly.
Second, anarchism =/= lawlessness, but rather pure democracy. I'm sure the vast majority of the community understands that drugs and alcohol are only unnecessary drains on their society.

[getfiscal]

I'm sure the vast majority of the community understands that drugs and alcohol are only unnecessary drains on their society.
Is this a Ronald Reagan quote?

[NoMasters]

Is this a Ronald Reagan quote?

Its a logical quote.

Reagan's quote would come along these lines,

"drugs and alcohol are the tools of the devil, and we must create martial law to stop the use of it"

quite different than the realistic and logical approach that drug and alcohol usage represent the ills of society, more drugs and alcohol use, the more disconnected people are in society

[feral bro]

I find this to be the how most anti-anarchists respond to anarchist thought.

Just remember who killed the Spanish commune in the early 1900's....

Hint: Neoliberals, Fascists, and C__M__N_S_S
you are very confused. the links i posted, all by anarchists. quite how you've come up with the idea that i am anti-anarchist is beyond me.
hint, check out my 'groups'.

[NoMasters]

And I am called an idiot because I offended the authoritarian communists who destroyed quite possibly the greatest moment in leftist history in the name of principles over realism.

[Grenzer]

And I am called an idiot because I offended the authoritarian communists who destroyed quite possibly the greatest moment in leftist history in the name of principles over realism.

I don't think anyone in this thread called you an idiot, but if they have, then it's probably because of what they perceive to be your borderline reactionary views.

If you're referring to the CNT in Spain as "The greatest moment in leftist history" then I seriously hope you're joking. I'm not particularly well informed as to the specifics of the CNT, but it seems that it was marked by class collaboration and cooperation with the bourgeois state. It was a progressive movement, but I doubt that many anarchists would even claim that it was the "greatest moment in leftist history."

The claim that idealism should take precedence over realism also seems utopian. The efficacy of materialism seems to be much greater than that of idealism.

[NoMasters]

I don't think anyone in this thread called you an idiot, but if they have, then it's probably because of what they perceive to be your borderline reactionary views.

If you're referring to the CNT in Spain as "The greatest moment in leftist history" then I seriously hope you're joking. I'm not particularly well informed as to the specifics of the CNT, but it seems that it was marked by class collaboration and cooperation with the bourgeois state. It was a progressive movement, but I doubt that many anarchists would even claim that it was the "greatest moment in leftist history."

The claim that idealism should take precedence over realism also seems utopian. The efficacy of materialism seems to be much greater than that of idealism.

Well partly I am, but mostly I am referring to the closest society to my ideals. Pro-workers, cooperation, lack of a true state. I mean I know it wasn't perfect, but it was the closest we have seen to it.