Basic Principles of Anarchism

[Morpheus]

Basic Principles of Anarchism
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Soci...sicAnarchy.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Good

Very good site

[DEPAVER]

Thanks for the great post. I was an enjoyable read.

I come to anarchism from two directions: an academic study of the classic literature, and, more importantly, experience on the ground among people in various societies, social and political arrangements, political persuasions and environmental activism.

I'm a bit of an anomaly these days, eschewing the black bandana, the clenched fist, the emblazoned circle-A. My anarchism is much more about "freedom to" rather than "freedom from." I concentrate on community, the
interrelationships among people living in place, discovering reinhabitory strategies, muddling through to a social relationship that allows maximum personal freedom and limits opportunities for the concentration of political and economic power to coerce and oppress others.

A few brief comments about your work... I'll need time to go back and more carefully consider it:


"Although non-pacifist anarchists do not glorify violence most believe that the use of violence in self-defense and/or to overthrow hierarchy is justified."

Ed Abbey examined the efficacy of violence as a tool of anarchist action in his 1959 Masters thesis, "Anarchy and the Morality of Violence." Through analysis of the writing of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Sorel, Abbey concluded that there is no justification for violence in the pursuit of anarchy, and that, in fact, violence is counterproductive to the establishment of a non-coercive society.

I'm happy to provide a copy of this work, if you're interested.

"There have been many examples of anarchist societies throughout history; most of them have been agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies."

Excellent point, one I've made repeatedly. I've only seen one other individual argue from this perspective, so I'm very impressed that you've made the connection.

You might read up on the Ohlone, who lived on the shores of what we call Monterey bay for 5,000 years or so, living in place, living in a society that had found a balance among the needs of the individual, the needs of the community and the needs of the non-human world.

Athabaskan folks have lived in Interior Alaska and Canada for 8,000 years or so leaving virtually no footprint until they adopted Western material culture. The Inuit have lived in northern North America for a mere
2,000 years, carving out a pretty unique physical and social culture for themselves.

While the Ohlone were wiped out by Godly Spanish Missionaries, the Inuit and Atahabaskan people live on. Their culture is different than it was 300 years ago, but it's not the same dysfunctional society that currently
inflicts us.

"Crime is the result of hierarchy; the abolition of hierarchy will cause it to disappear. 95% of crime is caused by patriarchy, private property and capitalism (stealing, etc.); its abolition will result in the end of 95% of crime. "

I would reconsider this part of your document, because I don't believe you can substantiate the claim, and it will be an easy target for anyone looking to discredit your view.

I believe crime may still be an issue, but there are effective ways to deal with it, such as ostracism.

Communities and people primarily fight over resources, but let's consider what might happen with resources in an anarchistic society.

"A healthy community polices itself; a healthy society would do the same. ... Some might call this vigilante justice; I call it democratic justice."-Ed Abbey

To extend this to intercommunity disputes, one community will attempt to usurp other community's access to resources only if all communities do not have equal access to all resources. In a society with no profit motive,
there is no need to grab resources and hold them to yourselves. This only means that you, in turn, will not have access to other resources you need. Shunning can extend to the community level. Any community that withholds needed resources from other communities will find itself isolated and unable to gain needed resources for itself.

Anarchism is a system of organization that disperses power such that no individual or group of individuals can accumulate power over others. Only in a centralized system can power accumulate. Eliminate the central system of control and you eliminate the accumulation of power. This does not require a suddenly altruistic populace; it requires enough people to turn their backs on centralized control and develop locally controlled systems based on self-reliance and mutual aid.


Again, good job. I'll try to respond more fully at some point in the near future.

[truthaddict11]

excellent introduction Morpheus

[Blackberry]

Nice...but syndicalism did not even rate a mention?

[The Children of the Revolution]

Fantastic introduction to Anarchism.

Perhaps some constructive rewording in some places? But all issues were tackled well - nice work.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10 2003, 02:10 AM
syndicalism did not even rate a mention?
It's mentioned in the part about different kinds of anarchism, under differences of focus. And also in the part about the Spanish Revolution.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Dec 10 2003, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Morpheus @ Dec 10 2003, 05:09 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 10 2003, 02:10 AM
syndicalism did not even rate a mention?
It&#39;s mentioned in the part about different kinds of anarchism, under differences of focus. And also in the part about the Spanish Revolution. [/b]
OK. I see the anarcho-syndicalists mentioned briefly, but you haven&#39;t explained syndicalism in any sort of detail, and certainly not as a form of organisation. The union has played quite a part around the world, in many different ways.

It could come under "What An Anarchist Society Would Look Like" -- I would imagine that unions would still exist, just in case the other existing direct democratic structures somehow ceased to be democratic, or exist, or failed to protect workers due to people working against them.

[The Feral Underclass]

A great introduction Morpheus. I would like to add a few things.

Morpheus and DEPAVER

Although non-pacifist anarchists do not glorify violence most believe that the use of violence in self-defense and/or to overthrow hierarchy is justified.

At some point in the building of a radical movement the workers are going to start to demand that the present system be changed. This may start with small scale strikes and demonstrations, but as consciousness spreads this will most definatly lead to scenes such as Seattle and Genoa. The ruling class are going to hold onto their power and wealth until the bitter end. We have seen what the response was to these demonstrations. Notably the murder of Carlo Guiliani by the Italian police. These demonstrations were only a voice against capitalism. When the workers start to demand change, the ruling class will definatly dig their heels in with brutal severity. So when you say it is justified, I agree, but I also think it is inevitable. I am not sure what your feelings are about this. You did not make it clear.

Morpheus

If human nature is bad then hierarchy should be abolished because those on the top will inevitably abuse their power.

I do not agree that this is a possibility. If in fact it was, then doctors, teachers and humanitarian volunteers would not exist. In fact neither would anarchists. I think it is important to make the point that human nature is a good thing and that things such as selfishness, greed and lust for power are conditions created by the nature of capitalism. Therefore the argument, "human nature is bad" is invalid and it should be argued by all anarchists that all human beings have the ability to change themselves and the conditions around them.

What are peoples thoughts?

I have also emailed this document to several comrades to use as a resource, I hope this is ok?

[The Feral Underclass]

Children of the Revolution


Fantastic introduction to Anarchism.

Perhaps some constructive rewording in some places? But all issues were tackled well - nice work.

Do you agree with any of it?

[DEPAVER]

The human nature argument is often posited to allegedly demonstrate that
an anarchist society is impossible, due to some perceived inherent human
nature that prevents cooperative behavior.

This is much the same as quoting scripture to buttress a pre-conceived
position. One can dredge up any particular human behavior, call it human
nature, and use it to support any position.

In fact, there is no all-encompassing human nature that is adhered to by
all humans, not even by all societies. Human behavior varies across a wide
spectrum through time and space. One of the first things taught in
introductory anthropology courses is cultural relativism, the fact that
human behavior cannot be judged using cultural criteria from outside the
culture.

The society we observe today exhibits human behavior resulting from the
characteristics of the society we observe today. Were we to observe a
different society, with different cultural characteristics, we would observe
different behaviors. There is no inherent "human nature" that causes
specific human behaviors.

Therefore, we cannot say that humans are "too greedy, selfish,
apathetic...<insert adjective here>" for anarchy to work. We cannot
anticipate the behavior of individuals in a decentralized,
anti-authoritarian, cooperative society by observing human behavior in a
centralized, authoritarian, competitive society.

[SonofRage]

I would say that any kind of hierarchy should be very limited and should be viewed only as a necessary evil.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

I must say I&#39;ve been incredibly drawn to anarchism recently...

Would one of you mind explaining to me what is meant by anarcho-syndicalism, social anarchism, and liberatarian communism/socialism?

[Morpheus]

Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism that focuses on unions & the labor movement. The basic idea is to build a revolutionary union on anarchist principles (decentralized direct democracy, etc.) and once it is big enough it would call a general strike, overthrow (and abolish) the government, and seize control of the means of production. An anarchist society based on Self-management would then be implemented. Social anarchism is a broad term that encompases most forms of anarchism. It includes most anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists and others. Social anarchists focus on social aspects and incorporate this into our visions of an anarchist society. This differs from anarcho-primitivists and anarcho-individualists, who have a different approach. Libertarian Socialism is another name for anarchism. Libertarian communism has several meanings: 1. anarcho-communism 2. anarchism 3. libertarian Marxism

Anarchist Tension,

I agree that violence will need to be used in the revolution. I tried to make this introduction so that it isn&#39;t slanted in favor of one or another type of anarchism. I also don&#39;t believe that human nature exists. However, even if it did exist the arguement is false, as I indicated, and so the "human nature" arguement fails on mutliple levels.


I have also emailed this document to several comrades to use as a resource, I hope this is ok?

Please do. On my website there is a .doc version phamphlet you can print out and hand out, if you want.

[SonofRage]

I could convert those docs to pdfs for you if you want.

[Hate Is Art]

on human nature:-

1. It&#39;s human nature to be free
2. If it&#39;s in human nature to be evil then surely it&#39;s in human nature to be good and kind as well

very well done, ive been finding myself being drawn to anarchism recently

[The Feral Underclass]

Digital Nirvana


ive been finding myself being drawn to anarchism recently

What are your agreements and reservations?

[monkeydust]

Just a basic question, I don&#39;t mean to chalenge your views i&#39;m just not very knowledgeable when it comes to anarchism.

Suppose one decided to try and generate some form of private wealth in an anarchist society, how would something be efficiently challenged without any form of authority or power above others to do so?

[Morpheus]

What do you mean by "generate some form of private wealth"?

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 06:41 AM
What do you mean by "generate some form of private wealth"?
I delibarately didn&#39;t use the term &#39;capital&#39; I meant &#39;wealth&#39; as in anything of sufficient worth to give someone status above others, so for example if some guy decides he will try to amass excessive amounts something and uses it to try and get some kind of influence or simply to trade for a lot of stuff, becoming almost of a higher status to others, what kind of authority f any at all would deal with this. (sorry if i&#39;m vague on this I know little about anarchism)

[Hate Is Art]

what are your agreements and reservations

i agree with the principle of there being no rulers because communism in practice allways just traded one set of rulers for another just with a differnt ideology and i was thus never really won over by it. Anarchism on the other has no rulers to oppress you and the one thing i believe in most is freedom. Freedom from everything pretty much, obviously some freedoms have to be limited like the freedom to kill people etc etc but that is what anarchism gives, freedom.

reservations just because i havent quite read enough on it, any thing which i can obtain easily thats is a good read?

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Lenin24+Dec 17 2003, 09:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lenin24 @ Dec 17 2003, 09:20 PM)
[email protected] 17 2003, 06:41 AM
What do you mean by "generate some form of private wealth"?
I delibarately didn&#39;t use the term &#39;capital&#39; I meant &#39;wealth&#39; as in anything of sufficient worth to give someone status above others, so for example if some guy decides he will try to amass excessive amounts something and uses it to try and get some kind of influence or simply to trade for a lot of stuff, becoming almost of a higher status to others, what kind of authority f any at all would deal with this. (sorry if i&#39;m vague on this I know little about anarchism) [/b]
Well, there would be no state to enforce private property. So the amount a single individual could accumulate would effectively be limited.

Digital Nirvana, you might check out The Conquest of Bead by Peter Kropotkin. I think you can find a copy online.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lenin24


if some guy decides he will try to amass excessive amounts something and uses it to try and get some kind of influence or simply to trade for a lot of stuff, becoming almost of a higher status to others, what kind of authority if any at all would deal with this

It would be very difficult for this guy to do anything of the sort. These people will be almost none existent and will live within collectives of workers. In order to try and amass these things he has to try and manipulate the collective he lives in which would be extremly difficult to do. If you live and work in a factory collective with 1000 other hardend workers who have just finished fighting for this society I doubt very much they are going to allow this person to get away with what they are doing. If indeed they did live and work in a collective. Most of these people will probably have either fled the country, gone into hiding or died trying to fight the workers.

There is no authority needed in the sense that you are implying ie police authority, because these people will be few and the actual ability to do something like this will be so difficult that it wouldnt be worth the effort. Especially when you can have everything provided to you in return for a certain amount of time contributed to socially necessary work. The authority that would be needed is for them to be in a minority. Which will be the case after a revolution. If there were many of them and were armed then of course it may be necessary to defend ourselves through violence if they attempted to force people into helping them amass this wealth or attempted to steal resources.

[The Feral Underclass]

Digital Nirvana


i agree with the principle of there being no rulers because communism in practice allways just traded one set of rulers for another

I think it is important to be specific. Those rulers were not communist, neither was what they practice communism. Communism is Anarchism. The argument that arises between anarchists and Leninists is how we achieve it.

I have sent you a pm in regards to some reading which may help.

[Hate Is Art]

in russia between tsarism and lenin there was freedom of speech assembly conscience etc but when lenin came into power they were removed and the secret police were set up, this doesn&#39;t reall seem the way to form a utopia ;)

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18 2003, 04:25 PM
Lenin24


if some guy decides he will try to amass excessive amounts something and uses it to try and get some kind of influence or simply to trade for a lot of stuff, becoming almost of a higher status to others, what kind of authority if any at all would deal with this

It would be very difficult for this guy to do anything of the sort. These people will be almost none existent and will live within collectives of workers. In order to try and amass these things he has to try and manipulate the collective he lives in which would be extremly difficult to do. If you live and work in a factory collective with 1000 other hardend workers who have just finished fighting for this society I doubt very much they are going to allow this person to get away with what they are doing. If indeed they did live and work in a collective. Most of these people will probably have either fled the country, gone into hiding or died trying to fight the workers.

There is no authority needed in the sense that you are implying ie police authority, because these people will be few and the actual ability to do something like this will be so difficult that it wouldnt be worth the effort. Especially when you can have everything provided to you in return for a certain amount of time contributed to socially necessary work. The authority that would be needed is for them to be in a minority. Which will be the case after a revolution. If there were many of them and were armed then of course it may be necessary to defend ourselves through violence if they attempted to force people into helping them amass this wealth or attempted to steal resources.
Thanks, I agree and I feel such actions as accumating private wealth would be so frowned upon that few will try.