Anarcho peace

[ThatGuy]

Sorry for the title, it's pretty non descriptive of my question, but I couldn't come up with anything better.

So, this one goes out to all people who call themselves anarchists, even if they disagree on who's really and anarchist and all that. Let's say that everybody on earth joins one school of anarchist thought or another and states are abolished, since that's pretty much all we agree on. Now there's plenty of people who disagree with each other and I believe that there's not much hope for any side to convince others that they're right. How do we not kill each other in this scenario?

What do you think, is a peaceful solution impossible, the only possible scenario being one section driving all others out of existence, or would people segregate themselves according to their views and live separated in order to avoid conflict?

Please avoid "real anarchism" debates, that's not what this topic is about.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Well people be people, pretty much.
Humans will always have quarrels. We don't have to agree on everything, that would make a terribly bland world.

Also, even notable Anarchist revolutionairies agreed on the fact that we might even see a future where people live by different anarchist/communist tendencies in their respective societies/communes.

Please, don't be dellusiopned about a worldpeace, love and harmony with everyone. Differing opinions will always exist.
Anarchism is just about the end of exploitation of men by men.

[liberlict]

A peaceful solution is most unlikely. One type of anarchist believes that men should have the right to own land and means of production and the other type will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion. For reconciliation one or both sides is going to have to seriously compromise their principles.

[ThatGuy]

Well people be people, pretty much.
Humans will always have quarrels. We don't have to agree on everything, that would make a terribly bland world.

Also, even notable Anarchist revolutionairies agreed on the fact that we might even see a future where people live by different anarchist/communist tendencies in their respective societies/communes.

Please, don't be dellusiopned about a worldpeace, love and harmony with everyone. Differing opinions will always exist.
Anarchism is just about the end of exploitation of men by men.

Don't worry, I don't believe for an instant that there will ever be anything like eternal peace as long as there's life in the universe, but I do think that less violence is preferable to more violence to most people. The problems start when peaceful people disagree on what's right and wrong. And what I'm interested in is how can we peacefully solve this kind of problems, since I would like to see less violence instead of more violence after states are dismissed. We don't need to love each other, coexisting is enough.

[ThatGuy]

A peaceful solution is most unlikely. One type of anarchist believes that men should have the right to own land and means of production and the other type will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion. For reconciliation one or both sides is going to have to seriously compromise their principles.

True, that's why I'm asking is if anarchists on this board are willing to accept any sort of compromise to avoid bloodshed. Segregation seems like a way of letting people live the way they want to internally without imposing on others, but it does require property to be respected.

[argeiphontes]

IIRC in the Spanish Revolution there were different kinds of anarchism existing side-by-side. Some communities were anarcho-communist, others were mutualist.

[tuwix]

Sorry for the title, it's pretty non descriptive of my question, but I couldn't come up with anything better.

So, this one goes out to all people who call themselves anarchists, even if they disagree on who's really and anarchist and all that. Let's say that everybody on earth joins one school of anarchist thought or another and states are abolished, since that's pretty much all we agree on. Now there's plenty of people who disagree with each other and I believe that there's not much hope for any side to convince others that they're right. How do we not kill each other in this scenario?

What do you think, is a peaceful solution impossible, the only possible scenario being one section driving all others out of existence, or would people segregate themselves according to their views and live separated in order to avoid conflict?

Please avoid "real anarchism" debates, that's not what this topic is about.

There is really no debate about what "real anarchism" is. So called "an-caps" are not anarchists and this is end of the topic.
But all anarchist movements or so similar that there is very broad room to agree. Only primitivists are completely different and I think coexistence with them is pretty impossible.

[liberlict]

There is really no debate about what "real anarchism" is. So called "an-caps" are not anarchists and this is end of the topic.
But all anarchist movements or so similar that there is very broad room to agree. Only primitivists are completely different and I think coexistence with them is pretty impossible.

Not really. Nobody has any ownership over a word, and it's all semantics anyway. Instead of fretting over who has the right to call themselves what, you're better off explaining why anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or whatever.

So much time is squandered on pointless word-games over what anarchy is, or a state is, or imperialism, or bla bla bla.

Really I don't think anybody should call them self an anarchist anymore because the word has become so diluted that it doesn't convey much meaning.

[BIXX]

Not really. Nobody has any ownership over a word, and it's all semantics anyway. Instead of fretting over who has the right to call themselves what, you're better off explaining why anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or whatever.

So much time is squandered on pointless word-games over what anarchy is, or a state is, or imperialism, or bla bla bla.

Really I don't think anybody should call them self an anarchist anymore because the word has become so diluted that it doesn't convey much meaning.


I don't mean to be rude but that is kinda stupid.

Anarchism describes something very specific (no rulers)- just because people don't understand or refuse to accept that description doesn't mean it's been diluted.

However, there are different versions of anarchism. I would argue that ancaps are not actually against rulers, and to an extent leftist ancoms. Others would argue otherwise.

It isn't just word games- I incorporate the ideas I accept into my actions and my actions into my ideas. The way I struggle is fundamentally different from the way an ancom or "ancap" will struggle.


There is really no debate about what "real anarchism" is. So called "an-caps" are not anarchists and this is end of the topic.


There are more flavors of anarchist than that- many of which people say are not anarchist (here on this board even) despite their obvious opposition to rulers.


Only primitivists are completely different and I think coexistence with them is pretty impossible.


Again, there are other non-primitivist anarchists who are completely different. Of course (as I have stated many times) I think primitivists are fine, and they have contributed heavily to my growth as an anarchist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sorry for the title, it's pretty non descriptive of my question, but I couldn't come up with anything better.

So, this one goes out to all people who call themselves anarchists, even if they disagree on who's really and anarchist and all that. Let's say that everybody on earth joins one school of anarchist thought or another and states are abolished, since that's pretty much all we agree on. Now there's plenty of people who disagree with each other and I believe that there's not much hope for any side to convince others that they're right. How do we not kill each other in this scenario?

What do you think, is a peaceful solution impossible, the only possible scenario being one section driving all others out of existence, or would people segregate themselves according to their views and live separated in order to avoid conflict?

Please avoid "real anarchism" debates, that's not what this topic is about.

Obviously, we would want to limit violence to the point of non-existence. But the problem is, conceivably this an impossibility as why would the 'masters of the universes' want to give up their privelages and so on? It's rather doubtful that they would. I think ideally we should be surgical and focus on specific targets ala assassinations. Which is pretty simple. Even if the material conditions at the time render the rule of the bourgeois obsolete I think to so level or degree there will be violence. Do you think you can paint a picture without soiling your smock?

[PhoenixAsh]

A peaceful solution is most unlikely. One type of anarchist believes that men should have the right to own land and means of production and the other type will foam at the mouth at the very suggestion. For reconciliation one or both sides is going to have to seriously compromise their principles.

Those are not anarchists. Period. Anarchism is the abolishment of hierarchies. Private property is a form of hierarchy.

You can call a car a bike. But that doesn't make it so.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not really. Nobody has any ownership over a word, and it's all semantics anyway. Instead of fretting over who has the right to call themselves what, you're better off explaining why anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or whatever.

So much time is squandered on pointless word-games over what anarchy is, or a state is, or imperialism, or bla bla bla.

Really I don't think anybody should call them self an anarchist anymore because the word has become so diluted that it doesn't convey much meaning.

Anarchism is quite a stable definition. Anarcho-Capitalism is not anarchism....no matter how hard they try to "co-opt" the word to their little insanity melt down...it doesn't fall into the definition.

[PhoenixAsh]

Please avoid "real anarchism" debates, that's not what this topic is about.


Yes...actually that is exactly what this topic is about.

Do you even think anarchists would allow private property societies based on exploitation and social hierarchy and capitalism to exist? Because that is what Ancap is.

So there will be a revolution against them until they are gone and ALL forms of capitalism, private property, hierarchy, and exploitation are abolished.

Does this answer your question?

[argeiphontes]

Instead of fretting over who has the right to call themselves what, you're better off explaining why anarcho-communism is better than anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or whatever.

Left-libertarianism (mutualism and leftward) is better because it seeks to abolish all forms of domination, both public and private. :) Those are the anarchist tendencies that fall under the umbrella of libertarian socialism.

Right-libertarianism would result in absolute private tyranny over the individual.

[ThatGuy]

Is seems this thread derailed pretty instantly from my original point...

Let's try this out once more. The world suddenly turns anti state. And to make things really simple, half the population turns into anti state socialists and the other half into anti state capitalists.

Now do you think the two fractions will try to exterminate one another, because they disagree on private property being a right, or will they find a way to avoid that? Conversion isn't an option.

[BIXX]

Why is it that some people can't accept anarchism as being against rulers (or hierarchies or oppression, really they mean the same thing). People on this board have tried to tell me I am not an anarchist cause I'm not a traditional one, which I think is odd.

On topic: there will be violence but probably less than there is today, especially as the wars today are driven by profit rather than a love for freedom.

[PhoenixAsh]

Is seems this thread derailed pretty instantly from my original point...

Let's try this out once more. The world suddenly turns anti state. And to make things really simple, half the population turns into anti state socialists and the other half into anti state capitalists.

Now do you think the two fractions will try to exterminate one another, because they disagree on private property being a right, or will they find a way to avoid that? Conversion isn't an option.

I think I pretty much answered that.

Faux-Anarchists basing systems on private property and exploitation will never be allowed to exist by anarchists.

Just like faux-anarchists will never accept the fact that there will be parts of the world that won't allow that....their entire system is expansionist.

[BIXX]

Is seems this thread derailed pretty instantly from my original point...

Let's try this out once more. The world suddenly turns anti state. And to make things really simple, half the population turns into anti state socialists and the other half into anti state capitalists.

Now do you think the two fractions will try to exterminate one another, because they disagree on private property being a right, or will they find a way to avoid that? Conversion isn't an option.


They'd fight. Period. I would attack a capitalist system even if it didn't affect me.

[ThatGuy]

They'd fight. Period. I would attack a capitalist system even if it didn't affect me.

So you would actually violently attack people(you can't really attack systems, they're abstract), that voluntarily participate in some sort of behavior and aren't affecting you? Seriously?

[BIXX]

So you would actually violently attack people(you can't really attack systems, they're abstract), that voluntarily participate in some sort of behavior and aren't affecting you? Seriously?


"Voluntary participation" my ass. Most people these days are "voluntarily participating". I suppose there shouldn't be a revolution?

And I should have said "affecting me directly"- as they harm the planet I live on.

Thirdly, yes, even if it didn't affect me, I think capitalism is foul. It's like throwing a copy of Ayn Rand's books into a fire- they weren't really hurting me but it's fun.

Fourth, you can attack the apparatus of a system without attacking the people in that system.

Fifth, I don't much care for those people- they think exploitation is ok, so they can fuck right off.

[consuming negativity]

So you would actually violently attack people(you can't really attack systems, they're abstract), that voluntarily participate in some sort of behavior and aren't affecting you? Seriously?

The entire situation is a non-starter because it implies that "ancaps" exist outside of straight white cismen on the internet or that any world could ever exist that you described. It's a hypothetical. I'd gladly take part in the complete extermination of a population of annoying ancaps. And then I'd drink their blood, and use their aborted fetuses to praise satan for destroying freedom. What I'm trying to say is, if you ask outrageous questions, be prepared for outrageous answers.

[PhoenixAsh]

So you would actually violently attack people(you can't really attack systems, they're abstract), that voluntarily participate in some sort of behavior and aren't affecting you? Seriously?

They are not voluntarily participating in it. That is the whole point. There is no voluntary-anything about capitalism. Let alone they won't affect anybody...because of its expansive nature this will happen.

[PhoenixAsh]

So...to answer your question...

Ancaps can try to hide their nature by labeling it as "anarchism" but they are just as much our class enemies as the statist capitalists.

[liberlict]

I don't mean to be rude but that is kinda stupid.

Anarchism describes something very specific (no rulers)- just because people don't understand or refuse to accept that description doesn't mean it's been diluted.

I disagree. The problem is even "no rulers" is vague. It starts begging question like---what is a ruler? "Anarchy" is vague enough that it's easy to project ones biases and preconceptions onto it.

Just reading from the Wikipedia ..

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[19] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


But never even mind all that. What I'm saying is that even if the word has been co-opted, it's just a word! It's the principle behind it that matters, not the word itself.

Imagine how much time we could save if we stopped stopped debating semantics.

In that spirit, I've probably wasted enough of my own time here debating semantics.

[PhoenixAsh]

I disagree. The problem is even "no rulers" is vague. It starts begging question like---what is a ruler? "Anarchy" is vague enough that it's easy to project ones biases and preconceptions onto it.

Just reading from the Wikipedia ..

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[19] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism


But never even mind all that. What I'm saying is that even if the word has been co-opted, it's just a word! It's the principle behind it that matters, not the word itself.

Imagine how much time we could save if we stopped stopped debating semantics.

In that spirit, I've probably wasted enough of my own time here debating semantics.

Without semantics there would be no debate and no communication. People wouldn't understand each other.

That aside...

Anarchism is a very distinct ideology. And it is important to determine what belongs and what doesn't belong inside that ideology. Inside that ideology there is no room for capitalists. Capitailsm is per definition an anachronism to anarchism.

I don't call that semantics.

If you are talking about a flying cat when you mean a seagull because...well...they are all animals so who cares about semantics?...that is a pretty damned important distinction.

[liberlict]

Without semantics there would be no debate and no communication. People wouldn't understand each other.




Word meanings evolve. It's called "etymology". A word has no currency outside of its contemporary social context. Take for example "Liberal", this can mean classical liberalism (Adam Smith etc), or it can mean, social liberal, conservative liberal, liberal democracy, and a dozen other things.

Please read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change


Anarchism is a very distinct ideology.

No it's not.


And it is important to determine what belongs and what doesn't belong inside that ideology.

Yes it is. That's why you should be careful to define your terms before getting into arguments, otherwise risk debating semantics which is an exercise in futility.


Inside that ideology there is no room for capitalists. Capitailsm is per definition an anachronism to anarchism.

Sorry, but no it's not. But it doesn't matter. Just accept that word meaning are fluid and define your terms with distinction.


I don't call that semantics.

Well it is.

[Per Levy]

Sorry, but no it's not. But it doesn't matter. Just accept that word meaning are fluid and define your terms with distinction.

well anarchism can be summed up with "no gods, no masters" who is the god in capitalism? capital. and who are masters of capitalism? the bosses. both are things wich "anarcaps" dont want to do away with but keep. in other words they want to keep hirachies, opression and exploitation. so yeah "anarcaps" arnt anarchists. its that easy.

[PhoenixAsh]

sigh

[PhoenixAsh]

Anarchy is a set definition because it is intrinsically linked with a very specific ideology. Applying this definition to an entirely different ideology is not entymology and it is not semantics because the parameters are already set by the context.

Hence why your use of the terms etymology and semantics are completely out of place and show a deep lack of understanding their meaning and how they are applied.

The exact meaning of liberal has always been many fold and the exact meaning is established by context.

You are discussing on Revleft. In which case we are discussing about Anarchy in a political and ideological sense. And in that context Anarchy has a fixed definition and ideological content which specifically excludes Ancaps.

Anarchy's definition in a political/ideological sense is defined as stateless and self governed voluntary free association. This specifically excludes ancaps because in ancap society association is not voluntary and not free...even if they like to pretend it is.

I do not accept word meanings are fluid. Because they aren't. Word meanings can change but they are not fluid...unless you want to change the definition of fluid too. They are in fact regulated by rules and fixed until definitions are changed by agreement or general use...they are not in rapid flux and do not change easily. I would suggest you read the wiki link for language.

Now...kindly get your head out of your arse and get back with the program...and stop playing silly puddy.

[liberlict]

Yes I know all about semantics. You however need to reread your own link because you clearly have no clue about semantics.

Semantics also do not feature into this debate unless some absolute moron brings them up. ...O hey...hello there.

You are forgetting...the term anarchy in a political sense is applied to a very specific ideology and therefore has a fixed definition. Applying it to another entirely different ideology is NOT etymology. And in this context we are talking about the political ideology. Etymology therefore doesn't feature into it. Get your facts straight.



Yes...it really, really is. So unless you start actually using the facts instead of trying to wiggle your way out of them...I suggest you stay out of the discussion.



Only idiots start debates about semantics and etymology when the parameters are clearly set to distract from the fact that they have no clue what they are actually arguing.




Well...your arguments about semantics are bullshit and you...if you seriously believe them...are an idiot. And I mean that in every traditional sense of the meaning of the words.

You are arguing semantics over a fixed definition. The meaning of the word anarchy in an ideological sense is not subject to semantics but a specific label. Get it into your head.




Well it is.

The people who define 'anarchy' differently to you are also engaged in a "political sense". That's what I was saying.

OK, let me approach this in a different way: Why is it important to you that your political goals be attached to a certain word? Does it really matter? Isn't it most important that you get your message across intact?


You however need to reread your own link

Which part?

[PhoenixAsh]

The people who define 'anarchy' differently to you are also engaged in a "political sense". That's what I was saying.

They do not only define it differently than me. But also as the common use definition of the word.


OK, let me approach this in a different way: Why is it important to you that your political goals be attached to a certain word? Does it really matter? Isn't it most important that you get your message across intact?

Yes. Definitions matter for the obvious reason that that is how we understand language. Like I explained to you in the hopes you would understand it....

If you talk about a seagul and use the word cat,...NOBODY...is going to understand what you are saying. But what is more...people might even think you are actually talking about a cat. Which distorts the message.



Which part?

All of it.

[liberlict]

You are discussing on Revleft. In which case we are discussing about Anarchy in a political and ideological sense. And in that context Anarchy has a fixed definition and ideological content which specifically excludes Ancaps.



Yeah, I know the meanings (there are multiple, even in this microcosm) of anarchy around here. But this is not the center of the universe. If you go elsewhere you will find there are people who dispute these terms.

Please note it doesn't matter to me how these words are defined. I just observe that so many bytes are wasted here defining words like 'anarchy', 'communism', 'state', and so on.

I think instead of seeing these different strands of anarchy as some kind of assault you should appreciate them, because they save time allowing use to discuss ideas rather than semantics.

Wittgenstein would have plenty to say about this thread.

[liberlict]

They do not only define it differently than me. But also as the common use definition of the word.

They call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" don't they? There's a qualification there.




Yes. Definitions matter for the obvious reason that that is how we understand language

Yes definitions matter but most words have multiple meanings (poly-semantic), which obstructs discourse. It's annoying, I know. So etymologically we refine our terms when they become obscured. Why is that a problem.


If you talk about a seagul and use the word cat,...NOBODY...is going to understand what you are saying. But what is more...people might even think you are actually talking about a cat. Which distorts the message.


I really don't know what that means.




All of it.

Any chance you could give my dumb ass a pointer? ^^

[BIXX]

Yeah, I know the meanings (there are multiple, even in this microcosm) of anarchy around here. But this is not the center of the universe. If you go elsewhere you will find there are people who dispute these terms.



Please note it doesn't matter to me how these words are defined. I just observe that so many bytes are wasted here defining words like 'anarchy', 'communism', 'state', and so on.



I think instead of seeing these different strands of anarchy as some kind of assault you should appreciate them, because they save time allowing use to discuss ideas rather than semantics.



Wittgenstein would have plenty to say about this thread.


Certain brands of "anarchism" are directly opposed to me, and my anarchism, and I would argue anarchism in general. I am not going to "appreciate" them.

Also if your purpose here is to "notice how many bytes are spent" debating these words then leave- as you serve no other purpose here than to hold discussion back, it seems.

[liberlict]

Certain brands of "anarchism" are directly opposed to me, and my anarchism, and I would argue anarchism in general. I am not going to "appreciate" them.

Also if your purpose here is to "notice how many bytes are spent" debating these words then leave- as you serve no other purpose here than to hold discussion back, it seems.

I didn't mean appreciate their ideas or politics, I meant appreciate the qualifications of anarchism (communism, syndicalism, capitalism) because they make it easier to compare ideas rather than wasting all this arguing time what 'anarchy' means (which is a black hole).