Anarchism is utopian

[Raul Castro]

Can somebody give me one good reason anarchism isn't utopian?

[General Winter]

I can give : an example of Somalia is an example of a triumph of anarchy : the state is destroyed,the territory is divided by numerous warring gangs,as a result economic links between regions are destroyed too, a raid economy replaced capitalism,thut is the society is thrown back to pre-feudal times.So no capitalism,no feudalism - a dream of anarchist .

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Can you give an example of how it is utopian and what do you define as utopian?

@general winter, yes im very content with what is happening... of course it is common knowledge that anarchists envision a world where gangs(be they state actors or smalle groups) possess powers over other people. I get that you are apparently anti-anarchist, but it would be more effective if you actually attack anarchist ideas and not just make up boring straw mans. Leave the straw mans to bourgeoisie who condemn both communism and anarchism with platitudes such as "but if capitalism dissappears, nobody will work anymore :(". It is obvious them making a parody of an idea is not actually a rebuttal of the idea, it is just avoiding the question at hand. You are doing the same thing.

[Ale Brider]

Ok, so distasteful Somalia-jokes aside, this is not an easy question, and it highly depends on what you call utopian. Because anarcho-communism is hardly the same as what is generally called utopian socialism (such as the ideas of Fourier or Saint-Simon) but I guess in an other sense one could argue that anarchist theory is utopian. Take The Conquest of Bread, for example. The book puts forward points that could be the basis of an anarchist program, it goes into great detail how an anarchist society would work and what anarchists could do the reach that. In that way, and in the way how anarchism generally relates to Marx and Marxism, it my be called utopian in character. Also, if one lacks the proper critique of capitalism, one will not arrive at the right conclusion about it, and some anarchists, mainly anarcho-syndicalists tend to neglect a big deal of what capitalism is about. They reduce the question to ownership and forget about commodity production for example. On the other hand, however, anarchism has a history of bold realization of ideas. From my point of view, they always did it in an idealist manner, but anarchist societies did exist and we all know that. The problem for anarchists is not realization per se, but how to make small anarchist societies born out of conflicts or civil wars last for more than a few years at best. But considering anarchist practice, (and not just the greater projects that everyone knows like Catalonia) we can't say that it is utopian in the same sense as Fourier or Cabet were. Why? Because anarchism is not just about the realization of an anarchist society, it also means an anarchist attitude towards the currently existing, and the anarchist movement that is involved in struggles worldwide. If we consider anarchism more than just a naive dreamers' version of communism, we can see its merits (as a movement, not necessarily as a theory) too.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I can give : an example of Somalia is an example of a triumph of anarchy : the state is destroyed,the territory is divided by numerous warring gangs,as a result economic links between regions are destroyed too, a raid economy replaced capitalism,thut is the society is thrown back to pre-feudal times.So no capitalism,no feudalism - a dream of anarchist .

Warlordism =/= Anarchism

[Raul Castro]

so anarchist can give me a reason it isn't utopian? Expected

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

so anarchist can give me a reason it isn't utopian? Expected

Can you give me a reason that Alpha Centauri isn't really just a giant alien spaceship? Can you give me a reason why the earth isn't full of mole people? Can you give me a reason that you are not a vampire with a lobotomy? It makes no sense, and in fact it is a fallacy, to begin a debate by asking someone to argue against an allegation which has no argument backing it up.

[Raul Castro]

fair enough, then let me ask a better question? Can u explain how an anarchist system would work, would there be councils? democratic institutions?

[(A)]

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”

Anarchism is a realization that since we have the ability to govern ourselves that all external government is tyranny. Anarchy then is the solidarity of equals in freedom.
As Lenin and Engels both could attest; where their is freedom their will be no state as where their is a state their can be no freedom.
Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality (See Cuba).

It is you who is Utopian for believing that you can achieve socialism let alone communism by the governments exclusive and nationalistic ownership over the means of production and strict control over the worker. This is the farthest thing from socialism as it is by definition not social control over the means of production but national control. "Socialist" states never have and never will exist; only nation (nationalist) states. All states are nationalist and need to be abolished for the cleavage of society into classes to be dissolved.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

fair enough, then let me ask a better question? Can u explain how an anarchist system would work, would there be councils? democratic institutions?

Well, that's a much better question. Most anarchist theory I have come across, at least that which is not radically individualist, involves some form of council or public assembly. Many anarchists refer to the models seen by Zapatista communities, for instance, and anarchists in places like Spain have spent many years working on various forms of self governance. Some speak highly of the model adopted by the PYD which is, from my understanding, based on the theories of American anarchist Bookchin.

[(A)]

The Democratic confederalism practiced by the Kurd's is based on Bookchins Libertarian Municapalism which is as the name suggests Libertarian and not specifically Anarchist; Just as their are Libertarian Marxists who are not Anarchists. As the Anarchist writer Donald Rooum put it


Anarchists are extreme libertarian socialists , "libertarian" meaning the demand for freedom from prohibition, and "socialist" meaning the demand for social equality . ...Complete freedom implies equality, since if there are rich and poor, the poor cannot be permitted to take liberties with riches. Complete equality implies freedom, since those who suffer restrictions cannot be the equals of those who impose them.


fair enough, then let me ask a better question? Can u explain how an anarchist system would work, would there be councils? democratic institutions?

Anarchy, Castro is a lack of systems. Specifically any system that has the authority to use violence and therefore create a class based society. "those who suffer restrictions cannot be the equals of those who impose them." So their can be no political authority in an anarchist or communist society.. Political systems of authority and Socialism are mutually exclusive in every way. You can not have equality and polity at the same time. That is why the Democratic confederalism in Rojava is not Anarchistic as they still have police and systems of hierarchical authority; that is not to say that their is not a strong Anarchist movement in the area; just that the system they are implementing by the fact that it is a system of authority can not be Anarchist nor achieve socialism.

An anarchist society would be one based on the free association of equals and not on the nationalist form of oppressive citizenship to the local polity.
Their would be no political organization such as a counsel of governors who have the authority to say; arrest and execute a criminal or bulldozes someones house to build a utility.
Each individual within the society would govern themselves and work together for their combined benefit freely and not because they are forced to labor by the red bureaucracy as slave labors.
Only a society free from the political and economic hierarchy can be considered a socialist/communist/anarchist society.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

so anarchist can give me a reason it isn't utopian? Expected are you actually serious? If you are just here to rile up dissent against a philosophy which you apparently do not like, just make a post of how you think amarchism is shit. Don't come here with your lame attempt at making it seem like you are actually curious.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Raul Castro http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2879333#post2879333)
This is so sad, is this what fighting for the working class has come to? BTW I am fucking attack helicopter now check your non-helicopter privelge

Posted in: http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192162-How-Do-You-Identify-(Who-Are-You-II)/page4
literally a copy of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSsk_k7MBpw

This guy is some alt-right troll and should get banned.

[Raul Castro]

I am not a troll, i regret those comments I am a communist plz :(. Just because I disagree with the political theory of white privelege u will ban me plz :(

[IbelieveInanarchy]

I am not a troll, i regret those comments I am a communist plz :(. Just because I disagree with the political theory of white privelege u will ban me plz :( You would do well to drop this alt-right rhetoric then.... and become vegan.

[Raul Castro]

Can somebody plzexplain the idea of anarchism in lamens terms, because wouldn't democratic councils still make up a state, and their would still be jails right? How would society function I just don't get it

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Can somebody plzexplain the idea of anarchism in lamens terms, because wouldn't democratic councils still make up a state, and their would still be jails right? How would society function I just don't get it There would be democratic councils but these wont have top-down enforcement. If you disagree with the communes decision you wont be forced to adhere to it, you can leave the commune. Jails could exist according to me(most anarchists don't believe this though). Society would function how society decides to function, there is not some blue print on how to exactly organize an anarchist society. The main premise is that there are no rulers and no authority and everyone can decide for themselves what they do as long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights.

This is all an over-simplification of course, but it a short summary, i find it rather difficult to explain a huge idea without you asking specific questions :P

[(A)]

Jails would not exist as the ability to "legitimately" imprison someone against their will requires political authority.
If I dont want to go to prison you have no legitimate authority to make me and I have every right to defend myself from your attempt to kidnap me.
If you have the right to imprison me we are >not equals< and therefore not anarchists nor socialists.

As Erich Musham put it; "The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!”
If we are not equal we are not free and if we are not free then we are not equal.
A prisoner is not equal to the guard who maintains his internment; that is why all cops are bastards; because they are not equal to the citizens they abuse. You can not have prisons in a socialist/anarchist or communist society; period.


Can somebody plzexplain the idea of anarchism in lamens terms

Here is the Anarchist FAQ: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-02-17
and here is the same thing in video form:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiaNdtOD_rg

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiaNdtOD_rg)

[Raul Castro]

Where would u put criminals?

[(A)]

Pëtr Kropotkin Prisons: Universities of Crime

Leaving aside the great question of “Crime and Punishment” which occupies now so many prominent lawyers and sociologists, I shall limit my remarks to the question: “Are prisons answering their purpose, which is that of diminishing the number of antisocial acts?
To this question, every unprejudiced person who has a knowledge of prisons from the inside will certainly answer by an emphatic No. On the contrary, a serious study of the subject will bring everyone to the conclusion that the prisons — the best as much as the worst — are breeding places of criminality; that they contribute to render the antisocial acts worse and worse; that they are, in a word, the High Schools, the Universities of what is known as Crime.
Of course, I do not mean that everyone who has been once in a prison will return to it. There are thousands people sent every year to prison by mere accident. But I maintain that the effect of a couple of years of life in a prison — from the very fact of its being a prison — is to increase in the individual those defects which brought him before a law court. These causes, being the love of risk, the dislike of work (due to an immense majority of cases to the want of a thorough knowledge of a trade), the despise of society with its injustice and hypocrisy, the want of physical energy, and the lack of will — all these causes will be aggravated by detention in a jail.
Five-and-twenty years ago, when I developed this idea in a book, now out of print (In Russian and French Prisons), I supported it by an examination of the facts revealed in France by an inquest made as to the numbers of recidivistes (second offense prisoners). The result of this inquest was that from two fifths to one half of all persons brought before the assizes and two fifths of all brought before the police courts had already been kept once or twice in a jail. The very dame figure of forty percent was found in this country; while according to Michael Davitt, as much as ninety-five percent of all those who are kept in penal servitude have previously received prison education.
A little reflection will show that things cannot be otherwise. A prison has, and must have, a degrading effect on its inmates. Take a man freshly brought to a jail. The moment he enters the house he is no more a human being he is “Number So and So.” He must have no more a will of his own. They put him in a fool’s dress to underline his degradation. They deprive him of every intercourse with those towards who he may have an attachment and thus exclude the action of the only element which could have a good effect upon him.
Then he is put to labour, but not to a labour that might help to his moral improvement. Prison work is made to be an instrument of base revenge. What must the prisoner think of the intelligence of these “pillars of society” who pretend by such punishments to “reform” the prisoners?
In the French prisons the inmates are given some sort of useful and paid work. But even this work is paid at a ridiculously low scale, and, according to the prison authorities, it cannot be paid otherwise. Prison work, they say, is inferior slave work. The result is that the prisoner begins to hate his work, and finishes by saying, “The real thieves are not we, but those who keep us in.”
The prisoner’s brain is thus working over and over again upon the idea of the injustice of a society which pardons and often respects such swindlers as so many company promoters are, and wickedly punishes him, simply because he was not cunning enough. And the moment he is out he takes his revenge by some offense very often much graver than his first one. Revenge breeds revenge.
The revenge that was exercised upon him he exercises upon society. Every prison, because it is a prison, destroys the physical energy of its inmates. It acts upon them far worse than an Arctic wintering. The want of fresh air, the monotony of existence, especially the want of impressions, takes all energy out of the prisoner and produce that craving for stimulants (alcohol, coffee) which Miss Allen spoke so truthfully the other day at the Congress of the British Medical Association. And finally, while most antisocial acts can be traced to a weakness of will, the prison education is directed precisely towards killing every manifestation of will.
Worse than that. I seriously recommend to prison reformers the Prison Memoirs of Alexander Berkman, who was kept for fourteen years in an American jail and has told with great sincerity his experience. One will see from this book how every honest feeling must be suppressed by the prisoner, if he does not decide never to go out of this hell.
What can remain of a man’s will and good intentions after five or six years of such an education? And where can he go after his release, unless he returns to the very same chums whose company has brought him to the jail? They are the only ones who will receive him as an equal. But when he joins them he is sure to return to the prison in a very few months. And so he does. The jailers know it well.
I am often asked — What reforms of prison I should propose; but now, as twenty-five years ago, I really do not see how prisons could be reformed. They must be pulled down. I might say, or course: “Be less cruel, be more thoughtful of what you do.” But that would come to this: “Nominate a Pestalozzi as Governor in each prison, and sixty more Pestalozzis as warders,” which would be absurd. But nothing short of that would help.
So the only thing I could say to some quite well-intentioned Massachusetts prison officials who came once to ask my advice was this: If you cannot obtain the abolition of the prison system, then — never accept a child or a youth in your prison. If you do so, it is manslaughter. And then, after having learned by experience what prisons are, refuse to be jailers and never be tired to say that prevention of crime is the only proper way to combat it. Healthy municipal dwellings at cost price, education in the family and at school — of the parents as well as the children; the learning by every boy and girl of a trade; communal and professional co-operation; societies for all sorts of pursuits; and, above all, idealism developed in the youths the longing after what is lifting human nature to higher interests. This will achieve what punishment is absolutely incapable to do.

[ckaihatsu]

There would be democratic councils but these wont have top-down enforcement. If you disagree with the communes decision you wont be forced to adhere to it, you can leave the commune. Jails could exist according to me(most anarchists don't believe this though). Society would function how society decides to function, there is not some blue print on how to exactly organize an anarchist society. The main premise is that there are no rulers and no authority and everyone can decide for themselves what they do as long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights.

This is all an over-simplification of course, but it a short summary, i find it rather difficult to explain a huge idea without you asking specific questions :P


As much as I'm open-minded to the *strategy* (my terming) of anarchism -- meaning distributed, production-centric localist proletarian struggles against the ruling class -- I think more needs to be specified about the whole 'authority' aspect, in whatever timeframe, since the existence of 'jails' would inherently necessitate some sort of 'process' or 'policy' regarding people's freedoms in such a context.

If there are jails, then there *would* have to be top-down enforcement of some kind, otherwise the societal rules would simply *vary* -- perhaps greatly -- from one 'commune' to the next. (Maybe one commune would recognize 'personal property' as being whatever one can carry on their person, while other communes would allow for the use of locks to lock-up one's 'personal property' while they're elsewhere for the time being.) (Ditto for societal policy regarding 'money', or not, etc.)

A person who becomes jailed by whatever process could certainly validly complain that what they were doing (attempting to use certain means of mass industrial production versus others' attempts, perhaps) is *not* a crime in a neighboring commune just one mile away, and so they should at least just be released to that neighboring commune instead of continued to be jailed in *this*, different commune.

Really with any anarchist-type 'patchwork' approach, with communes, you just run into all of the problems of present-day nation-state diplomatic relations, just at a smaller scale and with more 'entities'. The problematics of finding lateral cohesion (inter-communal relations) from such a decentralized premise / beginning is more trouble than it's worth.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

As much as I'm open-minded to the *strategy* (my terming) of anarchism -- meaning distributed, production-centric localist proletarian struggles against the ruling class -- I think more needs to be specified about the whole 'authority' aspect, in whatever timeframe, since the existence of 'jails' would inherently necessitate some sort of 'process' or 'policy' regarding people's freedoms in such a context.

If there are jails, then there *would* have to be top-down enforcement of some kind, otherwise the societal rules would simply *vary* -- perhaps greatly -- from one 'commune' to the next. (Maybe one commune would recognize 'personal property' as being whatever one can carry on their person, while other communes would allow for the use of locks to lock-up one's 'personal property' while they're elsewhere for the time being.) (Ditto for societal policy regarding 'money', or not, etc.)

A person who becomes jailed by whatever process could certainly validly complain that what they were doing (attempting to use certain means of mass industrial production versus others' attempts, perhaps) is *not* a crime in a neighboring commune just one mile away, and so they should at least just be released to that neighboring commune instead of continued to be jailed in *this*, different commune.

Really with any anarchist-type 'patchwork' approach, with communes, you just run into all of the problems of present-day nation-state diplomatic relations, just at a smaller scale and with more 'entities'. The problematics of finding lateral cohesion (inter-communal relations) from such a decentralized premise / beginning is more trouble than it's worth. I don't mean to lock people up for things which are legal in other communes as with your lock or not lock issue. However if a person constantly physically attacks a commune, be it for insanity reasons or plain reactionary behavior, they should be able to be locked up. Exclusion is the best way but if someone keeps attacking you, you are allowed to defend yourself. However if said person says he wont come back, he can leave the prison any time he wants, unless he comes back to attack.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't mean to lock people up for things which are legal in other communes as with your lock or not lock issue. However if a person constantly physically attacks a commune, be it for insanity reasons or plain reactionary behavior, they should be able to be locked up. Exclusion is the best way but if someone keeps attacking you, you are allowed to defend yourself. However if said person says he wont come back, he can leave the prison any time he wants, unless he comes back to attack.


I guess I see this kind of scenario as a non-issue since the numbers themselves would be so decisive: One erratic person trying to take on an entire commune or more. It would be instantly socio-political and everyone would probably turn their attentions to what this person is trying to do, and the slightest proactive physical participation would certainly neutralize anything 'threat'-like about that person.

Undoubtedly jails wouldn't be required when people can just confront this person and collectively figure out the best way forward as the situation would indicate.

[(A)]

Veganman your not an anarchist if you support prisons and "Democratic institutions" that have the power to legally kidnap and detain people. It really is that simple. You cant "believe" in Anarchism and inequality.

CHris is right; Jails would be pointless; harmful and impossible in a socialist society. If my comrade was arrested by you, lets say and you locked him in a basement, I would have every right to free him from your confinement. Their is no law I have to obey that will ensure his imprisonment. You would essentially be declaring war on my comrades Allies and if someone wanted to free him they would have the same right to imprison you as you had to imprison them.

That being said if my comrade was a rapist I would not come to his aid; so his actions as a rapist would most likely eject him from his community and those willing to defend his freedom meaning that if you did lock him up somehow no one may come for him nor defend him.

Anarchist democracy is the will of the people expressed threw direct action and not political authority. You could lock someone up... but it would be a bad idea if you could avoid it if possible as you would be putting your life at risk.

Anarchism works based on the fact that everyone has the ability to decide their own actions. If everyone is free then no one is above "the law". That is to say all being equal meaning everyone is fully responsible for their actions. Do something to hurt others and other will hurt you back. Lock someone up and someone else my come looking to lock you up.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

@(A) and @chris, you are right, after reading in to this i have to agree with you. I did not read into it very well before. If you have any interesting reads for me, please link them.

[(A)]

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

[IbelieveInanarchy]

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index yeah... obviously read that index before, but thanks

[(A)]

Well you asked for some interesting reads :grin:.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Well you asked for some interesting reads :grin:. I have trouble with finding a good explanation of what would be done with a bourgeoisie who has proletarians working under him. If he builds some kind of guard and defends himself from outside workers, would it be wrong to kidnap him etc?

[willowtooth]

I have trouble with finding a good explanation of what would be done with a bourgeoisie who has proletarians working under him. If he builds some kind of guard and defends himself from outside workers, would it be wrong to kidnap him etc?
Isn't your plan was stand outside his property line and shout emma goldman quotes at him through a loudspeaker? :rolleyes:

I thought anarchists were still debating whether its right to kill him? Since when is arresting people a form of "state authoritarianism" but murdering them is not? More to the point, what if the bourgeoisie keep slaves, or keep decide to torture people in their basement for fun? who's going to stop them? who's going to punish them afterwards?

forget kidnapping/arresting people whats to stop me from eating people?

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Isn't your plan was stand outside his property line and shout emma goldman quotes at him through a loudspeaker? :rolleyes:

I thought anarchists were still debating whether its right to kill him? Since when is arresting people a form of "state authoritarianism" but murdering them is not? More to the point, what if the bourgeoisie keep slaves, or keep decide to torture people in their basement for fun? who's going to stop them? who's going to punish them afterwards?

forget kidnapping/arresting people whats to stop me from eating people? Of course emma goldman quotes are very interesting so it might work. But like in any communist society there would be great unity in thought of how to deal with eachother, its not like we build an anarchist society overnight. There would be common consciousness of how to build a truly fair society and it will be in the common interest to defend against pathological minds who want to eat people. I think/wish to think that people would act together to build/maintain a great society.

[ckaihatsu]

I have trouble with finding a good explanation of what would be done with a bourgeoisie who has proletarians working under him. If he builds some kind of guard and defends himself from outside workers, would it be wrong to kidnap him etc?


I myself tend to think of it in terms of *numbers* -- for example look at the numbers of protestors this weekend in various U.S. cities (and even worldwide) against the Trump presidency and agenda.

In any given situation if there are 'holdouts' of reaction those can be handled with divide-and-conquer -- the trickier part is when the political forces roughly break-even in the streets (a situation from history, but not likely in contemporary times due to the mass proletarianization of the world in recent decades).

To your point, I don't think the deciding factor would be a *physical-force* one (kidnapping, etc.) as much as it would be a *mass movement* one with a revolutionary program. The point of revolution is to *supersede* commodity production, so as long as that could be done without reactionary interference the revolution could move forward and expand to more areas. (Someone barricading themselves away from broader society would be self-jailing themselves, effectively.)

[(A)]

Since when is arresting people a form of "state authoritarianism" but murdering them is not?

Arresting people is a >"legitimate"< form of state violence. If a cop arrests you for kidnapping someone they themselves are thought not to be kidnapping you even thow they commit the same act of confinement threw violence.

Its the fact that they are allowed to break the rules that we are not; they are "the law" and we are not. This is a Anti-social management created only a few hundred years ago specifically to protect capital and enforce slavery. You CAN NOT have cops in a socialist society as cops are not equal to the citizens they have power over; so a society without equality. It is an institution that is wholly capitalist and authoritarian.

In the case of revolutionary's, individual and organized violence is a form of self defense against systemic violence.
I.E. killing fascists is self-defense because fascists initiate the violence threw their ideology's.
Killing capitalists is self-defense against the owners who wage class warfare on the workers; using the violence of the state to uphold their private authority.

There is a clear difference between the state and its agents being above the law and permitted to use violence (a hierarchical society and wholly anti-communist)
and the violent actions of the oppressed vs the oppressor.

Authority = inequality.
Political based "socialism" = anti-communism.

Communism is classless so political authority (the monopoly on violence) is Anti-communist as political authority creates social inequality (class).

A communist society is Anarchy.
"The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!"