Anarchism and Violence

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Don't you think that anarchism, a movement allegedly opposed to coercion, would oppose any kind of violence? Violence is the use of force to get what you want, so wouldn't it make sense that the use of violence would be in conflict with the core ideals of anarchism. Anarchists cannot oppose the state because it uses coercion, but then turn around and use coercion to get what they want. It can't work that way. If you want a society without violence you can't use violence to get there, if you want a society without hatred, you cannot use hatred to get you there.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate [email protected] 21 2004, 07:50 PM
Don't you think that anarchism, a movement allegedly opposed to coercion, would oppose any kind of violence?
On face value, possibly. There are many anarchists who oppose violence.


Violence is the use of force to get what you want, so wouldn't it make sense that the use of violence would be in conflict with the core ideals of anarchism.

Violence can be used to force your will on someone, but it doesn't define violence as a concept. Violence is the act of violating, damaging or abusing. This comes in many forms.

Anarchism does not advocate forcing, violently anyone, to accept anything. Class struggle anarchists see the creation of an anarchist society possible only through adopting violent methods at some point in order to defend ourselves.

The act of defence can be defined as violent, and when the working class confront the ruling class and call for justifiable, and admittedly, fundamental changes they will employ violence to enforce us to accept their authority. Using violence then to defend ourselves is not contradictory at all.


Anarchists cannot oppose the state because it uses coercion, but then turn around and use coercion to get what they want.

When you say anarchists what do you mean?

Anarchists as a collective of people are not actually trying to coerce anyone to do anything. We are trying to spread class struggle ideals among working class people. Do you think those ideals are unjustified?


If you want a society without violence you can't use violence to get there

Then what is your answer when they come with guns and tanks to kill us. Do we defend ourselves or do we go home?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Violence in our case is self-defense, because we are exploited, killed, tortured. I have no problem using violence when needed to dispose the exploiters and leaders. I am not stuck to dogmatic pacifistic bullshit. I will use violence when it's needed and effective.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Counter-Corporate Jujitsu
If you want a society without violence you can't use violence to get there, if you want a society without hatred, you cannot use hatred to get you there.

Possibly true, but so what?

Both in the present order and in any conceivable human society there are and will be things worthy of hatred and that deserve a violent response.

I think it's quite foolish to assume that post-capitalist society will be "heaven" and the humans living in it "angels".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

Damn you all.

Yea, I've read a bit more on this. I've come to the conclusion that violence should be used in self-defense, but self-defense doesn't cover living in a capitalist society. I oppose assasinations, street violence against random people and places, etc. That's plain stupid and just makes anarchism look bad. If, however, the police try to beat the living fuck out of you, then you have every right to try to beat the shit out of them, and if you have friends, well, the more the merrier.

I just think that if you can achieve something nonviolently then you should achieve it nonviolently. There's not sense in going around taking lives if you don't have to. It also makes you look really, really bad. That's not good.

Anyway, cheers.

PS
Sorry if I sound like I'm standing on a soapbox.

[Colombia]

Can you define self-defense? If a capitalist society is beginning to reappear in the world would it be right to use violence for the defense of anarchism

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 08:30 PM
If a capitalist society is beginning to reappear in the world would it be right to use violence for the defense of anarchism
I think there would be some justification for it at least. Capitalism is a system which creates oppression and exploitation. Should we allow that to take over a system which creates freedom and co-operation.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Anyway this is a good little thingie. One of the last chapters of Alexanders Berkman's: Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism

On anarchism and violence.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi.../whatis_31.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_31.html)

An extract:

"Anarchism is opposed to any interference with your liberty, be it by force and violence or by any other means. It is against all invasion and compulsion. But if any one attacks you, then it is he who is invading you, he who is employing violence against you. You have a right co-defend yourself. More than that, it is your duty, as an Anarchist, to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion. Otherwise you are a slave, not a free man. In ocher words, the social revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself against invasion from any quarter."

[Counter-Corporate Jujitsu]

I am in full concurrance with the preceeding quote.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Exactly!
As to application of the aforementioned quote, I think it's a question of specific situations. Rather than establishing dogmas to govern the use of violence, we ought to recognise the uniqueness of sets of conditions.
Or, in other words, let's quit worrying about "violence" in a grand sense and start looking at individual events.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Yes I read something this week along the lines of:

"We must lead us by our goals and not by our tools, violence is merely a tool". I agree with this. My point was that we should use violence when it's needed and efficient, not that we should start to throw bombs now or something :lol:

[DEPAVER]

It seems the question we always ask ourselves is how we get from here to there, from our present coercive, capitalist, hierarchical society to a society that maximizes freedom, democracy, free association and mutual aid?

I will also add that such a society should be a peaceful society, internally and externally, in that lack of coercion would also extend to others outside the society.

There are basically two ways: either we turn our backs on the existing society and build our own in our preferred image; or we overthrow the existing society and replace it with our own.

One of my favorite authors, Edward Abbey dealt with just this question in his Masters thesis while at the University of New Mexico. "Does the 'critical situation,' that is, the threat of violence from the existing state in defense of its rule over the people, justify violence on the part of anarchists in order to overthrow the state? Abbey concluded that none of the writers of classic anarchist theory presented evidence that justified the use of violence in the overthrow of the state.

The use of violence to counter the violence of the state has two results: it necessitates the concentration of power necessary to bring overwhelming coercive force against the state; and overthrowing the state leaves the complex centralized state bureaucracy (the government) in place and functioning, providing an opportunity for those who seek positions of power to step into place and exercise coercive power over the winners of the revolution. Those who seek this power may or not be members of the anarchist society. (this is what happened to the Russian revolution).

If we decide to adopt the strategy of turning our backs on the state and building our own society based on decentralized, locally controlled free association and mutual aid, we disperse the power previously concentrated by the state among the people, we withdraw that power and support from the central state and we do not directly confront the power and authority of the state, thereby alarming its defense mechanisms.

Our long-term strategy is to build our ideal society from the ground up, from the local to the regional, dispersing power among ourselves so there is no avenue for the concentration of power, never confronting the state face-to-face, never poking it with a stick and arousing its suspicion. As our community of communities grows, we draw off power from the state, at the same time that the inherent contradictions of capitalism, the unsustainable nature of industrial capitalist growth and the growing irrelevancy of the corporate dominated central government weakens the state from within. The coming crisis of energy production (see my post in politics about energy resource wars) will also place a great economic strain on the state which will be compensated for by strengthening the economic system of the growing anarchy.

It will undoubtedly be necessary to counter violent oppression from the state from time to time. This may not always require a violent response; in fact we should resist any form of violent response as much as possible, as this legitimizes the use of violence by the state, as we have seen at antiglobalization protests. Particularly toward the end of the process, when supporters of the state are most desperate to maintain control, violent oppression by the state may necessitate a violent response in self-defense.

Nothing in anarchist theory rules out the use of force in self-defense, but it must always be an ad-hoc response, only as strong as necessary and immediately disbanded when the task of defense is accomplished.

The use of force, even in self-defense is a risky undertaking. Once the necessary concentration of power is accomplished and shown effective, it is very difficult to disband. This must be thoroughly examined and planned by all members of the society at all levels of society before such an action is attempted. It may be considered better to use non-cooperation and civil disobedience rather than resort to a concentrated military response.

[YKTMX]

The problem with some (not all) Anarchism is that it does seem to put forward violent action against the state as a principle in of itself. We can see from history (for instance the Red Brigades) that this tactic merely isolates the masses and is detremental to the struggle. It is also part of a wider "autonomous" section of anarchism which says that individual actions or the actions of small "blocs" can awaken or "make up for" the supposed indolence of the masses.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:01 AM
The problem with some (not all) Anarchism is that it does seem to put forward violent action against the state as a principle in of itself.
Well of course.


We can see from history (for instance the Red Brigades) that this tactic merely isolates the masses and is detremental to the struggle.

This opinion is nothing new is it. Authotarians consistently argue that without the state the masses will become isolated, broken, disorganised and that the revolution will be lost.



It is also part of a wider "autonomous" section of anarchism which says that individual actions or the actions of small "blocs" can awaken or "make up for" the supposed indolence of the masses.

It's at least possible. It hasn't necessarily worked out that way, but I also think active resisteance to domination is important whether it is an individual and group of individuals or the mass of workers.

[YKTMX]

This opinion is nothing new is it. Authotarians consistently argue that without the state the masses will become isolated, broken, disorganised and that the revolution will be lost.


Wait a minute. I obviously want to smash the capitalist state, but it's a question of tactics and agency (who it does it).


It's at least possible.

No, it isn't. If you look at Italy and say, the assasination of Aldo Moro. Before his death Moro was widely despised in Italy. After the RB offed him, this reactionery oaf becomes a "hero" and the communists are attacked for their "random violence". If WE instigate the violence, the bouregeiosie will always use it against us, especially now with the vast mass media. What we're trying to do is alert people to the DAILY use of violence by the ruling class. This simply doesn't help.


but I also think active resisteance to domination is important whether it is an individual and group of individuals or the mass of workers.

It has to the mass of workers, anything else is pointless and detrimental.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:20 PM
I obviously want to smash the capitalist state, but it's a question of tactics and agency (who it does it).
We are all aware of that. It's selecting the correct tactics however which seems to cause the problems.


If WE instigate the violence, the bouregeiosie will always use it against us,

But the bourgeoisie have already instigated violence against the working class and the perpetuate it every single day. Class war exists now.

And whether we play by their rules or not they will always make us look mad.


What we're trying to do is alert people to the DAILY use of violence by the ruling class. This simply doesn't help.

Direct action and resisting the state and capitalism are alerts to people of the daily use of violence.



It has to the mass of workers, anything else is pointless and detrimental.

The fight against capitalism and the state is a daily battle. What you're suggesting is that those members of the working class who are conscious of their struggle should wait to resist their exploitation and oppresison until everyone has cought up with them. Or at least resist it through "legal" ways.

The working class will understand the situation when they want to. Not when you force them to, and no bourgeois justification can change that fact. You can agitate and you can spread your ideas but ultimatly When people want change they will demand it. Until then, acts of resistence should be encouraged.

[Dyst]

Violence is violence. If the violence is used to stop oppression, then maybe. But let's not forget that the "state" is to many degrees the actual society itself, and for example the US, the state can't really be held responsible (other than that it often takes sides with corporations,) while multinational corporations exploit workers worldvide for products which are sold to the american people. If anarchism denies this in any way and tries to claim that the state is the biggest enemy, then it is the anarchists who have sided with capitalism (exploitation) and is a true enemy of mine and many of my comrades.

There are too many narrow minded anarchists out there for me to take them, as a group, very seriously.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:16 PM
If the violence is used to stop oppression, then maybe. But let's not forget that the "state" is to many degrees the actual society itself, and for example the US, the state can't really be held responsible (other than that it often takes sides with corporations,) while multinational corporations exploit workers worldvide for products which are sold to the american people.
What does this mean?


If anarchism denies this in any way and tries to claim that the state is the biggest enemy, then it is the anarchists who have sided with capitalism (exploitation) and is a true enemy of mine and many of my comrades.

How is anarchism and what you rambled connected? And who are your comrades?


There are too many narrow minded anarchists out there for me to take them, as a group, very seriously.

What do you mean by narrow minded?

[captain donald]

I think it will be a new idea you will have to defend against rather than capitalism. If anarchy is successful, people will look at capitalism like the feudal age, and eventually create a newer more to the left government, and stretch the scales. So, you would be fighting a new generation of you. Hmmm?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Suppose, we manage to succesfully introduce and sustain anarchism, then yes, the new generations will advance society further and maybe I will be the conservative by then. It's pretty much logical.

Sidenote: There is no government in anarchism. Read this www.wikipedia.org/anarchism (http://www.wikipedia.org/anarchism)

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:16 AM

There are too many narrow minded anarchists out there for me to take them, as a group, very seriously.
There are no "groups" in anarchism. Anarchism is decentralized with no leaders, official organization, etc.

Anarchism is what you and I do every day in our communities to promote democracy and freedom.

I will agree that there are many people calling themselves "anarchists" that are somewhat narrow minded. There are quite a few that don't even really understand anarchism.

In all of my years of study and discussing political and social theory, anarchism (second to Marxism) may be the most misunderstood term I've encountered.

[The Feral Underclass]

*Puts on his dogmatist hat*


Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:54 AM
There are no "groups" in anarchism.
Then what do you call the International of Anarchist Federations and the International Workers Association? What do you call the Spanish revolution?


Anarchism is...no...official organization

According to whose anarchism?


Anarchism is what you and I do every day in our communities to promote democracy and freedom.

In connection with what?


I will agree that there are many people calling themselves "anarchists" that are somewhat narrow minded.

Would you like to explain yourself?


In all of my years of study and discussing political and social theory, anarchism (second to Marxism) may be the most misunderstood term I've encountered.

And you're doing well to contribute to that misunderstanding.

Anarchism is based in class struggle, any individualist/primitavist deviation is just that. A deviation.

[Dyst]

The mere thought of suggesting anarchists for some reason cannot be determined as a group is foolish! We should know that at least by this date (in this society) all people who share something in common can be labeled as a group... Trying to deny that, that is what I mean with narrow mindedness amongst anarchists.

Also, I think anarchism has become some kind of popular event (if not it is today, it once has been) and that, of course, means that capitalism isn't harmed by it. At least not the growing "right-wing anarchist" thing that is going on. That is the narrow minded ones I am talking about, and there are so many of them it is scary.

[DEPAVER]

Then what do you call the International of Anarchist Federations and the International Workers Association? What do you call the Spanish revolution?

Anarchism is essentially the same as democracy. Anarchism is a philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to eliminate all forms of coercion and oppression. Federations are based on the same anarchist principles as locals, functioning with delegates from collectives or communities. They are a result of anarchism.

"Official political groups" with hierarchies are actually antithetical to anarchism; however, people simply organizing themselves for the purpose of trade, commerce, etc. is healthy and encouraged. But I don't have to be a member of any Federation or group to develop anarchism in my own community.

In other words, no official organization is necessary. There's no need for the official anarchist ID card or "anarchist" party. Anarchism is what we do every day in our communities to foster democracy, participation and mutual aid.



According to whose anarchism?

Well mine, and about twenty-five or so of my collegues that teach political science, anthropology and sociology, along with some well known authors.

Edward Abbey accepted the technical definition of anarchy as the absence of the state, but he emphasized decentralization as the process of achieving this end. Rather than chopping off the head (the state), he saw the process as growing myriad heads until everyone has one, this dissolving the power of the state amongst all the people.

I feel it's very necessary to counter teaching that equates anarchism with Black Bloc activities, anti-globalization protests, huge puppets, teddy bears launched over fences, and, of course, inevitably, smashed windows, burning cars and violent police response.

This is what Murray Bookchin refers to as the difference between lifestyle anarchism and social anarchism. Lifestyle anarchism is the in-your-face black-clad anti-everything Goth radical, usually associated with punk music and an overabundance of personality. It is an inward directed emotional drive, all about youthful angst, alienation and, most of all, anger. Lifestyle anarchism is about "freedom from."

Social anarchism is a genuine attempt to find an alternative form of social organization that offers maximum freedom, decentralization in politics and economy, local self-autonomy, free association and mutual aid. Social anarchism is "freedom to."

Unfortunately, the activities of the lifestyle anarchists at anti-globalization protests have caught the eye of the media, who refer to them as "self-proclaimed" anarchists for some obscure reason, I suppose to minimize their importance in the eyes of the "self-proclaimed" journalists. This has been the case since the turn of the 20th Century, when anarchists were characterized as bomb-throwing zealots, with unkempt hair and wild, staring eyes. They were, by media definition, of course, self-proclaimed.

In some ways, this serves the ends of those of us who seek a more [i developmental approach to anarchism[/i], through encouraging local self-autonomy, grass roots political organization and mutual aid. We don'teven have to call our philosophy anarchism if we don't want to; social democracy would do just as well, even simple democracy if one is careful to distinguish true democracy from the representative republicanism of the United States. While the attention of the state and its media lap dogs is focused on the antics of the teddy-ear launchers and papier-maché sculptors, we can continue our task relatively free from state oppression and manipulation.

It is a much longer road than that envisioned by the "smash the state" crowd. Making the state irrelevant is a much more subtle process that requires generational commitment and a higher level of political and economic awareness. Nevertheless, the education process itself is beneficial in that the more the citizens become aware of the political realities of the world, the better off we'll be anyway. Even if we never achieve a truly anarchist society, we may indeed muddle into something more equitable in the process.


In connection with what?

I don't understand your question.


Would you like to explain yourself?

The answer to this question is written above.


And you're doing well to contribute to that misunderstanding.

No, I'm teaching a view that makes sense.


Anarchism is based in class struggle, any individualist/primitavist deviation is just that. A deviation.

Who is talking about individualists and primitavists? Not me. You must have me confused with someone else, because my views are all about building within existing communities.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:36 AM
The mere thought of suggesting anarchists for some reason cannot be determined as a group is foolish! We should know that at least by this date (in this society) all people who share something in common can be labeled as a group... Trying to deny that, that is what I mean with narrow mindedness amongst anarchists.


You've missed my point.

You can label people as "anarchists" and place them into whatever socio-political group you wish; however, it is not necessary to have "official anarchist organizations."

It's unnecessary.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:17 PM
But I don't have to be a member of any Federation or group to develop anarchism in my own community.
Interesting concept, one that I can agree with.


But I don't have to be a member of any Federation or group to develop anarchism in my own community.

The point of anarchism as a political and economic science has always been about destroying capitalism, the state and forms of domination which go with it. Working within an organised group of people helps to achieve that goal.

Working individually within the confines of capitalism can't achieve it's destruction. I agree with direct action methods of taking matters of your community into your own hands and building a network of defiance and co-operation; the ending of all forms of dominance will only come through the destruction of capitalism and the state. You cannot achieve that if you are not organised into a mass movement.


Rather than chopping off the head (the state), he saw the process as growing myriad heads until everyone has one, this dissolving the power of the state amongst all the people.

Dissolving them how? Some mystical happening or a kind of hand over the key ceremony?

It's all a very noble idea, but is it realistic? Using words like "dissolving" and "myriad" are all pretty nice but in the realm of the material existence of power and force, do you honestly believe that those in control will allow you to dissolve that power they hold.



I feel it's very necessary to counter teaching that equates anarchism with Black Bloc activities, anti-globalization protests, huge puppets, teddy bears launched over fences, and, of course, inevitably, smashed windows, burning cars and violent police response.

Those are relevant acts of defiance but no one is claiming that this is what anarchism is.

There are many layers to achieving an anarchist society and the ones you are proposing are acceptable ones, but they are not the only form of defiance and they will not alone change society. Actually resisting, violently if necessary, the violence of the state and capitalism is also important.


This is what Murray Bookchin refers to as the difference between lifestyle anarchism and social anarchism. Lifestyle anarchism is the in-your-face black-clad anti-everything Goth radical, usually associated with punk music and an overabundance of personality. It is an inward directed emotional drive, all about youthful angst, alienation and, most of all, anger. Lifestyle anarchism is about "freedom from."

The perpetual arrogance of individualist anarchists!

You have generalised an entire group of the anarchist movement based on capitalist generalisations. Some kids smash McDonalds windows? So what?! Your people get angry and that's legitmate


I don't understand your question

You said "Anarchism is what you and I do every day in our communities to promote democracy and freedom but that is as vague as saying "i love."

Yes, democracy and freedom are what we want, but why do we want them? Why don't we have them now?

Anarchism is often accused of being idealistic and "wishy-washy"; it is for this precise, vague and naive reason. There is more to achieving anarchism than promoting democracy and freedom.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:17 PM
Anarchism is essentially the same as democracy.

Decentralised democracy. I think it is essential to emphasise that. It isn't really anarchy if half of the world can dictate on the rest of the world's doings that don't affect them at all.

[DEPAVER]

The point of anarchism as a political and economic science has always been about destroying capitalism, the state and forms of domination which go with it. Working within an organised group of people helps to achieve that goal.

I agree that social organization is important; however, I respectfully disagree with your assertion about economics. Anarchism is not about economics. In fact, I believe we can have the simple capitalism of the independend shop owner, baker and artisan in an anarchistic community.

Anarchism isn't about destroying capitalism. Anarchism doesn't mean no rules; it means no rulers.


Dissolving them how? Some mystical happening or a kind of hand over the key ceremony?

No, not quite. It's more like making the government irrelevant by people in their communities constructing their own independent communities without government aid.

Let's look at the characteristics we wish to change.

Competitiveness: Be cooperative. Stop working in a competitive job. Do work that nurtures cooperation.

Hierarchy: Find meaningful work in a cooperative, community workplace. If you can't find it, create it. Support local self-reliance, local self-government, local autonomy. Support unions and cooperatives. Engage in consensus decision making.

Greed: Simplify. Discover the joy and freedom of making less money. Quit your job and find meaningful work.

Individualism: Join your local neighborhood association, or go door to door and start one. Engage in conversation with your neighbors. Work to find mutual solutions to local problems.

Consumerism: Learn the joy and freedom of owning less. Buy at thrift stores, used book stores, garage sales. Cherish what works well.

In this way we don't waste our energy opposing the existing system. We pour our energy into the change as we turn our backs on the system that drains so much energy from us. We release that energy into the creative process of change. We build the new as the old withers and dies.




There are many layers to achieving an anarchist society and the ones you are proposing are acceptable ones, but they are not the only form of defiance and they will not alone change society.

We all choose our own paths, right or wrong. Hell, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.


Actually resisting, violently if necessary, the violence of the state and capitalism is also important.

I suppose there may be some instances where violence is necessary, but I find those instances to be few and far between.


The perpetual arrogance of individualist anarchists!

You have generalised an entire group of the anarchist movement based on capitalist generalisations. Some kids smash McDonalds windows? So what?! Your people get angry and that's legitmate

I would encourage you to refrain from ad hominem attacks. There's nothing arrogant whatsoever about people deciding to inact and live their own interpretation of anarchism, provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Anarchists that use violence give the entire philosophy a bad name. At least in my opinion.


You said "Anarchism is what you and I do every day in our communities to promote democracy and freedom but that is as vague as saying "i love."

I disagree. Theory is vague. What I actually do everyday is not vague. Building community gardens, participating in meetings that involve issues in my community, encouraging citizen participation, etc.


Anarchism is often accused of being idealistic and "wishy-washy"; it is for this precise, vague and naive reason. There is more to achieving anarchism than promoting democracy and freedom.

It's not vague at all! In fact , it is the only form of social organization that can exist in a post-fossil fuel human world. A thousand years from now, all humans will live in some form of anarchic organization.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A quick sumary of my thoughts on revolutionary violence and its legitimacy:

As far as I'm concerned, revolution gains its legitimacy in its non-violence. That is, the tasks of a revolution are in complete oposition to the daily functionings of existing murderous systems; collectivization, direct worker control, etc. can all be established without violence of any sort. Violence evolves out of the inevitable reaction to revolution by conservative and counter-revolutionary forces. That is, revolutionary violence can almost constantly be justified in the context of self-defense - a necessary and legitimate response to violence directed against revolutionaries/the working class/etc. by old powers.

(Or, in other words, revolution is only violent if somebody tries to stop it, as contrasted with existing structures which are intensely and inherently violent.)

[KukkiKilla]

Violence is always a necessity in any given movement. Whether or not this is the destrution of people, property, or systems, or the threat of such actions, when you don't have force, you have no legs to stand on.

[apathy maybe]

Myn own humble opinion is that violence against others, except in self-defence (and certain other cases, group defence, do you stand by and watch someone beat up another?) is not acceptable. In less words, violence initiated by you, is unacceptable.

That is violence against others. Violence against property is different, but there is no hard and fast rule.

As to how we move to a post-capitalist society. Either way, building up small communities, or building up large organisations, which one has worked so far? It seems to me that a combination of these is the preferred option. Highly decentralised organisations based at a community level. We have the means of communication and coordination.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

More random, ill-articulated thoughts:

I agree with you, largely, Apathy Maybe, but, we may have different understandings of self-defence. I'm not opposed to say, defending oneself and one's class by, for example, ambusing police or blowing up a munitions depot* - or otherwise attacking the means by which violence is systematicly carried out.


*When it tactically makes sense! I am not encouraging anyone to go out and jump a cop, because it would probably just land them in jail. The same applies to all 'round - even if we've resolved ourselves to violence as a sort of proactive class-defense, it doesn't mean it's always useful.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 16 2005, 10:23 PM
In less words, violence initiated by you, is unacceptable.

That is violence against others. Violence against property is different, but there is no hard and fast rule.

As to how we move to a post-capitalist society. Either way, building up small communities, or building up large organisations, which one has worked so far? It seems to me that a combination of these is the preferred option. Highly decentralised organisations based at a community level. We have the means of communication and coordination.
I agree with these statements wholeheartedly.

I often quote Edward Abbey, the author of the book Monkey Wrench Gang. Ed always distinguished violence toward humans and machines as terrorism and sabotage, respectively.

Any action that threatens the lives of humans or non-humans (don't forget our voiceless neighbors) is unacceptable.

The revolution is now. It is alive in local, autonomous, freely associating groups today. In Santa Cruz, in Moab, in Memphis, in the UK....it's growing everywhere. I've always thought about 10% or less of the citizenry in the United States really had a clue about what was going on, and 1% or less of that number are actually doing something about it.

But don't grow discouraged. You can only control your own life and your own actions. Don't worry about what everyone else is doing. Just be the change you wish to see in the world and watch it grow. How?

People will ask you why you ride your bike to buy groceries. Why you grow and how you grow your own food. Why you don't use credit cards or work in a competitive job. Why you refuse to accept the current, common meme in society. When they do, be prepared to intelligently tell them about your lifestyle choices.

I have a decent income, but don't buy new cars, for example. People ask me why and they always agree with my explanation. I think they really listen! They ask me why I read the books that I read, why I don't go to church, etc.

Be the change and start building anarchistic relationships in your community TODAY. Community gardens, neighborhood associations, childcare and reading groups, a bike cooperative, a food cooperative, an employee owned restaurant....if there's something needed in your community that isn't there, create it!

Everything we really need can be created/produced within our local communities: food, water, education, transportation, healthcare, clothing. Internet.....and all of these things can be produced and distributed by employee owned companies and cooperatives. There's no need to buy them from a corporation, except perhaps the need for an Internet co-op to buy it's major access pipe from the incumbent, local carrier. Start a computer cooperative that buys, refurbishes and sells used computer equipment, or start a non-profit educational organization and apply for grants and computers via donations!

All is possible, and we can do these things without giving the federal government a second thought.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:08 PM
Anarchism is not about economics.
Anarchism has always been about economics.

The assertion that anarchism has nothing to do with economics is only highlighting your deviation. It is your anarchism which has nothing to do with economics. The Anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Rocker had very much to do with economics. In fact, their entire struggle was based on it.


In fact, I believe we can have the simple capitalism of the independent shop owner, baker and artisan in an anarchistic community.

What aspects of capitalism do you want to keep? How simple can you make capitalism?


Anarchism isn't about destroying capitalism. Anarchism doesn't mean no rules; it means no rulers.

How are these things connected?


No, not quite. It's more like making the government irrelevant by people in their communities constructing their own independent communities without government aid.

The "governments" and the entire system in society depends on our participation. At the moment most people believe they are doing it voluntarily and so we have a veneer of democracy and freedom, but as soon as people refuse to participate they will use force.

You cannot make "governments" irrelevant unless you get rid of them, and you cannot get rid of them by ignoring them. They won't let you.


Competitiveness: Be cooperative. Stop working in a competitive job. Do work that nurtures cooperation.

How exactly do you want to do this?

Working class people depend on their jobs to survive. Simply giving it up and looking for a new job that encompasses all these things requires first of all, confidence, providing that they have no family, mortgage or debts to pay.

It then requires time and energy, they no longer have a job remember, so will depend on government support, to find this job that offers all these things. What about those people who do have families with children to support?


Hierarchy: Find meaningful work in a cooperative, community workplace.

The problem with this gem is the small and annoying fact of doing it! How can you expect everyone to do this?


If you can't find it, create it.

More idealist fantasticism.

Who are you trying to help create a society for? Those who can afford it? Those who have been afforded a decent education which teaches confidence and motivation?

Those things don't exist among the working class. It's absurd to expect people to suddenly just give up their lives and create co-operative work spaces which are capable of generating sustenance for their families.

Even the process of doing something like this is amazing! Me and my friends are looking into starting a housing co-op. We are lucky, rebellious and come from decent families. We have the luxury of not caring, but even for us the process of registering a limited name, getting loan stock etc is a long and tedious one.

If you have neither the money nor the confidence how can you just "create it"?


Greed: Simplify. Discover the joy and freedom of making less money. Quit your job and find meaningful work.

This maybe very useful for the individual who is taking the time to think about it, but the mass of oppressed and exploited human beings are not afforded that luxury.

You need to put these random, vague and unconnected ideas into perspective. They are only that, an idea. A concept founded in the expanse of your mind and not reality.


Individualism: Join your local neighborhood association, or go door to door and start one. Engage in conversation with your neighbors. Work to find mutual solutions to local problems.

This can be encouraged, but only through formal, organised groups. The promotion of these things needs focus and planning, otherwise the idea becomes meaningless.


We pour our energy into the change as we turn our backs on the system that drains so much energy from us

It isn't quite as simple as words and thoughts. You have to actually do it, and that isn't realistic on a mass scale; ultimately where can it lead? Realistically?


We build the new as the old withers and dies.

But it won't just "wither and die"; it will grip hold as tight as possible and will make damn sure that if - "it" dies - "we" go with it. It will fight and struggle and convulse with all its might.


Anarchists that use violence give the entire philosophy a bad name. At least in my opinion.

But the philosophy has always been rooted in the realisation that violence is [unfortunately] going to be necessary.



What I actually do everyday is not vague. Building community gardens, participating in meetings that involve issues in my community, encouraging citizen participation, etc.

It will achieve nothing but pretty gardens.



It's not vague at all!

Building gardens? Encouraging workers to give up their jobs without a realistic alternative? Talking about democracy and freedom without definition or understanding? Opposing resistance of capitalism?

Achieving an anarchist society requires destroying capitalism and smashing the state. Those phrases may jingle and jangle and upset your sensitive ideals and precious sensibilities, but that's just tuff luck. You will have to get use to it eventually.

[DEPAVER]

Anarchism has always been about economics.

No. Socialism is an economic system. Anarchism is not.
You could have an "anarchistic" village with small scale capitalism or socialism. Or, a combination of the two.

Substitute anarchism with the word "democracy." Democracy isn't an economic system any more than anarchism is an economic system.


The assertion that anarchism has nothing to do with economics is only highlighting your deviation. It is your anarchism which has nothing to do with economics. The Anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Rocker had very much to do with economics. In fact, their entire struggle was based on it.

Economics are part of all systems of social organization; however, anarchism is not a system of economics.


What aspects of capitalism do you want to keep? How simple can you make capitalism?

What's wrong with a villager who opens up a bakery or a shop that makes furniture? Shouldn't he be free to produce a product and sell or barter that product fairly?


How are these things connected?

I never said they were "connected;" however, they are related.


The "governments" and the entire system in society depends on our participation.

Then quit participating!


At the moment most people believe they are doing it voluntarily and so we have a veneer of democracy and freedom, but as soon as people refuse to participate they will use force.

Force to do what? Force me to vote? Force me to have a Visa card or buy a car?
What exactly is the government forcing me to do?


You cannot make "governments" irrelevant unless you get rid of them, and you cannot get rid of them by ignoring them. They won't let you.

No, not in my life time, but great movements start with one and grow.


How exactly do you want to do this?

Don't work for corporations that exploit others. There's a place to start. Work for employee owned companies, cooperatives or start your own company. That's what I did. I have a family to support.



The problem with this gem is the small and annoying fact of doing it! How can you expect everyone to do this?

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I only expect things of myself, and I am doing it!


More idealist fantasticism.

Nice diction, but I've already given one example to show it's not fantasticism.


Who are you trying to help create a society for?

Myself.


Those who can afford it? Those who have been afforded a decent education which teaches confidence and motivation?

Good education is only available to those that can afford it? Says who?
I was raised in the ghetto of North Memphis and managed to get a good education.


Those things don't exist among the working class.

Sorry, but I know people that have accomplished such things.


It's absurd to expect people to suddenly just give up their lives and create co-operative work spaces which are capable of generating sustenance for their families

No. Once again, I did it. What does "give up your life" mean?


Even the process of doing something like this is amazing! Me and my friends are looking into starting a housing co-op. We are lucky, rebellious and come from decent families. We have the luxury of not caring, but even for us the process of registering a limited name, getting loan stock etc is a long and tedious one.

Start something were capital is more available and easy to sell to potential lenders? Start something different or simply consider working for a firm that espouses the same values as you.

I'm 42 years old and have lived what you are attempting to live.


If you have neither the money nor the confidence how can you just "create it"?


Not all people are leaders. Not all people are confident, but they can still find work in a community workplace that nurtures coooperation and equality. What about the public radio station? What about teaching?



You need to put these random, vague and unconnected ideas into perspective. They are only that, an idea. A concept founded in the expanse of your mind and not reality.

Again, I'm 42 years old and find it odd that someone as young as you apparently are is telling me to put my "vague ideas" into perspective!
They're not vague...I'm living them and so are many of my friends in Santa Cruz and in the UK.

I can't respond to the rest of this...not enough time.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 02:28 AM
Socialism is an economic system. Anarchism is not.
You could have an "anarchistic" village with small scale capitalism or socialism. Or, a combination of the two.

Substitute anarchism with the word "democracy." Democracy isn't an economic system any more than anarchism is an economic system.

Economics are part of all systems of social organization; however, anarchism is not a system of economics.

Anarchism is not a system of anything. It is a movement that seeks to establish anarchy. Historically the movement has been opposed to capitalist economics, and in the majority of anarchists' minds anarchy would be a type of communism, which again is partly an economical theory.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No. Socialism is an economic system. Anarchism is not.
You could have an "anarchistic" village with small scale capitalism or socialism. Or, a combination of the two.

Substitute anarchism with the word "democracy." Democracy isn't an economic system any more than anarchism is an economic system.

On the contrary, anarchism is an assault on heirarchal and coercive domination of all sorts, in shperes political, sexual, economic, and so forth. As such, anarchism addresses economic questions explicitly - and in particular, opposes capitalism due to its inherently coercive nature.


Economics are part of all systems of social organization; however, anarchism is not a system of economics.

Indeed, it is not a "system" in any traditional sense at all - anarchists generally reject grand and overarching systems. However, it does specifically address economic questions, and necessarily so.


What's wrong with a villager who opens up a bakery or a shop that makes furniture? Shouldn't he be free to produce a product and sell or barter that product fairly?

Because the entire system of buying and selling grows out of and into a larger system of control and coercion. Certainly, I'm not opposed to a degree of autonomy for those who want to run their own bakery, but if they expect their bakery to run along capitalist lines, they'd better expect to fail miserably.


Then quit participating!

Indeed, I concur - we are the cogs in the machine, and if we stop, the machine stops. That said, we must recognise that we will not be permitted to stop without resistance. This is where the inevitable violence arises - we must defend ourselves from those who would force us, violently, back under the yoke.


No, not in my life time, but great movements start with one and grow.

Alas, we might wait a million generations (Though capital will likely kill the planet far sooner than that), but existing structures will not lay down and die. In self-defence, of our right to live without government, we will almost certainly have to physicallly smash the apparatus of repression.





. . . and so on.

(42? Older comrades always interest me.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:28 AM
No. Socialism is an economic system. Anarchism is not.
You could have an "anarchistic" village with small scale capitalism or socialism. Or, a combination of the two.
Not originally, which is my point.


Economics are part of all systems of social organization; however, anarchism is not a system of economics.

I'm not necessarily claiming that it is. You asserted that it has "nothing" do to with economics, which is absurd considering why it existed in the first place.


Shouldn't he be free to produce a product and sell or barter that product fairly?

Yeah ok, but what's the point?


Then quit participating!

How do I eat?


Force to do what? Force me to vote? Force me to have a Visa card or buy a car?

In Colombia, the coca-cola workers refused to continue working in sub-standard conditions in their factories and the company employed mercenaries to intimidate and ultimately murder Union leaders and workers. At one point they used armed men to force workers to sign a piece of paper relieving the company of any responsibility.

In England, the government was ready to ban strikes for fire workers if they refused to go back to work after they striked. It would have meant that a fireman could have been fired or fined for striking.

If you don't bide by their agenda voluntarily, they'll force you to.


I don't expect anyone to do anything. I only expect things of myself, and I am doing it!

Then your useless.


Nice diction, but I've already given one example to show it's not fantasticism.

Where?


Myself.

This is the epitome of your argument. As long as your alright...


I was raised in the ghetto of North Memphis and managed to get a good education.

Your experiences are not universal. If you come to a State school in the UK you will see the roofs falling down, over sized classrooms, underpaid teachers and barely no resources.


Sorry, but I know people that have accomplished such things.

So? That doesn’t mean the great mass of working class people can or will.


No. Once again, I did it.

Well bully for you! It means jack shit!


I'm 42 years old and have lived what you are attempting to live.

You're a man who got lucky and now lives a happy middle class lifestyle and prances around with fantastic idea's about how everyone can and should be just like you. Well sorry mate, you're wrong and no age is going to change.

[DEPAVER]

Not originally, which is my point.

Originally? We're talking about now, today....we're talking about how people with basically the same noble goals and aspirations can foster the growth of anarchism in their local communities.


I'm not necessarily claiming that it is. You asserted that it has "nothing" do to with economics, which is absurd considering why it existed in the first place.

Again, my point is that anarchism isn't about economics. It's about freedom. Economics is simply another area of life where you see suppression of freedom.
We're never going to agree on this point and are talking past one another. Let's move on.


Yeah ok, but what's the point?

You asked what aspects of capitalism I wanted to preserve. The response is the simple capitalism of the independent business owner, craftsman or artisan.


How do I eat?

Why does government have anything to do with how or what you eat?


In Colombia, the coca-cola workers refused to continue working in sub-standard conditions in their factories and the company employed mercenaries to intimidate and ultimately murder Union leaders and workers. At one point they used armed men to force workers to sign a piece of paper relieving the company of any responsibility.


I don't live in Columbia and can't change what's happening in Columbia. All I can do is affect what's happening in my community, not even my country.



If you don't bide by their agenda voluntarily, they'll force you to.

Not in my community. I can only speak to what works or is acheivable in my own community, and one must realize there are no "one size fits all" solutions.


Then your useless.

Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere in life. You lose all credibilty when you play that card and no one listens any longer. I haven't attacked you personally, so please refrain from attacking me personally. Is it really necessary?

I'm useless because I try to change my own life? I CAN'T MAKE ANYONE CHANGE THEIR LIVES AND NEITHER CAN YOU.

This is why nothing ever changes. People are so busy with "theory" and how to change nations and the world that they never get busy with doing the actual work of building the world they wish to see in their own communities.

Here's an example.

Let's say you don't have a neighborhood food cooperative and you're faced with buying chemically laden food from a corporate chain. Well, why not hang up a sign in your local coffee shop, community center or somewhere and announce a meeting for citizens to discuss the creation of a community food cooperative?

Get a bunch of folks together and find people that have experience in the food industry. Locate local, organic producers and start small. Like a farmer market, lets say. Grow from there until you have a complete line of healthy, locally produced food.

This solves a ton of prolems. It takes support away from the corporation and gives ownership to the people (the members of the coop). It helps reduce fossil fuel consumption because you're buying from local producers. It helps with health issues because you're eating better food. Because the community voluntarily and freely associated to create and run the coop, you have anarchism at work in your own back yard.

The same principle applies to any area of your life: education, housing, transporation, etc.

All you can do is live by example and offering suggestions and help to those willing to listen.


Where?

Where I started my own firm and left the corporate world I used to be part of.
Here's another: I have a friend (young guy about 22) that had an idea to start a bike cooperative. He found a church to donate space, folks to donate bikes and people to donate money for tools. He's been in business for a year now and has developed a program for community kids to learn how to maintain their own bikes and learn something useful.


This is the epitome of your argument. As long as your alright...

You've totally missed the point. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

[DEPAVER]

On the contrary, anarchism is an assault on heirarchal and coercive domination of all sorts, in shperes political, sexual, economic, and so forth. As such, anarchism addresses economic questions explicitly - and in particular, opposes capitalism due to its inherently coercive nature.

Again, it's about freedom and that can apply to systems of economics, but economics is not the alpha and the omega of anarchism.

Anarchism doesn't necessary oppose capitalism. I've already shown two examples of how limited scale capitalism can work within anarchism.


Because the entire system of buying and selling grows out of and into a larger system of control and coercion.

Why does this have to be the case? I've been buying cakes from Kay's Bakery since 1971. They have one location and aren't coercing anyone.

Stewart Bros. Hardware has a single location that's existed since 1948. It's not become Wal-Mart and the community depends on it.


Certainly, I'm not opposed to a degree of autonomy for those who want to run their own bakery, but if they expect their bakery to run along capitalist lines, they'd better expect to fail miserably.

I've just provided an example to show this is an untrue statement.


Indeed, I concur - we are the cogs in the machine, and if we stop, the machine stops. That said, we must recognise that we will not be permitted to stop without resistance. This is where the inevitable violence arises - we must defend ourselves from those who would force us, violently, back under the yoke.

There may be forms of resistance. Perhaps from corporations trying to put your cooperative out of business. Many are in bed with government officials and they can make licensing and tax issues big issues. But I maintain you just have to outsmart them (not hard to do) and be willing to take gradual steps toward independence.

We have to start somewhere!


Alas, we might wait a million generations (Though capital will likely kill the planet far sooner than that),

It won't happen overnight; that's certain, and yes, I agree that capital is killing the planet.


but existing structures will not lay down and die. In self-defence, of our right to live without government, we will almost certainly have to physicallly smash the apparatus of repression.

This is where we part ways. I just don't believe it's possible to "smash the apparatus of repression." These people are very good at what they do and they are in power for a reason. Don't be lulled into believing head on confrontation has much of a chance.


(42? Older comrades always interest me.)

I came to these positions late in life (about 12 years ago) after years "in the system." I suppose I'm still in that system to some degree, but I am making little changes here and there to help facilitate change, both in my personal life and in my community.

I started a small Internet firm that gives everyone a say-so in how things are run and ownership. We're a unique company that uses concensus process. I helped fund the bike cooperative in my community, tore up my credit cards, refuse to buy new cars and I'm heavily involved in local environmental issues.

I have many things yet to learn, however. My ability to grow organic food is improving and this spring promises to be one of great experimentation!

But this is what I can do . I can't help the people in Columbia or affect things happening in the UK, except for maybe not purchasing products from bad suppliers in those countries.

I'm just concerned that we often get so caught up in attempting to solve massive, universal problems that we waste energy that could be used to create anarchism in our own communities.

That's my point, and I certainly don't want to come off as angry or argumentative with "comrades." Eventhought we won't always agree, I think we agree on the vital issues and must not alienate one another.

Cheers

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Anarchism doesn't necessary oppose capitalism. I've already shown two examples of how limited scale capitalism can work within anarchism.

Capitalism can not coexist with anarchy, as private property is essential to it and incompatible with anarchy. Limited-scale markets might be able to exist in anarchy, but it is highly doubtful whether such a system would not degrade back to capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:59 PM
Originally? We're talking about now, today....we're talking about how people with basically the same noble goals and aspirations can foster the growth of anarchism in their local communities.
That doesn't mean you can deform and change an ideology just so it suits your beliefs in social change.

What I get annoyed about is the way people like you hijack and already defined idea and then dictate what it is and isn't. You are the one who has deformed the idea, you have changed its meaning.

I think that it is extremely important to try and move away from the myths of anarchism generated by everyone; otherwise people will never understand how to change society.


Again, my point is that anarchism isn't about economics. It's about freedom.

Freedom from what?


We're never going to agree on this point and are talking past one another. Let's move on.

That's because you are throwing out words like freedom without justifying that use. Freedom being what and from where?

I'm talking about facts, not ideals.


You asked what aspects of capitalism I wanted to preserve. The response is the simple capitalism of the independent business owner, craftsman or artisan.

Fine, you've answered that. Now tell me what the point is?


Why does government have anything to do with how or what you eat?

You said that if you do not agree with the way society is controlled and run then I should stop participating in it. How then do I eat?


I don't live in Columbia and can't change what's happening in Columbia. All I can do is affect what's happening in my community, not even my country.

Yes well, that's a different point all together. The point I’m making is that if you refuse to participate they will try and force you to. As per this example.


Not in my community. I can only speak to what works or is achievable in my own community, and one must realize there are no "one size fits all" solutions.

Your community isn't the working class as a whole.


Ad hominem attacks won't get you anywhere in life.

It was a fact.


I haven't attacked you personally, so please refrain from attacking me personally. Is it really necessary?

Yeah, I’m bored with paranoia! I was actually making a statement. You said "I don't expect anyone to do anything. I only expect things of myself, and I am doing it."

Anarchism is about liberation of working and oppressed people through the destruction of the material forces that stop that, not about you. If all you are concerned about is yourself or just your immediate community, what good are you to this struggle?


Is it really necessary?

It is absolutly necessary to try and make people have a clear perspective on what is going on in society and dispell with hollow, unclarified and ultiamtly abstract ideals like the ones you are professing.


I'm useless because I try to change my own life? I CAN'T MAKE ANYONE CHANGE THEIR LIVES AND NEITHER CAN YOU.

What does the word "making" mean in this sentence? Do you mean forcing or do you think it is futile to get people to understand their condition?


This is why nothing ever changes. People are so busy with "theory" and how to change nations and the world that they never get busy with doing the actual work of building the world they wish to see in their own communities.

How would you know?



You've totally missed the point. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

I read your point, and it's bollocks.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Part I: The Virgin Molotov Cocktail plays Concilliator

This is the down side of message boards. I imagine if we were having this discussion over beer, it would be much less aggressive in tone.

I think the real point of conflict here centers around class/individual action, and the relationship between them.

Luckily, the beauty of anarchism is that these points can co-exist - there is no reason that social and 'lifestyle' (I know it has derogatory connotations, but it's the only term I know. Actually, I don't like these labels period but they'll do for now. Think of them in the loosest senses posible) anarchism can't co-exist. I am a social anarchist, and a firm believer in class struggle, but it certainly doesn't put me in any position to look down my nose at, say, Depaver, who is participating in building anarchy by . . . his? her? I hate this lanugage . . . own methods.

In my mind that's the beauty of anarchist thought - it doesn't present many hard-and-fast answers, but allows for the building of individual solutions to unique circumstances.

Part II: The Revenge

Re: the bakary and the hardware store - the entire system of buying/selling springs from attaching social values to various forms of labour. With the abolition of old understandings of work, I'd hope for a sort of pure-gift economy to spring up whenever/wherever its feasable. That is, hopefully we'll reach a point where Kay / her successors well bake for the joy of baking, and destribute the product freely, assuming that they will be similarly provided for.



Part III

Anarchist group-hug? :)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I really love how you write. Let's hug!

*joins group hug

[seraphim]

The end justifies the means as long as there is a justification for the end.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 19 2005, 07:57 AM
Luckily, the beauty of anarchism is that these points can co-exist
I agree, and I said this in previous posts, but unfortunately in class struggle the theory matters. If you get the theory wrong, you get the practice wrong and ultimately you don't end up with what you want.

Our objective is a stateless, classless society where people work together for the good of each other. This is nothing more than an idea, which DEPAVER and others like him talk about within their communities.

Idea's are in the mind and in order to project those idea's into a tangible "thing" you have to draw lessons from facts not from perspectives or thoughts.

It's a nice idea to be an individualist, and it's a nice thing to work locally and personally to change situations, but if you're objective is simply that, it has no wider relevance to the actual problems in society; in which case it should be deemed no less contemptible as bourgeois socialism or liberalism.


I am a social anarchist, and a firm believer in class struggle, but it certainly doesn't put me in any position to look down my nose at, say, DEPAVER, who is participating in building anarchy by . . . his? her? I hate this lanugage . . . own methods.

This is a message board so it is understandable that idea's and opinions are scorned on. It's commendable what he is doing, but ultimately, he is wrong.

In the eyes of class strugglists his work is futile and in some respects damaging. All class strugglists should take that position. His method [i]is wrong.


In my mind that's the beauty of anarchist thought - it doesn't present many hard-and-fast answers, but allows for the building of individual solutions to unique circumstances.

I think the answers to our problems are unflinchingly obvious. The destruction of the forms of domination generated through historical [materialist] development culminating in capitalism and the present day state is the answer.

The solution is clear.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by (R)evolution of the [email protected] 18 2005, 08:03 AM

Anarchism doesn't necessary oppose capitalism. I've already shown two examples of how limited scale capitalism can work within anarchism.

Capitalism can not coexist with anarchy, as private property is essential to it and incompatible with anarchy. Limited-scale markets might be able to exist in anarchy, but it is highly doubtful whether such a system would not degrade back to capitalism.
This is 100% not true, at least in my opinion.

I think it's important that these are opinions/theories, not absolutes, not facts. In other words, unproven.

Anarchy is about FREEDOM. PERIOD.

If you tell me or coerce me and others to the point of saying "you can't have private property," there is NO FREEDOM, and therefore no anarchy.

Who is teaching you these things?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:25 PM
Anarchy is about FREEDOM. PERIOD.
Freedom from what?

[DEPAVER]

That doesn't mean you can deform and change an ideology just so it suits your beliefs in social change.

What I get annoyed about is the way people like you hijack and already defined idea and then dictate what it is and isn't. You are the one who has deformed the idea, you have changed its meaning.

Ideas and theories change as we learn and improve them. And I hate to tell you this, but I'm not alone in this opinion. There are a lot of professors and writers that believe the same thing; folks trying to make anarchism workable today and viable in their everyday lives.


I think that it is extremely important to try and move away from the myths of anarchism generated by everyone; otherwise people will never understand how to change society.

Anarchism is what the people make it, but I think it's clear that it universally means freedom, not necessarily without rules, but definitely without rulers. It's free association...it's communities working together in free association.

At least we can agree on that. If we can't agree on that much, this discussion is over.


Freedom from what?

Go back and read an earlier post. My anarchism isn't about freedom from. It's about freedom to.


That's because you are throwing out words like freedom without justifying that use. Freedom being what and from where?

Justifying that use? What does that mean? Again, for the last time, for me, anarchism is freedom to do all of things I have mentioned and detailed ad nauseum.


Fine, you've answered that. Now tell me what the point is?

There are aspects of capitalism that are benign.


You said that if you do not agree with the way society is controlled and run then I should stop participating in it. How then do I eat?

No. I did not say that. I said stop participating in the aspects of society that you feel usurp freedom. Credit cards, car financing, home mortgages, etc.

Participate in building free society by supporting food cooperatives and growing your own food, or support a local, neighborhood food store that isn't a major corporation. That's a start.


Yes well, that's a different point all together. The point I’m making is that if you refuse to participate they will try and force you to. As per this example.

Who is this "they" you keep referring to? No one in my community is forcing me to do anything.


Your community isn't the working class as a whole.

Neither is yours. No one can change "the working class." As long as you're focused on huge, insurmountable issues, you're just running in place.


It was a fact.

It's a fact that "I'm worthless?" Says who? You? What you say makes it a fact?

Jesus! That's the most illogical thing I've seen you post yet!


Anarchism is about liberation of working and oppressed people through the destruction of the material forces that stop that, not about you. If all you are concerned about is yourself or just your immediate community, what good are you to this struggle?

Frankly, I don't see that YOU are any good to this struggle. In fact, I see you as very harmful to it.

You can't liberate anyone but yourself. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see your plan.

While I've presented logical, concrete steps people can take TODAY, you're presenting little more than the jargon of a bunch of dead white guys.



What does the word "making" mean in this sentence? Do you mean forcing or do you think it is futile to get people to understand their condition?

I think people should understand the condition. The difference between you and me is I'm talking to people in my community. I have no idea who you're trying to reach.



How would you know?

Show me evidence of the world-wide change you apparently espouse.


I read your point, and it's bollocks


This discussion is over.

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:25 PM
Anarchy is about FREEDOM. PERIOD.

If you tell me or coerce me and others to the point of saying "you can't have private property," there is NO FREEDOM, and therefore no anarchy.

Private property is a tool of coercion, and to uphold it you essentially need a state (private or public). Maybe you're confusing "personal possessions" with private property. You can control all the little things you need in your daily life, some luxiries, even the house or flat you live in for the period you live in it. But you can't own a whole block of flats and demand rent from the tenants, and so on. Such property must be communal, or else it becomes a tool of coercion, and there is no anarchy.

[DEPAVER]

Part I: The Virgin Molotov Cocktail plays Concilliator....

snip

Luckily, the beauty of anarchism is that these points can co-exist - there is no reason that social and 'lifestyle' (I know it has derogatory connotations, but it's the only term I know. Actually, I don't like these labels period but they'll do for now. Think of them in the loosest senses posible) anarchism can't co-exist. I am a social anarchist, and a firm believer in class struggle, but it certainly doesn't put me in any position to look down my nose at, say, Depaver, who is participating in building anarchy by . . . his? her? I hate this lanugage . . . own methods.

I just have one question. How do we build anarchism without starting with ourselves and our individual choices in our local communities?

Guys, my point is this....

Start with yourself, work outward to your community, then your nation state and then the world. Nothing built from the top down makes sense, that's what we have today with governments. Everything is built from the top down, when it should be from the grass roots upward. That's real democracy, when the power grows from the people at the grass roots level.

I'm looking ahead to big issues like peak oil production and the reality that the United States is preparing for resource war like we've never seen. All the geopolitical positioning is happening right now and the US is getting ready to find itself in a precarious position.

So, I want to build my community to be as anarchistic and prepared as possible in the areas of food production, transportation, healthcare, etc. And my concerns are as much with the non-human as the human. Afterall, the earth is not ours for the taking.

That's all I can do.

[DEPAVER]

Private property is a tool of coercion, and to uphold it you essentially need a state (private or public). Maybe you're confusing "personal possessions" with private property. You can control all the little things you need in your daily life, some luxiries, even the house or flat you live in for the period you live in it. But you can't own a whole block of flats and demand rent from the tenants, and so on. Such property must be communal, or else it becomes a tool of coercion, and there is no anarchy.

I agree with you regarding large blocks of ownership and the result of such ownership. No argument there.

And I am referring to personal property. But let's get back to community.

The people in a community or bioregion should make these decisions via consensus process. If everyone has an opportunity to speak and voice their opinion/vote/whatever, I'm comfortable with what they decide. These people may decide that ownership of property is acceptable up to ten acres. Maybe it's twenty. It doesn't matter as long as everyone in the community, via consensus process, is allowed to participate in how the community is constructed.

Land decisions in particular must be made within a bioregional context, not a national context, since all bioregions are different and what makes sense as far as lot size (for example) in one bioregion might not make sense in another.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It's often asked, what stops someone from pissing on your doorstep, when there are no laws?

The answer is solidarity.

A feeling of coorperation, of compassion, that we have to work together, that is the strength of anarchism.

Capitalism, no matter how "simple", relies on egoism. Trying to get better off, with as little costs as possible and profits as large as possible. That is a main priciniple of capitalism, which applies from your local bookshop to Phillips.

Don't you see? Solidarity and egoism are each others contradiction. For the succes of anarchist society it's necessary to eliminate and discourage those things which stimulate and enourage egoism.

Anarchism and Capitalism are each others contradiction. Capitalism is inherently connected with authoritian rule. Capitalism needs "something" to shut up the working class.

What stops someone from making large profits in anarcho-capitalism? What stops him from using that money to hire a personal army? What stops that ruler and personal army from starting a kingdom?

As I see it, anarcho-capitalism will unavoidably lead to a feudal society. This doesn't happen in the anarco-socialist systems, because nobody will be able to hire people in, nor will they be stimulated to gain material wealth.

A government is needed to prevent the capitalists from going "too crazy". The capitalists need the working class. The capitalists need something to watch and punish capitalists who piss off the working class too much. Afterall they don't want to loose the base of their wealth.

The government unites capitalists (as far as possible) and makes sure that the working class isn't too pissed off. Therefor capitalism is inherently connected with government and authoritian rule.

On a sidenote: Freedom is a too abstract term to mean anything on it's own. Freedom from living in a gay free world or freedom to love/marry anyone you want.

Freedom from bosses or freedom off business. So explain better what you mean.

[DEPAVER]

The frustration and anger? expressed in this thread isn't necessarily bad. I believe it shows a strong commitment to change amongst the participants. I believe it shows that a fire burns within us, young and old (older), to build a better society.

Unfortunately, we don't always agree on how to get there.

Maybe The Anarchist Tension will begin on one end, I'll begin on the other end and we'll meet somewhere in the middle, mission accomplished.

I just want to make clear that I hold no personal animosity toward anyone that doesn't agree with my position, but I do believe it's unnecessary and rude to say that someone's opinion is "bollocks." Especially someone that is really trying to accomplish many of the same things.

Let's move forward.

Best,

D

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:45 PM
My anarchism isn't about freedom from. It's about freedom to.
By wanting to give someone freedom you are asserting that there is something in society that isn't. What is that?


Justifying that use? What does that mean?

It means clarifying meaning instead of baseless rhetoric. "My anarchism is not freedom from, its freedom to" The point I’m making here is; what does that mean?


It's a fact that "I'm worthless?" Says who? You? What you say makes it a fact?

Jesus! That's the most illogical thing I've seen you post yet!

Not really. I said you were useless to class struggle in the context of your individualist rhetoric.


I don't see that YOU are any good to this struggle.

Why would you?


You can't liberate anyone but yourself. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see your plan.

I never claimed that we could "liberate" people. I am claiming that your ideas for social change are a) not what anarchism is and b) not what will create an anarchist society.


While I've presented logical, concrete steps people can take TODAY,

There is nothing "logical" about your suggestions. So far all you have done is make suggestions and then asserted them as facts. That's not logic.


Show me evidence of the world-wide change you apparently espouse.


Again, you're not on point. World wide change will only happen when capitalism and the state no longer exist. Until then you are simply reinventing this veneer of bullshit we call society.


This discussion is over.

Evidently not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:10 PM
The frustration and anger? expressed in this thread isn't necessarily bad. I believe it shows a strong commitment to change amongst the participants. I believe it shows that a fire burns within us, young and old (older), to build a better society.

Unfortunately, we don't always agree on how to get there.

Maybe The Anarchist Tension will begin on one end, I'll begin on the other end and we'll meet somewhere in the middle, mission accomplished.

I just want to make clear that I hold no personal animosity toward anyone that doesn't agree with my position, but I do believe it's unnecessary and rude to say that someone's opinion is "bollocks." Especially someone that is really trying to accomplish many of the same things.

Let's move forward.

Best,

D
I admit that I am frustrated by your opinions, but that's allowed. I'm not angry and it's nothing personal. I'm sure you're a really great guy. You just have bad ideas [in my opinion.]

[DEPAVER]

By wanting to give someone freedom you are asserting that there is something in society that isn't. What is that?

I never said I wanted to give anyone anything. Where did I say that?

The biggest obstacle to freedom in the United States is the illegitmate government in Washington.


It means clarifying meaning instead of baseless rhetoric. "My anarchism is not freedom from, its freedom to" The point I’m making here is; what does that mean?

It means I'm free to not buy new cars, support coercive institutions; I'm free to grow my own food, shop at co-ops, etc.


Not really. I said you were useless to class struggle in the context of your individualist rhetoric.

No, that is not what you said. That may be what you implied, but that is not what you said.


I never claimed that we could "liberate" people. I am claiming that your ideas for social change are a) not what anarchism is and b) not what will create an anarchist society.

I respectfully disagree and again, I ask for your plan. Please show me a plan that makes more sense than everyone beginning with their individual actions? Actually, all plans require a decision on the part of an individual, so I'd like to see how you plan to do something different.


There is nothing "logical" about your suggestions. So far all you have done is make suggestions and then asserted them as facts. That's not logic.

Tell me why they are illogical. Just because you say they are illogical, doesn't make it so. You've shown nothing to support your argument.

On the other hand, I've provided concrete examples and steps that have actually been taken. The fact that these steps have been successfully enacted is proof the suggestion is "workable."



Again, you're not on point. World wide change will only happen when capitalism and the state no longer exist. Until then you are simply reinventing this veneer of bullshit we call society.

I'm very much on point. Again, show how you plan to defeat capitalism and get rid of the state. Let's start with the UK.

I'm continuing to engage you in this discussion because I believe it's worthwhile, and it gives me great concern when people that "get it," in other words, they have correctly pinpointed the problems, aren't proposing workable solutions for improving society.

For the past ten years, I've been part of a "maverick" think tank of sorts that's been discussing and rationalizing various ideas about society, culture and the "human condition." Many are Ph.D's in various fields, anthropology, sociology, economics, biology, linquistics, etc. Everyone, and these are very smart people, agrees that change starts with the individual and then grows outward to the community, to the nation-state and to the world. We all agree there are no "one size fits all" solutions to the problems in front of us. We all agree that given the opportunity, people can govern themselves without the interference of governments, since self governance and governments are not the same.

The "theory" is finished. We're now living the ideas we espouse.