Anarchists!

[Shogun]

can you please just explain to me how will anarchism work if there is no order?

[Lamanov]

''no order'' ?

that phrase could mean anything so i'll rephrase it:

anarchy = a[no]-state
anarchy doesn't mean no organisation

[i'm not an anrchist but i at least can tell the difference]

[LSD]

Anarchism does not mean "no order", it means no hierarchy.

There will always be rules of society and rape, murder, assault, etc... will, of course, be prohibited.

[Publius]

I'm going to assume you mean anarchism in the leftists sense, not anarcho-capitalism.

Am I correct?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

There is no such thing as "Anarcho"-Capitalism. You guys already hijacked the term libertarian, can't you leave this one alone. Incredible though how effective the capitalist media is.

Anarchism seeks to destroy one man's rule over another, not give the capitalist even more power over the workers. That's what fascists do.

Anarchy is order. Anarchists do not seek to destroy organisation and order, but destroy the current slave-master relationships. Replacing it with an orderly organized society of free individuals.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 07:04 PM
can you please just explain to me how will anarchism work if there is no order?
Who said there was no order??? a lot of people seem to mistake Nihilism with Anarchism, its a common misconception that Anarchism is some mindless brutal form of sub-existence. This simply isn't true. However, its good that your showing some interest in the subject, hope this can help:
Anarchist FAQ (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

this should have been posted in Learning...

[Publius]

There is no such thing as "Anarcho"-Capitalism. You guys already hijacked the term libertarian, can't you leave this one alone. Incredible though how effective the capitalist media is.

Anarchism seeks to destroy one man's rule over another, not give the capitalist even more power over the workers. That's what fascists do.

Anarchy is order. Anarchists do not seek to destroy organisation and order, but destroy the current slave-master relationships. Replacing it with an orderly organized society of free individuals.

In an anarchy, can I consent to work for someone else, in the fashion of a capitalist/worker?

Do I even have the right to do it if I wanted to? Or is 'wage slavery' catagorically abolished, even against my own whims?

EDIT: We wouldn't have had to hijack either term if the term 'liberal' wasn' stolen from us.

And tell me, when do you ever hear the libertarian viewpoint espoused on the capitalist media?

Who on the media says "I support abolishing the Federal Government entirely" or "I support stripping everything out of the government but what's the Constitution dictates".

None.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ofcourse, when we have an anarchistic society and someone wants to be a wage-slave. Go ahead. Notice though that people in general aren't really keen on being slaves or imprisoned. Be prepared to be dissapointed.

What the hell, who stole liberal? Your wanker movement hijacked libertarian of the anarchists.

Well, the media is reporting posivitvly on privatizations. But that wasn't my point. My point was, how effective the media is in letting people to believe that libertarian means greater freedom for businesses. While it's an invention of French anti-capitalistic anarchists, when the government banned anarchism.

[Ele'ill]

Well, the media is reporting posivitvly on privatizations. But that wasn't my point. My point was, how effective the media is in letting people to believe that libertarian means greater freedom for businesses. While it's an invention of French anti-capitalistic anarchists, when the government banned anarchism.

If word play is that important to you then create another word.

[Publius]

Ofcourse, when we have an anarchistic society and someone wants to be a wage-slave. Go ahead. Notice though that people in general aren't really keen on being slaves or imprisoned. Be prepared to be dissapointed.

What the hell, who stole liberal? Your wanker movement hijacked libertarian of the anarchists.

Well, the media is reporting posivitvly on privatizations. But that wasn't my point. My point was, how effective the media is in letting people to believe that libertarian means greater freedom for businesses. While it's an invention of French anti-capitalistic anarchists, when the government banned anarchism.

So if wage-slavery is possible in your society, what's stopping it from forming into an anarcho-capitalist society? If mutually agreed upon arrangements are allowed, why aren't companies?

Perhaps they wouldn't be keen on it, but I think people generally prefer living to starving to death.

And no, the term 'liberal', as it was used in Classical Europe, reffered to folks like us. It was stolen from us by psuedo-socialists.

And Social Security privization is hardly a libertarian point of view, the eventual abolishment of SS is what we're generally shooting for.

Who have you heard recomend that on national TV?

[LSD]

And no, the term 'liberal', as it was used in Classical Europe, reffered to folks like us. It was stolen from us by psuedo-socialists.

I'm not sure what "folks like us" means, but you're absolutely correct in that the meaning of Liberal has drastically changed since Smith's times.

But maybe that's merely because, from an etymological perspective, the term "liberal" has a broader, and older, meaning of being open to change, progressive.

Today, that sense has been adapted to apply to those who favour moderately progressive social development (and occasionaly progressive economic ones).


And Social Security privization is hardly a libertarian point of view, the eventual abolishment of SS is what we're generally shooting for.

Right, but privitization is a "step in that direction", no?


Who have you heard recomend that on national TV?

No one.

But that's not because it wouldn't be in the interest of the rulling class, it's because they know that the general public would never stand for it!


In an anarchy, can I consent to work for someone else, in the fashion of a capitalist/worker?

Theoretically, but no one will.

Just like no one will consent to be killed, it goes against the instinct for self-preservation.


Perhaps they wouldn't be keen on it, but I think people generally prefer living to starving to death.

...but the point is they're already eating.

"working for someone" wouldn't offer them anything they didn't already have since once value-exchange is abolished the person they're "working for" won't have anything of value to pay them with!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Perhaps they wouldn't be keen on it, but I think people generally prefer living to starving to death.

So humans are lazy by nature? Back to the real world. In those few years of Anarchism in Spain, Ukrain, people didn't starve, the industry didn't stop. Au contrare!

But just imagine the unimaginable. A society of free individuals associating voluntarily in a gift-economy, all provided. Why would anyone in such a society would want to become a wage-slave?


Who have you heard recomend that on national TV?


I do see politicians on Dutch tv give us magical stories on how privatization will magicly make everyone prosperous and everything effective, cheap. But liberals aren't always that enthousiastic to reveal their positions to the world. When 9-11 happend, the liberals were against giving donations to the families of the deceased. Obviously screaming that out loud wouldn't have made them popular.

However I don't think that the bourgeoisieclass is really striving towards laissez-fairez capitalism. Maybe they'll realise now that they need the state for their own protection. The last time that they tried to go towards laissez-fairez capitalism it led to popular labormovements. Maybe they want to strip down Social Security a bit.

LFC at present seems like a cult of middle-class wannabe riches.

[apathy maybe]

Liberalism means different things in Europe and the USA.


Originally posted by apathy maybe
Liberalism is an ideology that promotes the freedom or liberty of the individual. The freedoms promoted include personal freedoms, religious freedoms and economic freedoms. Liberals believe in a state ruled by the citizens, rather then the citizens ruled by the state. There are two main strands of liberalism, classical and welfare. From the perspective of the welfare liberal, the government is not a necessary evil; it can be a positive force for the promotion of liberty by ensuring equal opportunity. Economic competition is good, but not at the expense of individual liberty. Classical and neoclassical liberals, however, believe that the government should be limited to the role of protecting life, property and prosecuting fraud. It should take a laissez faire approach to the economy and not interfere in how individuals run their lives. All liberals do believe in letting individuals achieve happiness in their own way.

Libertarianism means different things in Europe and the USA. Because both major parties called themselves liberal (in the USA), the classical liberals had to find another name for themselves, as they didn't want to be associated with equal opportunity. Some of them picked libertarian.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:04 AM
can you please just explain to me how will anarchism work if there is no order?
To be technically correct, anarchy is order.

Look a these:
Anarchism (in the Che-Lives Dictionary) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786)

Anarchy is order (in relation to the Anarchy symbol) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29518&hl=anarchy+symbol)

[Ele'ill]

To be technically correct, anarchy is order.

What?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:11 PM

To be technically correct, anarchy is order.

What?
I prefer the word "Anarchism" rather than Anarchy.

Being a Council Communist, I hold some common ground with the anarchists. As put before, Anarchism aims to begin a revolution solely around the working class and wishes not to construct a "revolutionary hierarchy", such as in Russia with the Communist Party above the proletariat, hence alienating the state from the proletariat.

My own interpretation of Anarchism, which I bet many anarchists would object to, is that anarchism is when state power is embodied with the proletariat. There would be no alienation between the state and the proletariat, in my own view, a armed mob of armed workers seizing control of the factories and forcing the boss out at gunpoint is the state, since the state being a tool of class oppression.

How would there still be order? Simple, there would still be organization. This is where Anarchism and Council Communism get along so well, at least in the Council Communist method, workers would form workers' Soviets in each city, run democractically. It is possible to have organization without hierarchy.

Again, when it comes to Council Communism and Anarchism, the only difference between us is our interpretations of what the state is.

[Ele'ill]

My own interpretation of Anarchism, which I bet many anarchists would object to, is that anarchism is when state power is embodied with the proletariat. There would be no alienation between the state and the proletariat, in my own view, a armed mob of armed workers seizing control of the factories and forcing the boss out at gunpoint is the state, since the state being a tool of class oppression.

Many of the proletariat make up and run 'the state'. What about workers on workers? Why would one assume the proletariat would all shift left and rise even after mass organizing over the years? The same factories that the state relies on are the same factories that the proletariat rely on. It can work both ways when there's a split ideological ratio.


How would there still be order? Simple, there would still be organization. This is where Anarchism and Council Communism get along so well, at least in the Council Communist method, workers would form workers' Soviets in each city, run democractically. It is possible to have organization without hierarchy.

Before I attempt any type of debate on the issue of 'deomcracy without hierarchy' explain how the workers soviets would work. Or don't. I don't care as I already fear what the answers will be. : |

[Zingu]

Before I attempt any type of debate on the issue of 'deomcracy without hierarchy' explain how the workers soviets would work. Or don't. I don't care as I already fear what the answers will be. : |[/QUOTE]

Soviet = Workers' Council.

Again, I'm not an Anarchist, so I'm not entirely strict on "Democracy without hierarchy" as they are.

Council Communism is when the state and the economy is managed by local Soviets comprised of the workers theirselves. The Soviets would be linked together into a "Supreme Soviet", a federation of Soviets. It would be a worker's job to be the delegation to this assembly and could be recalled at any moment. We're oppossed to any form of beaucracy. Many anarchists have found this system compatiable with their beliefs, so we get along with each other.



Many of the proletariat make up and run 'the state'. What about workers on workers? Why would one assume the proletariat would all shift left and rise even after mass organizing over the years? The same factories that the state relies on are the same factories that the proletariat rely on. It can work both ways when there's a split ideological ratio.


I'm sort of unsure what you are trying to say here.

[A Free Mind]

Just a thought but is what anarchists want somthing like Ancient Athens where every citizen is free to do as he wishes as long as it is not against the wishes of the citizens who decide on every matter themselves in an assembly

[Black Dagger]

Just a thought but is what anarchists want somthing like Ancient Athens where every citizen is free to do as he wishes as long as it is not against the wishes of the citizens who decide on every matter themselves in an assembly

Erm... the only citizens who where 'deciding' anything in Greek 'democracy' are rich men, women and slaves couldn't 'decide' shit.

[OleMarxco]

I would also want to note one thing for perhaps future discussions that, even if Soviet = Worker's Council, doesn't mean Soviet had Council Communism, far from, in fact - It had centralized, totalarian "Big Brother"-power that tried to play with decantralized power-bodies for the people, but they knew it would fail as you can't have both! There's no middle thing, or mix of both. They were just ceremonial, and the Vanguard had ultimate power :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

I'm sort of unsure what you are trying to say here.

There wouldn't simply be a proletariat/government civil war. It would be proletariat/proletariat-government civil war.