Anarchiests Against Leadership

[Iepilei]

For the past few days I've been talking to a group of individuals who are against leadership - entirely! Claiming that leaders will only abuse power.

I suppose this is a reason why anarchy, in it's hundreds of years of existance, has failed to produce any viable outcome.

But realistically, how many anarchiests do we have here that believe this same nonsense? The human species is a collective one, and some have the ability to guide better than others. If regulated and controled - no heirarchy can arise.

so what's the big fucking deal?

[Markxs]

telling other ppl what to do isnt guiding thats, dictatorship. nobody knows whats best for the individual then the individual itself. therefore other ppl can only advise the individual. whenever some ppl have a 'legal' authority over others. there judgment is rated higher and then your base for equal treatment has gone. therefore we should not let authority be tolerated.

only fully democratic societies are a alternative. those kind of society where the minorty isnt getting pushed around.

everybody could live in (small) groups with other ppl who think alike, and when theire views start to differ. ppl could leave the group. so it will be a very dynamic form of society. you know one which doesnt get overtrown everytime a new generation becomes grown up.

we had those societies which didnt become overtrown, those where all based on power. lets try it in a different way

respect equality liberation imagine

[Iepilei]

returning to a small-scale sense of nomadic living as such would only recess society. it would ultimately bring rise to a group of individuals who are war-mongers and would dominate the area... much like the indo-europeans dominated all the pacifist groups some thousands of years ago.

[Kehoe]

Comrades ... I myself adhere to the authoritarian aspect within any organized social movement ... however,I am equally convinced that the role of leadership must be one in which the people follow by means of their own volition and never by the act of coercion. - Karo

[Markxs]

the only way that could be prevented is to become an agressor yourself, so that would not be a solution. then you become part of the problem.

to become bigger to fight the enemy, is showing the world that you fear it.

i think we should take the chanche to be dominated

[Iepilei]

even in the act of revolution you must amass more to reign victorious over that which you're against.

[Markxs]

but if winning more then your opponent means that you become like you opponent the battle is useless

[Som]

Not all anarchists oppose leadership obviously enough.

The general tone of things is that all leaders are voluntary, and closer in function to a guide than a commander.

[Markxs]

its not obvious for me, please enlighten me

i agree with guide thing though

[Valkyrie]

You can have small-scale society without it being nomadic. I don't see the correlation that if the government - (a seperate entity from the economy); were to fall tomorrow-- industry and technology would go with it.. That is a fallacy.. Would people's brains go with it too?

[Valkyrie]

Also, the words regulated and control imply some sort of hierarchy.. Who is regulating and who is controlling? Oh yes.. "The People".... They need to regulate and control themselves.. or.... well.. otherwise! they will be out of control and there won't be any regulations!!!!! ha!!!!

[peaccenicked]

Leadership is a fact of life, it can not be negated scientifically. An advance in any subject under the sun leads the way, but again criticism will produce new leadership.
Regulation is present law and institution. It is the political constitution of working class organisations.
Marxists argue that these can not be done away with in one stroke.
The strengthing of workers control will take law out of the sphere of society as State and put law and custom in the sphere of nature and freedom.
Anarchists tend to say we start with our goals and will have nothing less; this if not tempered with a sense of hisorical timing ends up as a nothing: a utopian escape from the present.

[Markxs]

maybe we have advanced beyond that point where leadership is needed. or maybe we can only see that part of the world with our science that makes us think that we need leadership. or maybe science and its logic thinking is based on nothing more then, a totaly unlogic and unproofable thing that science is logical at all.

so if you cant proof science is right. how you can say that something which cant be proofed by science cant be proofed at all. thats not logic (heheheh)

[Som]

Quote: from Markxs on 12:36 am on Nov. 25, 2002
its not obvious for me, please enlighten me

i agree with guide thing though



By the organization inherent in the idea of anarcho-synidcalist societies.

The workers militia as an example, the units at the bottom are officially groups of 10 people working together, with no official squad leader, one person may emerge as the leader on his own accord, but its something everyone generally agrees on.
theres also people telling them where to go, so that they can make a coordinated effort.
They can definitly come and go when they want, they can disobey orders which they feel are wrong, and aren't bound by any orders, but they'll likely follow anyway.

Leadership is not the problem, its involuntary leadership which is wrong.

[Kehoe]

Those chicks that fail to follow the hen in her routine treks about the grounds become lost ... they cheep and cheep ... then eventually they die. - Karo

[Valkyrie]

Leadership can't be negated as historical fact.. But it's usefulness to the future advancement of society should be questioned. Is it really needed? In what context? To what extent can society function without it? And on the otherhand, in what way has the impact of leadership regressed society and prevented it from moving forward.

A leaderless society doesn't neccessarily assume a utopian one- utopian concedes a problemless perfected state and Anarchy realizes that problems are ever present. .. but it also realizes those factors can be mitigated but ONLY within the strata it finds itself in.
A rural area in West Virginia is not going to have the same social, agricultural, or environmental problems as an urban area in California.. or on an international scale - Ethiopia won't have the same problems as France. However, because a central leadership is burdened with overseeing those problems as a whole it's forced to deal with them with an indiscriminate blanket solution across the board. which ultimately eludes problem specific areas. The Anarchist solution to that is solving the problem from the level it generates from - decentralization of Power--- that is the Anarchist concern..

To the original topic: How can anyone guarantee that any leader will not abuse their power? It is guaranteed if there is no leader.

[peaccenicked]

It seems as though we have a solution to the problem of leadership.
Abolish it.
Yet surely that is an idea that requires leadership.
People need to be led away from leadership.
It is catch 22. Just because one says one is against leadership does not mean one is trusted automatically.

The best way to see it is as a problem of trust and political culture. The higher the level of political culture the more everyone becomes leaders . If everyone then becomes leaders then there are no leaders.
This question might be just pedantic if it were not for decentralisation. To me this is ok for more local democracy but under capitalism it ultimately has to be balanced with centralist concerns like currency and foriegn policy.

Socialism at first needs a strong centre to unify its resistance but it also needs democracy to keep the centre in check and rotating personnel.
Lets face it the left in general does not have good democratic record.
I think it is best to face democratic questions as they arise, than to have vague principles worked out beforehand.

[Kehoe]

Comrade peaccenicked ... sometimes your sense of logic is truly dizzying ... everyone becomes a leader thereby negating the need for leaders.Lets look at this more closely shall we?Bill is a leader,so is Tom,Dave,Scott,Sam,etc, ... Bill says,"I say that we approach the situation in this manner",Tom doesnt agree and tries to dissuade Bill from his views,Bill refuses to listen ... Tom kills Bill and thereafter declares that,"Bill was mistaken in his assumption and I proved this to be the case in that I eliminated him",whereupon Dave kills Tom thus proving that his case was invalid as well.Surely you see the lunacy of such a proposition.The very idea of all being leaders is a misnomer in itself,the whole idea of leadership depends on followers ... without potential followers there is no need for leaders.In the process of parlimentary debate there must be a select individual acting as the chair in order to officiate and recognize each introduction of ideas so as to regulate the flow of exchange.In this leaderless society that libertines and anarchists hint towards calumny and murder would jointly rule ... an utter gangland where one bunch of hooligans displaces another and the people are forced to sleep in blood.This may be your idea of paradise but I myself want no part of it. - Karo

[Iepilei]

division of government would help squelch too much power in the hands of one. even small communes would implement such structures.

you see the problem I have with small-scale communes goes all the way back to the Indo-European peoples - a group of aggressors who dominated the pacifist tribes in Europe, long before history. The agression of one group spread all across the continent and ultimately the world. with a larger-scale, divided system, you have the ability to defend and protect easier.

even if the state dissolves over the years, you still have it dormant incase of emergency.

[El Che]

I can understand, and indeed subscrite to, anarchy as a healthy atitude towards power, but within certain parameters. To know, the underlying notions of law, as the necessary foundation of society, and Democracy, as the only legitimate process for the creation and justification of the former. Society without law is primitivism and social obscurantism. Even the most primitive societies have law. In the extreme physical strenght is the law, a step up the social evolutionary ladder tribal obscuratism is the law, yet another step up refined obscurantism (Monarchy or Totalitarianism), with all its rituals, is the law, at the top of the ladder is Democracy, which one might say is anarchistic in nature. If one could invision society without law, which I can not, I think it would resemble some sort of nightmare.

Chomsky talks of a necessity for power structures to justify themselves, this seems to me like the sound approach. I would like to think all "anarchists" share this understanding (which I would qualify as responsible and sound) of society and power but I think that is not the case. So effectively a portion of anarchist thought is infact a call for the end of society as we know it. This in the (I believe erroneous) belief that all power structures are oppressive. And even if that were the case I believe their alternative would turn out to be even more oppressive.

[El Che]

For example, murder is ilegal. This is oppressive in that it constitutes a restriction on your freedom but it is IMO a necessary restriction. In the purely abstract sense Anarchists are correct when they say power structures are "oppressive" but the practical result of their ideas would be catastrophic. Such theory is a mere academic curiosity. Though I don`t doubt all social construction is ultimately a fiction, as is morality, I also dont doubt some fictions are necessary.

[Valkyrie]

Right, El Che... Murder, stealing, assualting, raping repression, should never be an acceptable part of society.. Anarchists never intend that Leaderlessness would create Lawlessness, chaos or a return to hunter-gather tribes. To ever have a leaderless society would entail that there is a cohesive cooperation among all people for it to able to work... Same to get to a fully socialist one... I don't see the two as oppositions of eachother but a synthesis of the same ideal..

Hopefully someday borders will come crashing down and the need for protection against foreign invasion and Indo-Euro seafarers will be relegated to the tales of Yore.

Right now, however.. the rightwing forces are mounting attacks against all freedoms.. and any vision of a free future is being surrendered.

[El Che]

It is my understanding that Leaderlessness creates Lawlessness. Or in other words Anarchy. It is not a question of intentions but of logic. But again, I am not suggesting all Anarchists advocate Leaderlessness.


Anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[BOZG]

No disrespect to you El Che but I'm pissed off of people using dictionaries to define entire ideologies. If the dictionary said under communism or socialism "Evil doctrine" would you surrender your beliefs? Believe only half of what you see or read.

Anarchists do not advocate leaderlessness, we support the idea that people are their own leaders, they control themselves and guide themselves. For the majority of the existance of human beings, leaders and power structures did not exist, why can't we return to a situation like that (and like Paris not saying we return to hunter-gatherer societies).

[redstar2000]

Is "leadership" the power to pursuade or is it the power to command? That seems to me to be the heart of the question.

In the former, "following" is voluntary. In the latter, "following" is a matter of avoiding unpleasant consequences for failing to follow.

Personally, I've never had a problem with someone trying to pursuade me of the merits of an idea or a course of action.

Someone who tells me I MUST think or do this or that...well, that's a different kettle of very smelly fish--unfit for human consumption in my view.

I can't deny this is very much a minority viewpoint at this point in history. People often SEEM to "want" a leader, to "want" someone to tell them what to do, how to live, etc. And it's hard to deny that some kinds of minimal rules or at least customs are required for humans to live together at all.

Nevertheless, I've noticed that whenever people bring this subject up, there appears to be something of a hidden agenda at work: people "need" leadership, therefore...follow ME! OBEY ME!! WORSHIP ME!!!

Or, if it's not that blatent (or silly), it's: follow the correct Marxist-Leninist-_________(insert hero) leadership and the always-correct principles of (un) democratic centralism. Of course, that IS just as silly.

Have you noticed how certain words have almost passed out of daily use in human languages? Do you ever find much occasion to speak of your "master" or your "slave" these days? How about your "lord" or your "serf"?

My expectation is that "leader" and "follower" will, someday, be "obsolete" words...only found in really large dictionaries and always with "archiac" printed next to them.

[El Che]

The concept Anarchy describes more then a political theory/ies. I guess what I`m trying to say is that most Anarchists to dont advocate real Anarchy. If you look back in my previous posts on this thread, and look at them as a whole, I think you`ll get a better idea of what I`m saying.

[peaccenicked]

kehoe. Leaders eliminating one another.
Leaders do not drop from the sky. A murderer as a leader is not a good idea to follow.
Leaders and followers can change position in different ways in different contexts.
It is those who believe in the 'strong man' who think the world fall apart without him are doomed to eternal following:voluntary subjugation.
If we lived in a society of leaders ie there would be no State. The very goal of both communism and anarchism. Lawlessness would be ok if there was no need for laws ie everybody behaved themselves.
Is it too much to ask?

[Valkyrie]

Anarchy theory always gets hung up on semantics. Everyone's using the same words and everyone means different things. Makes you bang your head against the wall.

[El Che]

So we all agree then.

[peaccenicked]

lmao

nice one El che.

Paris I think the point I made is that we sould apply principles to the here and now. Concepts get realised in practice, instead of being all things to all people beforehand.

[Valkyrie]

oh Yeah, I agree to that.. apply the priniciples to the here and now....So, Let's get rid of the leaders. Right Now! I like that concept!

The great thing about anarchy is that it isn't a dogmatic set of principles or static textbook theory. No one has to check Bakunin's writings for risk of ideological treason if a brand new idea is conceived. It's open to all suggestion and criticism, revision and debate... and why it so appeals to me. I totally stand on the side of adaping and adopting concepts to specific situations as they arise.. On the other hand, however, there is the stubborn argument that because the theory is not worked out scientifically or because it has yet to be applied then it is a "botched" or incomplete thoery. That I think is horseshit.

Anyway, what I mean about everyone using the same words but having different meanings of the same, is that when I use the word leader, I am referring to President's, Prime Minister, etc.. not low-level organizers such as boyscout leaders, committe leaders, or even cheerleaders. .. I am definetely talking about THE LEADER where the power consolidates with, -- I think others might literally interpret the word/s (there are other words as well,) and then misinterpret the seminal theory to the conclusion that it means all leadership at all levels ---and then of course envision a chaotic unfuctional subculture rising up in place....

At that point, the semantics of the words are being argued and the merits of the theory stops dead in it's tracks..... And that's when I go pound my head against the wall for the infinite time.

Anywayyyyy.......................

[Valkyrie]

By the way.. I would love to have a discussion of how anarchy might work in practice and how those paradoxical points could be dealt with..... Anyone up for it??...

[abstractmentality]

i would just like to add that the theories of people killing eachother and becoming this lawless group of people with no morality whatsoever is all up to opinion. The fact is that your opinion of human nature is just as good as mine, which is just as good as the PhD teacher at my school, because when you get into this realm, science doesnt know much about it. human nature is all theory, nothing more.

[Valkyrie]

Yeah, exactly the point, Abstract Mentality, I can guarantee there will continue to be offenses committed against indivuduals in any structure of a FREE society, even a communist one, given people's freewill. I don't neccessarily buy the argument that the police or the government are any huge deterent against people who are so inclined to do so.... Most people are not so inclined. It is only a minority that does.

Yeah, the record is still out on what constitutes a person's human nature. I like to think that the inclination to kill or murder isn't attributed to human nature, except perhaps only as far as self-preseravation is concerned, acting on the survival instinct,--- but the inclination more due to an individual temperment, which maybe could be controlled or atleast repressed. I am sure we have all felt like killing someone in theory at one point in our lives, or atleast making them dissappear... but of course to actually act on the impulse is something all together different..

[oki]

I do think it's in someones nature to beat an opponent,to hurt him or wound him,but I think the idea of killing him is a logical one.battles are supposed to determin your place in a hirarchy,within a group.no coherent group has profit by killing members,allso not the one on top,because who will you rule if you kill the ones below you?

I think anarchists should make it clear in discussions that anarchism is not just about destroying the old system,but allso about building a new one.that new system should fit the ideals as good as possible.equality and freedom.any ideas on how to create something like that are welcome.

[guerrillaradio]

I think we have to differentiate between "anarchy" and "anarchism". Anarchy is a condition, much like lawlessness, or after a natural disaster, that a nation or area might fall into accidentally. Anarchism is a system (or an anti-system, if you like), that is in place deliberately, based on anarchistic theory.

Personally, I feel that anarchism is by far the most ethical and moral system, but also by far the least practical and most difficult to apply fully. To me, it comes down to a question of which is the more important of idealism and practicality, and which one is to be pursued more, and by how much.

[peaccenicked]

The leading thought . Let us get rid of the leaders.
Is that not like political suicide?

[oki]

what you call anarchy I call chaos.the false leaders of the past have forced a hatecampane against anarchists upon the people,that gave the word its negative sound.(mutch like they did with communism)in those days anarchists were indeed violent,and known for their terrorism.but I believe that goes against the true spirit of anarchism.

you coould say it's killing politics.but it's better to say that you change known politics into a new thing.allso in an anarchist system there will be people chosen to "lead"but their purpuse will be oinly to represent a group,and state the groups wishes.now,in this system,we choose someone,and then turn away,and this person can do what he wants,for 4 jears.the only control we have is to choose someone else after his period is finished.but people should have the power to cancel him any time if he doesn't represent them the way he should.it will still be politics in a way,with the difference that it's not an occupation or carreer,so there is no more selfinterest,only the interest of the group.

[Valkyrie]

"The leading thought . Let us get rid of the leaders.
Is that not like political suicide?"

political suicide if the leaders got rid of themselves... with the people's participation -- nonetheless a Revolution. Keeping the leaders is suicide upon humanity. There's hardly refuting that most humanicide as been at the hands of leaders, scattered all through the annals of history.


GR... I gotta laugh.. I was trying hard to stay clear of the term Anarch-ism as it tends to denote an ideology rather than an open-ended theory. The term is so loaded that I sometimes use Autonomous Marxism.. However, despite the complete outrage the terms inspire -- I think it is better to carry on the tradition and the respect of the long fought battle to get this idea across, that I think we should not distance ourselves from it and keep with the spirit of the words for what they are - Anarchy and Anarchism are one and the same. It is the others who have perverted the terms.

"The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 284]

" Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies."

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca12

[Iepilei]

oh you can stretch the truth as far as you desire, the simple fact remains that polarisation will ensue if unchecked by some form or fashion of organisation or structure. now, not all structure has an absolute higher up - noone will have the final say-so, but guidelines and provisions will and must be placed to ensure that the overall looseness of the society is not undermined.

democracy free from heirarchies in government and economy will be a true democracy. now some may call that anarchy, and fine - whatever. i wasn't referring to these people. i was referring to these geeky-looking greenpeace environmentally concious people who believe that even the most nobel of leaders - such as King or Ghandi - are not to be trusted as "all leaders abuse power".

To lead is to make progress - which is why anarchism in it's 1500-1600 years of existance has failed to produce any form of outcome. Living homeless and growing your own fruit doesn't make a political statement - it's a waste of time.

[BOZG]

To lead is to make progress - which is why anarchism in it's 1500-1600 years of existance has failed to produce any form of outcome

What happened during the civil war in Spain? The Anarchists ran Barcelona.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Paris on 5:33 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Anarchy and Anarchism are one and the same. It is the others who have perverted the terms.

Hmmm...many anarchists would disagree with you on that point. I guess you're the expert though... :)

[Iepilei]

anarchism is just a loose government. international communism is the same thing.

the funny this is, however, that actual anarchy advocates complete abolition of any form of control or rule - private or industrial. real anarchy is a capitalist's haven, no pressing government on your back - the ability to rise as high as you wish with the laws of the world guiding you.

anarchism has swayed to the socialist side throughout the years it seems. it's against 'government' - but is for 'organisation'. it's government just in a diluted fashion.

now, don't get me wrong - the concept of a dissolved state over time is something that sounds quite nice, and is something i advocate. but the purpose of this thread was to question all the anarchiests who are FULLY against any form of leadership, be it imposed or earned. the people who disagree with a evolving society, the transitioning from the old world to the new... one man rule to full-scale democracy.

these are the naive children i speak of...

[redstar2000]

"geeky-looking"? NOT a political criticism!

"even the most noble of leaders is not to be trusted"--a true statement.

Why? Because trust can only exist among equals. When you "trust" a leader, what you're really doing is placing your "faith" in him that he won't screw you. And maybe he won't...THIS TIME.

If an equal says to you, "let's do this", you don't just do it; you EXPECT to be pursuaded to do it. From your equals, you expect reasons and arguments in favor or against proposed activities.

A "leader" simply says "follow ME". Some will, to be sure, advance reasons/arguments, but they don't HAVE to. At least, to be more precise, once they have attained "leadership" they don't HAVE to provide reasons. They rely on the "trust" and "faith" of their followers. They "know" what's best and, if you know what's good for you, then you'd better shut up and obey.

"To lead is to make progress"--tell it to the Germans. Their last "great leader" cost them 10 MILLION dead and a nation in rubble.

Technically speaking, I'm not an anarchist; but I admire and respect their insight into one of history's best kept secrets: we do not need leaders--we could free ourselves any time we wished if we really wanted to.

[Valkyrie]

"Hmmm...many anarchists would disagree with you on that point."

I'm not the expert, but I believe in it as the best social alternative and know it's the direction to world peace. I think the perversion of the word to mean disorder and chaos does a lot to discredit the theory which was built around the original context to mean without a ruler. That is in the context I use the word Anarchy. -- It seems people can't get passed the word to analyze it's merits or even to look further into it. Maybe If it was explained from the point of socialist federations and workers management it might be better accepted.



"anarchism has swayed to the socialist side throughout the years it seems. it's against 'government' - but is for 'organisation'. it's government just in a diluted fashion "


Anarchism started out on the communist side and has always remained true to socialism and the collective. The recent Libertarians and Laissez-faire Capitalists who want government non-interference have seized and distort the theory for their own agenda, which of course is not a communist one but a free market one.

[Iepilei]

the problem with debating this is there is no set definition for what anarchy is.

heh, irony.

i was going by the no-interferance concept, which politically makes more sense than organisation still - but I digress.

the organisation based 'anarchy' still sounds like a loosely woven government system - dormant, again like international socialism.

I'm also guessing we're locking horns on definitions of what exactly a "leader" is. When I think leader I'm thinking pioneer and one who helps others to see the light for progress. Someone who helps to unite in a particular area of the world (che had the 3rd world nations, lenin had russia, king had america, etc). A morale booster - the real trait of a leader.

From what I'm getting from everyone, a "leader" is someone who is appointed and is authoritative in command and dictates orders without concent or acceptance of the governed. Someone like a televangalist who is a good con artist. a skewed depiction, but understandable.


(Edited by Iepilei at 7:32 am on Nov. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Leaderism. You cant say all leaders are corrupt it is not pc.

Surely to set forth a programme of no hierarchies is an
act of leadership. Of course it is. Paris you seem to have a blind spot here.

[oki]

the most nobel of leaders - such as King or Ghandi -

eh,ghandi was a racist and responcible for a war.he liked to fuddle with little children at night too.

anarchism is not right or left it is non political in base and therefore can be adepted by left and right both.anarchism is a simple statement about freedom.it did not start as communist,anarchism was there BEFORE communism.the conservatives,who are high on freedom and no gouv. involvement have anarchist ideals too(they will never admit it.)but they use it for their evil capitalist plans.just like socialists use it to make a new society.
I think that anachism will stribe towards abandoning all rule and law and leadership,but this is not possible as long as people try to frustrate the freedom then created.so saying anarchism will be paradise for capitalkists is bull,because when capitalists do their thing,the freedom of others then themselves is limited.therefore it can not be allowed in an anarchist society.if you follow this simple rule,you will understand what anarchism should be about.

[Som]

Quote: from Iepilei on 7:25 am on Nov. 28, 2002

i was going by the no-interferance concept, which politically makes more sense than organisation still - but I digress.

the organisation based 'anarchy' still sounds like a loosely woven government system - dormant, again like international socialism.


Perhaps it is, but whats important is that its never a state.

One set of organization of things would be the bottom-up federated model, starting with commune, where people would organize themselves with their neighbors, coworkers, or so on, the communes set up federations of communes, or trade unions or things of the like, the federations organize into confederations, and so on.

Now, the federations has no power to enforce its descisions on anyone, but they act as a organizing force, like a federation of health workers would organize to distribute supplies to eachother, send doctors where theyre needed, and things of that nature, or a railway federation would organize to make sure all the trains run on the same schedule and the tracks are maintained.

If you would call that a government, thats alright, but i'd disagree.

[Valkyrie]

I think to set up a system of no hierarchies would be an act of collectivism. And though all leaders may not be corrupt.. all leaders hold a soveriegn power in that they have the last word.... whether it's based on public opinion or consensus or advice --- they still ultimately have the last decision... and that kind of vested power in my opinion is dangerous...

[Iepilei]

so do we agree that there is a difference between a leader and leadership?

[Valkyrie]

Yes

[Iepilei]

ok, then now I agree with the concept.

it's amazing how a few acts of miscommunication can bring upon a clash of intrests.

[peaccenicked]

Such a distinction is a good way of finding common ground.

[Valkyrie]

Ha ha! Yeah, calls to mind the famous "what we have here is a failure to communicate...." even T.S. Eliot said that words slip, slide, decay with imprecision. Words to define concepts are faltering.. perhaps we should use pictograms.. Where is our resident artist?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Iepilei on 10:59 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
real anarchy is a capitalist's haven, no pressing government on your back - the ability to rise as high as you wish with the laws of the world guiding you.



*Ahem* That's chaos you're talking about.

=======
Copy And Paste:

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society in which individuals freely co-operate together as equals without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchism essentially seeks to create a classless, stateless society, free of oppression and exploitation, that is organized and held together by the four principles; individual freedom, social and economic equality, free association, and mutual aid (i.e. cooperation and solidarity).

What isn't anarchism?

Anarchy does not mean chaos, crime, destruction or havoc. To the contrary, these have been the characteristics of political and economic hierarchies throughout history. One of the most common critiques of anarchism is that people "naturally" require hierarchal structures to govern society. However, every single hierarchal structure throughout history has burned to rubble. Not a single government nor empire has lasted more than a few hundred years. People have always rebelled against governments and hierarchal structures. Perhaps this is an obvious indication that people cannot sustain a natural equilibrium within society as long as hierarchy exists because as history has shown us, people will ALWAYS naturally rebel against them.

What type of society does Anarchism advocate?

Anarchism sees to create a society in which individuals can live independently from government and all top-down structures. We believe in mutual aid and cooperation. Anarchists believe in anti-authoritarian decision making, such as direct democracy. Direct democracy works off of consensus and more involves people expressing their ideas, opinions, concerns, criticism and suggestions about certain issues that effect that group of people. This is what makes direct democracy different than representative democracy. It eliminates all top-down hierarchical means of decision making. Many believe using consensus is naturally how humans work. For example, when you go out to see a movie with your friends you work on consensus.. You make a proposal by asking everyone, "what do you want to see?", and everyone decides. If there's a conflicting decision people usually talk about it. That's direct democracy. We do the same thing when we want to go out and eat for example. All these decisions effect us directly thus we engage in a format of a consensus decision making process so the decision can best fit our needs without excluding anyone's opinion or concerns from the group. This insures that everybody's voice is heard. Direct democracy also eliminates the top-down hierarchical in decision making format. People usually don't like it when another has the authority to make all decisions and boss everyone else around, therefore we naturally engage in consensus. Many anarchists believe that such behavior indicates that deep down inside we are all anarchists. Our behavior is so naturally anarchistic, that we don't even realize it.

So what do you want? Utopia? That's a dream. Nothing can be perfect!

Anarchism doesn't see to create the 'perfect society', but rather to achieve liberation by creating equality, education, and mutual cooperation. A community can achieve anarchism by declaring independence from statist capitalist forces by collectively organizing to form co-op networks to provide food, clothes and housing to the community. The Black Panthers and american Indian Movement demonstrated this in the late 60's and 70's. The only reason why they failed is because the FBI/CIA' cointelpro (counterintelligence program) neutralized revolutionary communities by means of chemical warfare.. and that today is one of the biggest problems we still face in our communities because of cointelpro.

[bombeverything]

There is a fundamental difference between class structure and organisation. Anarchy is neither chaotic nor disorganised. I believe in self-government as I believe it is the only true form of freedom. And to those of you who believe that human beings are innately bad [I personally reject that idea], why give control to the hands of the few?

[oki]

I agree.