Anarchism

[Behind enemy lines]

I have just started to read the book Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism and are wanting some opinions on this subject. So far it states that '"abolishing the state" as the first step in the revolution, destroying authority of every kind, and introducing total decentralisation are anarchists goals and they are quite untenable. It also states that Anarchism doesn't believe in the need for the dictatorship of the proletarian as a stepping stone to communism.
Do modern day to anarchists hold these same views.

Peoples thoughts please....

[bluerev002]

well, first i dont think that anarchism is the first step of a revolution. i think it is the last step.

[Valkyrie]

BEL,

What are you reading? They sound interesting.

This is what a current anarchist theorist, L. Susan Brown has to say:

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]


Most Anarchist fall on the side of Bakunin's theory that the state and capitalism would need to be abolished at the same time, as the state is a capitalist insitution, upholding capitalism and class divisions and would eventually reintroduce capitalism back into society. And yes, decentralization is a main goal, could probably even say the main goal..

This is a good resource to get a broad scope of the whole theory.
http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...rchivehome.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/archivehome.html)

Ararcho-syndicalism by Rudolph Rocker
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...ockerworks.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/rocker/rockerworks.html)

[Behind enemy lines]

Cheers Paris, I'll have a look into those web sites. Have you read or any other people read the above mentioned book. It's composed of stuff from engels, marx, and lenin.

[oki]

you can abolish state and decentralise,but in anarcho syndicalism something is put in place of that.people will have to start organising the community's again themselves.when you decentralise power,you put the power back into the hands of the people.if people are well organised,they will meet and talk on all levels and the country will work mutch better.anarchism doesn't want a dictatorship because then the power only shifts to another group,and not to the people.there are dangers in that,and it's better to spread the power right away sothat the people can run society,and be free and equal.

[Behind enemy lines]

But putting the power back into the hands of the people is the same goal as socialism. If people are well organised they have to sort out some kind of system that will be organised and have leadership and some kind of authority or things will just anarchy. But in doing so they will be violating their anarchist principles because to my understanding anarchist are against all kinds of authority.

If so how can anarchists want a revolution as a revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes it's will upon the other by means of rifles,etc.

In a anarchist society there will above all be no authority, for authority=state=absolute evil.
How do anarchist propose to run a factory, operate a railroad or steer a ship without a will that decides in the last resort, without single management?
Even though this authority is conferred voluntarily it must cease just because it is authority.

(last paragraph I got from a Engels letter)

[nz revolution]

Hehe watching anarchists steer a ship would be funny shit.

Even better watching anarchists have sex: sorry I cant go on top, it might seem like oppression which is evil. I cant take control cos then I'm being an authoritarian figure.

[Kows]

Actually, my understanding of Anarchism is the allowance of communities to develop independant of powers outside of their cultural 'sphere'. In my opinion, Anarchism is the best way for people to live closest to earth and with the most spirituality (and, it would be the BEST form of a democracy); Of course, that isn't the purpose of life per se: most would agree (although we have all been 'brainwashed' at least a little) that to acheive progress and human cultural evolution, a federal / state government has to be implimented in some form to provide the benefits of the group. I do believe, however, that a little step towards anarchism would be VERY good, as current systems are bound too much by precidents that should have NO impact in todays development and evolution of political systems.

[Kows]

How do anarchist propose to run a factory, operate a railroad or steer a ship without a will that decides in the last resort, without single management?
Even though this authority is conferred voluntarily it must cease just because it is authority.
(last paragraph I got from a Engels letter)

I humbly disagree.

The point of an anarchist society is to live off the land, with minimum technological improvements, and almost no communicatio between federal or state (as we know them or otherwise) powers. A 'true' anarchist would not WANT a factory, as a factory would fall outside the bounds of traditional human activity. There ARE politics and production in an anarchist society, but they are ruled by the cultural developments of the society up until that point. The community in this state is most powerful. I think the best example is of (some) of the Native Americans pre-1492. They lived in small communities of complete and realized democracy, and no man had any true power over the other, besides what he worked for (i.e. great community members were elected by the female voters to higher positions.)
While no society, or microcosm of society, has ever acheived a 'true' anarchy, they HAVE acheived a cultural anarchy. (I hope I am clear to you in what I am saying.)

I think the best way to learn about anarchy is to study society, and to read up on pre-colonial and expansionist societies (mainly pacific and mainland north american societies).
A mark of an anarchist society is the total freedom of everything, where everyone has full rights and powers over themselves; mainly expressed by anarchists as nudity.

Respectfully,
Kows

[oki]

Quote: from Behind enemy lines on 3:23 am on Nov. 27, 2002
But putting the power back into the hands of the people is the same goal as socialism. If people are well organised they have to sort out some kind of system that will be organised and have leadership and some kind of authority or things will just anarchy. But in doing so they will be violating their anarchist principles because to my understanding anarchist are against all kinds of authority.

If so how can anarchists want a revolution as a revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes it's will upon the other by means of rifles,etc.

In a anarchist society there will above all be no authority, for authority=state=absolute evil.
How do anarchist propose to run a factory, operate a railroad or steer a ship without a will that decides in the last resort, without single management?
Even though this authority is conferred voluntarily it must cease just because it is authority.

(last paragraph I got from a Engels letter)




in a way anarchism is a form of socialism.it's a way to acheave a goal,and it's the same goal as communism has.but the way towards it is different.a revolution is a violent thing,and you're right it's not about equality in base.it's about getting rid of people that frustrate equality in society,sort of a correction before you can start.in an anarchist society there will only be one kind of ruling,and thats the ruling of the people.if a leader has no personal power to abuse,he is still a leader.the power should stay with the people.

example:whenyou are with a group of friends,and want to give a party,someone should organise it.the group decides that one person does a task.you talk with the group on what you all want.this person goes out and does it.when he fucks up or is a bad organiser,the group protests and sais we choose someone else to do it.this is a very basic system.modern democracy goes like:pick one of teh friends,and this person gets to determin everything.if the group protests he doesn't listen,and continues making the party the way he sees fit.and there you have a difference between anarchism and democracy.

you can run factory's and ships this way.if someone is a good captain,let him be a captain.no problem.

KOWS,your you are only describing a way of anarchism.not anarchism in full.neighter am I.I think anarchism should be looked upon as an ideal.you can be extreme in the ideal or think lets see how close we can come,it's both anarchism.some anarchists want to abolish all technique and modern ways,and return to small community living,but as example the spanish syndicalists were for a nation or even worldwide system of anarchism,where industrialisation and economy were very important.

[Kows]

Oki,
I cannot conceive of how that would exist. Perhaps my mind is too small (:
I think that in anarchism (At least the way I was 'taught'), a global or widespread system would lead to the development of political ideas outside the culture of natural human thought.

Then again, I can definately see where you are coming from.

[Behind enemy lines]

To bad that the spanish anarchists didn't last to long.

Can a anarchist tell me exactly how they would run a ship without a 'authoritarian figure'.

[nz revolution]

Well you see there wouldnt be a ship because a factory is not allowed.

Back to the primitive!!!

[Som]

Quote: from Kows on 5:30 am on Nov. 27, 2002

The point of an anarchist society is to live off the land, with minimum technological improvements, and almost no communicatio between federal or state (as we know them or otherwise) powers. A 'true' anarchist would not WANT a factory, as a factory would fall outside the bounds of traditional human activity.

Wrong.

While what your describing is perhaps one vein of anarchism, the anarcho-greens, which are more often called primitivists, its not the more common anarchist way of things.

Anarchism seeks to build a society of free association and voluntary cooperation, the authority it seeks to destroy is merely involuntary authority. Anarchism is running an industrial society in the same means as communism.

So the point of anarchism has nothing to do with industrialization or not, technology and the industrial world are not threats to your freedom, and can be quite helpful to it.

And the rest of this thread,

Your getting caught up on 'authority', anarchists don't seek to destroy all authority, they seek to abolish involuntary authority.
the ship factory and so on would be run by democratic institutions and that sort of thing.

[oki]

Quote: from Behind enemy lines on 10:30 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
To bad that the spanish anarchists didn't last to long.

Can a anarchist tell me exactly how they would run a ship without a 'authoritarian figure'.


imagin you and 25 friends that respect eachother on a ship and how you would run it.

[Iepilei]

confusion.

You're for structure, but the basis on your philosophy resides in the absense of structure.

If it's so much like communism why the 2nd name? Why the hell aren't you people just communist? Is it because since it has a coherant name you're automatically against it because all forms of social structure are the ways of evil?

Please, you're denying your own humanity if you think that people don't structure their lives for efficiency. Are single, all powerful leaders needed? Hell no. But is a group of trusting individuals, selected by the people, needed to help direct? I believe so.


(Edited by Iepilei at 6:09 pm on Nov. 28, 2002)

[Iepilei]

Quote: from oki on 3:00 pm on Nov. 28, 2002

Quote: from Behind enemy lines on 10:30 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
To bad that the spanish anarchists didn't last to long.

Can a anarchist tell me exactly how they would run a ship without a 'authoritarian figure'.


imagin you and 25 friends that respect eachother on a ship and how you would run it.


I don't know about you, but I'm not afraid to tell my friends when something needs to be done. If there is a leakage problem on said ship, I'm not a damn bit afraid to yell for someone to take action. They're not either.

[Spartacus2002]

You know, anarchist are sortof our comrades, but i agree with what bob marley said if your going to tear something down you have to replace it with something right?

[Som]

Quote: from Iepilei on 6:05 pm on Nov. 28, 2002
confusion.

You're for structure, but the basis on your philosophy resides in the absense of structure.


The basis of anarchism has never resided in the absense of structure. There have been a few who believed that, but its far from an inherent idea.

All structure being organized voluntarily is the basis of anarchism.
Bottom up organization, residing on the collective and non forcefull will of the majority.

People will agree to a sortof leadership when its needed, community leaders, delegates to federations and confederations, factory leaders, so on, but essentially, these people will work together, instead of in a hierarchy to eachother, and they aren't so much leaders, as guides.


If it's so much like communism why the 2nd name? Why the hell aren't you people just communist? Is it because since it has a coherant name you're automatically against it because all forms of social structure are the ways of evil?

Its because communism has been associated with marxism and anarchists aren't marxists. Most people calling themselves communists wish to make another state, and while their ultimate goal is supposedly destroying the state, involuntary authority is rarely sought to be destroyed.
Most anarchists actually do call themselves communists in one strain or another. the CNT is spains called it 'libertarian communism', many anarchists use anarcho-synidicalism, or anarchist communism as well.

[Iepilei]

I believe another state will need to be constructed until the world can transition to socialism - to destroy the bourgeoise and heirarchies based upon the simplest concepts... currency.

this will negate power / prestige through wealth - a step in the correct direction.

but even after the uniting of the world under socialism, stability must be insured. Otherwise aggressor groups could thwart what many fought to create - taking progress all the way back to primitive time... dominant holds all...

the state must still exist - just remain dormant. in the absense of power, leaders WILL rise. People with charisma and voice will get people to follow them.

[Behind enemy lines]

The reason I'm sticking to Authority so much is cos I want to know more about anarchism. I thought I'd just stay with one aspect of it until I am clear about it.

Anyway I think authority is a imperative in any society as things would turn to anarchy if there was none.

I'll give a example to try and get my point across. I'ts from a Engels letter.

...Let us take another example-the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of indivuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate question, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persons interested. In either case there is a very pronouced authority.....We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and , on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisations, are imposed uopn us toghter with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.

I can't give much examples of my own as my knowledge of anarchism is still limited so you'll have to put up with quotes.

What are anarchists thoughts on this? Are there different thoughts according to different sects, if so can someone tell me which type thinks what.

Cheers




I am confused when some(or maybe all) sects of anarchy say that there will be no authority in there society as they will just co-ops

[Behind enemy lines]

Ignore last two sentences. Put there by mistake.

[oki]

Q:"If it's so much like communism why the 2nd name? Why the hell aren't you people just communist? Is it because since it has a coherant name you're automatically against it because all forms of social structure are the ways of evil? "

because,like someone said,communism is marx and marx theory is very specific and unbendeble.and outdated I think.anarchism is an ideal,and all real communists are allso anarchists.so it's the other way round.communism is just a way to acheave anarchism.but not the only one.

Iepilei,you're missing the point.if you wouldn't agree with what your friend tells you to do,would you still do it?no.and if he gets all dictator on you,you kick his ass right?so if someone has the talent to run the ship,let him.if he shows to be not capeble or represses you,you cancell him.this is a normal way of deraling with a group situation.and it's not possible to do this in this current system ,allso not in a communist system.

[eliangonzales]

GREETINGS, ALL
I am new to this website.
I am an anarchist film maker from NY. I'd like to reply briefly to all interested in anarchy and leftist thinking-There needs to be somewhat of a cease fire in the political bantering amongst young revolutionaries in our society-there are hundreds of thousands voices of dissent in the United States- yet the egotistial footnote and webpage link refering mentality is a plague of counterrevolutionary bullshit that has been victimizing us since the rise of the internet. We are a generation of highly intellectual and well-read young people who work in food courts and clothing chains- or even worse-in a cubicle. Whatever trade we are forced into-the boredom, brainwashing and excessive hours <45-55/wk to make ends meet> are at the least- undesireble in a "free country".
This is a basic truth--one that should propel every young or disenfranchised individual in the US into action-PROTESTS-LARGE FLYER/BANNER/NEWSLETTER campaigns-boycotts and media sabotages. Yet our technocray has made us complacent-forcing our dissent to be silenced and hidden from the mainstream via the internet--message rooms email groups etc.
When will the rage crystallize into active demonstrations of guerilla-unity and widespread disturbing displays of dissatisfaction-so widespread that EVERY reporter must stop what theyre doing and take a look? Any real revolutionary must lay down at night feeling impotent and dissatisfied in the obvious holes and weaknesses that permeate the "web" of loosely knit opposition. This access and excess of technology has been and will surely continue to silence and pacify the great mass of opposition in the US-and if we dont take it to the streets imediately-all hope is lost.
I have several projects I am orienting in my hometown and nationwide-in the name of che, castro, hoffman, ML king, malcolm right down to chomsky and above all myself and my generation-hoping to publicize hostility to the veil of american capitalism, war mongering and technological/media-anti rebellion tatics--i would be very interested to speak to anyone who would like to join in the crusade to multiply protests and displays of radicalism around the nation
peace-m.c.

[redstar2000]

This is an unusual thread by che-lives standards...into page three and no one has yet called anyone else a "fool", "idiot", "counter-revolutionary", etc. Good job, comrades, there may be hope for us yet.

Engels DID attack the anarchists of HIS time rather sharply...and I'm not sure he always picked the best grounds to fight on.

In OUR era it's rather easy to see how ships, trains, planes or even factories could run without (human) authority...just turn on the auto-pilot and let the computer keep track of the details. Much of the western world ALREADY runs like this...more of it with every passing decade. We don't really have to live in a cave any more even if we want to abolish "leaders".

Consider the post from eliangonzales just above this one. He has ideas for advancing the struggle; he makes proposals; he puts forward arguments about why we should join his efforts.

Is he a "leader"? He can't MAKE anybody do ANYTHING...he can only pursuade. You either find his arguments compelling and his proposed projects exciting...or you don't.

This kind of "leadership" is what I think both real communists and many anarchists (particularly anarcho-syndicalists) would find acceptable and even admirable.

What sticks in our throats--or at least in MINE--is so much as a hint that human autonomy and liberty should be destroyed "in the name of saving it". The use of the rhetoric of liberation ("the revolution", "communism", "working class unity", etc.) to actually disguise the assumption of power by a class of new bosses is UNACCEPTABLE.

The "power of command" must be in the hands of the working class as a whole. The details may be tricky to work out and we won't get there instantly...but THAT's the framework, the guiding purpose of all our efforts. A good idea can be put forward by ANY individual...but the power of decision must be in all our hands collectively.

If we could someday DO that...who will really care about the terminology?

[Blackberry]

Good post Comrade RedStar, but there are a few people participating in this thread who have no idea what they're talking about. Let me copy and paste this to clear a few things up...:

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.


(Edited by Neutral Nation at 4:12 am on Dec. 3, 2002)

[Iepilei]

sounds like a unified communist state to me.

the only difference I see is that most Marxists tend to agree that society is a step-by-step process. Humanity is incapable of switching to a new concept of without sampling what life could be like. We as a people seem to be leerie of any form of radical change from the usual, and we want to be sure that what we support will actually be efficient and effective.

Atleast, that's my justification for it.

[oki]

marxism is one way of getting there.the big difference with anarchism is that ,in marxism ,there is a period of dictatorship .anarchists cant accept this.

indeed a good post,redstar.