The Realities of Anarchism in the U.S.

[Resist]

(This is aimed toward the Anarchist on the forum)

The idea that once a successful revolution takes place and true Anarchism will rein the land with no resistance is quite farfetched... I have been thinking about this allot lately and the things that you don't think of in a post revolution world.

A. Government will exist in some form large or small- the truth is that mans downfall lays with its lust for power... Man will always try to rule Man.

B. as it is if the U.S. where to be an anarchist society there would need to be many things like a police force... now I know what you are all thinking... fuck the police... well I am thinking that everyday... the idea of having a standardized police force is crazy. But here is a thought, arm everyone... if John Locke said one thing right it was the fact that people are inherently good... if everyone is armed in some way or another then that carries out the plan by itself, if someone tries to rob someone else they are armed and ready to fight back... if someone rapes or kills someone then the family or something hires a private detective to find out who did it and then the justice is served. Crazy... (Needs more work)

C. What many Anarchist do not grasp is the idea that no society in the world has ever been Anarchist. "Civilization has always had some form of government. A lot of things need to be taken into account that I cannot currently think about. I ask of you to look throughout your day for things that the Government controls and runs or funds... then think of a way to do whatever it is... without the government.

D. Secret Government Places.... NORAD, Area 51 (and the rest of the so called "areas" for that matter) these places are deep rooted into the government and will never ever be conquered... these places will contain Government Officials planning to fight back against the Anarchist Society.

E. There must be an army... if the society where to become anarchist then foreign invaders would jump on America like a cat on a dead fish during the summer. This also reflects the arming everyone idea. Also the army would fight back against leaders trying to enslave people. This army would NOT be uniformed nor would they be ruled but a head leader guy. Now I do think there should be leaders for these groups in neighborhoods but... that’s about as far as it goes...


Elaborate on these subjects... and I know some communist will be saying "Well that’s why anarchy is to extreme" one should never take the action in saying there is something to extreme... always push further then take what you need from the farthest point and then recede...

NEVER SURRENDER....

Jah Bless

Dan

[Gryphon]

You should proof-read it there's alot of mistakes.

[Everyday Anarchy]

A. Government will exist in some form large or small- the truth is that mans downfall lays with its lust for power... Man will always try to rule Man.
This simply comes down what 'government' means to you. An anarchist would see 'government' as an organized force set up to oppress and control people lower than it. This would be abolished and replaced with an autonomous, co-operating "system."


B. as it is if the U.S. where to be an anarchist society there would need to be many things like a police force... now i know what you are all thinking... fuck the police... well i am thinking that everyday... the idea of having a standardized police force is crazy. But here is a thought, arm everyone... if John Locke said one thing right it was the fact that people are inherently good... if everyone is armed in some way or another then that carries out the plan by itself, if someone tries to rob someone else they are armed and ready to fight back... if someone rapes or kills someone then the the family or something hires a private detective to find out who did it and then the justice is served. crazy... (needs more work)
Arming everybody sounds a bit lunatic, I don't know. Some anarchists are anti-gun.
There would be a people's militia for defense against invading nations and revolting reactionaries. What makes you think detectives would disappear? I think they'd still be around. Lots of children grow up enjoying detective stories and try solving "crimes" around their neighborhood. But you also need to identify what drives a person to rape or kill another, then we can discuss how this would be reduced.


C. What many Anarchist do not grasp is the idea that no society in the world has ever been Anarchist. "Civilization has always had some form of government. Alot of things need to be taken into account that i cannot currently think about. I ask of you to look throughout your day for things that the Government controls and runs or funds... then think of a way to do whatever it is... without the government.
No society in the world has ever been Anarchist? One doesn't have to look too far. The Spanish Civil War is a great example of anarchy in action. For a more detailed list, check this out Past and Present Anarchist Communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities). Not to mention that family gatherings or friends usually operate under pretty anarchist 'principles.' Also, there are many anarchist organizations in effect today.

Let's see at what the government controls/runs: military, "welfare," police, compulsory schools. Military could easily be ran by the people just as the revolutionaries run the army to overthrow the state. Government "welfare" wouldn't be necessary, plus there are already many voluntary organizations like this (for example, Food Not Bombs). Police... well, this should be obvious-- if not, look up the topic on police from a while back. Compulsory schools have also been discussed in another topic.


D. Secret Government Places.... NORAD, Area 51 (and the reast of the so called "areas" for that matter) these places are deep rooted into the government and will never ever be conqeured... these places will contain Government Officals planning to fight back against the Anarchist Society.
All part of the revolution.


E. There must be an army... if the society where to become anarchist then foerein invaders would jump on america like a cat on a dead fish during the summer. This also reflects the arming everyone idea. Also the army would fight back against leaders trying to enslave people. This army would NOT be uniformed nor would they be ruled but a head leader guy. Now i do think there should be leaders for these groups in neighborhoods but... thats about as far as it goes...
Once again, a people's militia. I believe there could be 'majors' but their positions would be voted on by the soldiers and it would be very possible to remove them. This is something I've heard to be called "rational authority." It'd be wise to obey the orders of an experienced soldier. You aren't forced to obey at all, it's just smart to do so.


Elaborate on these subjects... and i know some communist will be saying "Well thats why anarchy is to extream" one should never take the action in saying there is something to extream... always push furthur then take what you need from the farthest point and then receed...
You're probably right about some *marxist* saying anarchy is too extreme or stupid. There's a couple sectarian dogmatic marxists here who leap on every opportunity to stereotype anarchists.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Gryphon
You should proof-read it there's alot of mistakes

The concept, for instance.

A. Are you a leftist at all? If not...what are you doing here?
B. The concept behind anarchism isn't "give everybody guns!" It's "free everybody from oppression".
C. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are plenty of examples.
D. Fine. Take their weapons and explain why they're wrong. Or just kill 'em.
E. Who's going to invade the United States? What the hell would they have to gain? Enrage a giant group of people who would be finally united? This doesn't make any sense.

No offense (okay, yes offense. Plenty of offense) but Jah can fuck off.

[Resist]

A. Are you a leftist at all? If not...what are you doing here?

yes i am leftist... what makes you think otherwise?


B. The concept behind anarchism isn't "give everybody guns!" It's "free everybody from oppression".

i was only offering ideas...


C. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are plenty of examples.

i meant a nation with the political belief of anarchism.


D. Fine. Take their weapons and explain why they're wrong. Or just kill 'em.

what do you mean by this?


E. Who's going to invade the United States? What the hell would they have to gain? Enrage a giant group of people who would be finally united? This doesn't make any sense.

Who... China, Russia anyone wanting our natural resorces anyone who is power hungry and wants our land... also we do not live in a world that only near by nations invade.


don't just tell me i am wrong for having ideas thats whats wrong with this movement "oh your wrong i am going to hate you now" tell me something better come up ideas better and better ideas never stop thinking of new ones thats also what is wrong with every organized religion or government. Traditionalism is a distructive force, they come up with ideas and then stick with them never changing them to go along with the times... disscuss this stuf just don't say its worng or dumb....

[rebelworker]

Anarchim, libertarian communism will only be possible through the mass movements of the opressed. It is not a utopian idea, it is a social structure based on free federation of radically democratic communities.

This will be a radically different situation that the America you speak of.

Govt? Man cant controll man if its against the rules.
The abolition of Authority and centralised power must be one of the main tasks of revolutionaries.

Army? yes, peoples militias. With elected and recallable officers. All under the cntroll of the communities the originate from.

Police? of a different kind, again elected and recallable bodies based in local communities with a clear mandate from the communities they "serve".

Area 51? If the govt is left noone will make it. we have to find and eliminate all former centers of State Power.

Anarchist Society? Well communal societies make up the majority of human history. Though not truly anarchist or communist it dose show that if material conditions are right people do not need to dominate each other. Also the majority of human support and activity is voluneteer run.

Sports leagues, social clubs, charaties, theater groups, community and ethnic assosiations... the list goes on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A. Government will exist in some form large or small- the truth is that mans downfall lays with its lust for power... Man will always try to rule Man.

On what do you base this unsubstantiated assertion?


B. as it is if the U.S. where to be an anarchist society there would need to be many things like a police force... now I know what you are all thinking... fuck the police... well I am thinking that everyday... the idea of having a standardized police force is crazy. But here is a thought, arm everyone... if John Locke said one thing right it was the fact that people are inherently good... if everyone is armed in some way or another then that carries out the plan by itself, if someone tries to rob someone else they are armed and ready to fight back... if someone rapes or kills someone then the family or something hires a private detective to find out who did it and then the justice is served. Crazy... (Needs more work)

This is a mess. First you say that Man has an inbuilt lust for power, and then you say that you agree with Johnny Locke that Man is inherently good. Choose one. Controlling others is not good because it disregards how they want their lives to be.


C. What many Anarchist do not grasp is the idea that no society in the world has ever been Anarchist. "Civilization has always had some form of government. A lot of things need to be taken into account that I cannot currently think about. I ask of you to look throughout your day for things that the Government controls and runs or funds... then think of a way to do whatever it is... without the government.

Once again, a vague unsubstantiated assertion that without government everything would fall apart. Just because something has not been done before does not render it impossible.

The jury is still out.


D. Secret Government Places.... NORAD, Area 51 (and the rest of the so called "areas" for that matter) these places are deep rooted into the government and will never ever be conquered... these places will contain Government Officials planning to fight back against the Anarchist Society.

And they will do what exactly? There's no Central HQ for them to bomb in anarchist society, and if they attempt an occupation with the soldiers that haven't joined the revolutionary side, guerilla tactics can be used against the aggressors. Otherwise let 'em rot in their bunkers.


E. There must be an army... if the society where to become anarchist then foreign invaders would jump on America like a cat on a dead fish during the summer. This also reflects the arming everyone idea. Also the army would fight back against leaders trying to enslave people. This army would NOT be uniformed nor would they be ruled but a head leader guy. Now I do think there should be leaders for these groups in neighborhoods but... that’s about as far as it goes...

Do you seriously think that in the event of a revolution in the US, the surrounding countries would try to invade? I think the ruling class of other countries would be too busy trying to surpress revolutions in their own countries. That's if they haven't already had revolutions. Not to mention that invading and occupying a country of 230 million people is no small task. You think Iraq is bad?

And fuck Jah.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

I think that outright Anarchism is foolish, because the masses have not yet broken away from the mindset of the old bourgeoisie systems, so thus a socio-political evolution must take place, as it has through the ages. From the ashes of revolution should rise a Socialist government, from there into Communism (preferably Luxemborgian-Council Communism), and from there into Anarchism, from what I have seen Anarchism can't just happen, unless you want a chaotic and primitivist society.

A). True, man lusts for power, but if everyone is theoretically working towards an Anarchist civilization, as the final goal, such lusts would be secondary, or surpressed by the populace, and seen as counter-revolutionary.

B). An Anarchist does not imply a "rule-less," society, Anarchism coming from the Greek "Anarcia," meaning "without archons," meaning rulers, not without rules. I think that laws would be determined by the people through voting which would be most efficient, and if say someone where to murder or rape an individual, they would be tried by the people, and if found guilty, the people should decide what punishment is most deserved, and it would be voted upon by the people, as in a jury. However there would be no bureaucracy or imposed useless laws, and regulations like in today's court system, so criminals can't find loop holes. Though I am not well versed on Anarchist law theories yet.

C-D). Both would be eliminated by the revolution provided my socio-political evolution takes place.

E.) Again, Internationalist goals should be met prior to the founding of an Anarchist society, thus with no states fighting for supremacy, wars would theoretically be almost non-existant. a need for an army would not be necessary. However if a small band of counter-revolutionary armies were to spring up, it is the duty of the people to band together and irradicate it, so as not to go back to the days of oppression.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by Disciple of [email protected] 11 2006, 08:28 PM
From the ashes of revolution should rise a Socialist government, from there into Communism (preferably Luxemborgian-Council Communism), and from there into Anarchism, from what I have seen Anarchism can't just happen, unless you want a chaotic and primitivist society.
What exactly do you mean that we would go from Communism to Anarchism?
Ever heard of anarcho-communism? I think what you're talking about is Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not necessarily "communism."

I also find it strange how you have no faith in the people, yet you advocate a small number of people holding all the guns (government).

[Gryphon]

don't just tell me i am wrong for having ideas thats whats wrong with this movement "oh your wrong i am going to hate you now" tell me something better come up ideas better and better ideas never stop thinking of new ones thats also what is wrong with every organized religion or government. Traditionalism is a distructive force, they come up with ideas and then stick with them never changing them to go along with the times... disscuss this stuf just don't say its worng or dumb....


You are right, Traditionalism does prevent progress. I found your excerpts wrong according to the objective perception of Anarchy but maybe not to your own view, and that OK. Quite frankly I did find your concepts intresting though it needs more thought but its certainly not dumb. Continue your work comrade and nevermind the harsh critics around here, most are jealous you are set to write a book and they're not and some are just playing smart-ass.

[anomaly]

This book sounds horrible.


Originally posted by Resist+--> (Resist)The idea that once a successful revolution takes place and true Anarchism will rein the land with no resistance is quite farfetched[/b]
And who's saying this? I think immediate post-revolutionary anarchism will have some resistance in the form of angry, recently overthrow ex-bourgeoisie. True, probably most of the ex-bourgeoisie will join the new society rather than die, but some, maybe 5-10%, will fight. But, they should be quickly crushed.

And there is nothing here that neccesitates the state. We should smash the state.


Government will exist in some form large or small- the truth is that mans downfall lays with its lust for power... Man will always try to rule Man.
What if a government exists in a non-hierarchical form? For example, we could have a demarchic government which is actually subordinate to the people...so if the gov't fucks up, the people can easily call the bluff. Or we could have direct democracy. Then everyone is the government.


But here is a thought, arm everyone
Maybe. But should we give guns to people who are bipolar? What of other risks of this idea? I think a volunteer people's militia sounds like a better idea. The details will have to be worked out when we get to anarchist society. :P


I ask of you to look throughout your day for things that the Government controls and runs or funds... then think of a way to do whatever it is... without the government.
Well, we don't need a government to run a school. I don't need the government to give me social security checks under anarchism (I can just take what I need). And all rules can be decided democratically by the people.


Secret Government Places
These will amount to a few crazies in a bunker. And why should we fear that?


There must be an army
See the idea of people's militias.


NoXion
And fuck Jah.
My sentiments exactly. Plus, this is just a great line. :lol:

[Everyday Anarchy]

Continue your work comrade and nevermind the harsh critics around here, most are jealous you are set to write a book and they're not and some are just playing smart-ass.
Pfft, jealous? I think it's more of trying to correct him or show him his faults before they get published and these misconceptions spread.



i meant a nation with the political belief of anarchism.
There can never be an "anarchist nation." Nations are merely the land ruled by a specific king/president. In the words of Anti-Flag: No Borders, No Nations! ^_^
So if you're waiting for a self-proclaimed "Anarchist Nation" to appear before you can accept anarchism, think again. Also, I wouldn't exactly call anarchism a 'political belief' as it's majorly apolitical, but I understand what you meant and I don't feel like being an asshole :P

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Gryphon
most are jealous you are set to write a book
Jealous? Of this book? Maybe I'd be jealous if it was a technical mathematical study of general relativity.

But, if he really is writing a book with the stated passages included, I just feel sorry for the readers (if there are any). :lol:

[Gryphon]

Yes he is wrong on his total take on Anarchism, and it would be wrong to publish such a misinterpreted view. But we should be helping him understand the facts and not put him down just because he had the courage to post his insights.

[RebelDog]

I think you have taken some ideas of anarchism and tried to apply them to todays society. You must think beyond the constraints of today. You must try to imagine a world without private property and start from there.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Resist
Government will exist in some form large or small- the truth is that man's downfall lays with its lust for power... Man will always try to rule Man.

A century or two ago, people talked quite seriously about "Man" as a kind of "universal abstraction" about which useful things might be said.

Serious people don't do that any more; can you guess why?

Well, it was discovered that there's no such animal as "Man"...there are only specific real humans in a specific real situation with a specific real history.

To speak of "Man" abstractly is to make meaningless mouth-noises. You might just as well belch for all the semantic content in words about "Man".

Whether humans can "do anarchism" remains to be seen...but babbling about "Man" does not constitute any kind of "refutation" at all!

A book based on a false premise is not worth writing!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[barista.marxista]

I agree with RS2k on the definition of man. And furthermore: you are obviously one of those people who think that anarchism means no government, no organization, etc. Anarchism simply means "without rulers," not "without order." The premise is that institutions and organizations (such as councils, federations, etc.) are organized cooperatively, not forcefully (except onto the remaining bourgeoisie). There will be systems, and a new form of economics, and all that fun stuff. But it's not done hierarchally, but rather through collective participation. In that same vein: if you advocate revolution by the masses, don't you think if the masses experience such a change of consciousness as to revolt, then that new consciousness would stay through the organizing of the new society?

Your view of anarchism is horribly bourgeois. I'd suggest reading some actual anarchist theory, and particularly recommend The ABCs of Anarchist Communism, by Alexander Berkman.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

What exactly do you mean that we would go from Communism to Anarchism? Ever heard of anarcho-communism? I think what you're talking about is Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not necessarily "communism."

I mean we should go from a Luxemborgian-Council Communist system, and evolve into an Anarchist system, because you can't go from a capitalist society straight to Anarchism, because then that would make the people unorganized and confused, and it would probably digress back into an oppressive capitalist state again, that is why I said that going straight to Anarchism is foolish.

Luxemborgian-Council Communism, is not related to Marxist-Leninist Communism, which stresses the need for a vanguard party, and dictatorship of the proletariat (which I think is a misinterpretation on Lenin's part), Luxemborgian-Council Communism, is closer to Anarchism, and is the right paradigm to mold into and evolve into Anarchism.

I am not talking about any specific sect of Anarchism, (yes I have heard of Anarcho-Communism), and I never mentioned dictatorship of the proletariat.


I also find it strange how you have no faith in the people, yet you advocate a small number of people holding all the guns (government).

Further more Luxemborgian-Council Communism has total faith in the people. Also I have total faith in the people, and comrades, and I do not advocate any form of government, and I believe that the conception of state is false, hence why I'm an Anarchist. I believe that Socialism, and Communism are the necessary and evolutionary steps toward an Anarchist society.

[Resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:39 PM
I agree with RS2k on the definition of man. And furthermore: you are obviously one of those people who think that anarchism means no government, no organization, etc. Anarchism simply means "without rulers," not "without order." The premise is that institutions and organizations (such as councils, federations, etc.) are organized cooperatively, not forcefully (except onto the remaining bourgeoisie). There will be systems, and a new form of economics, and all that fun stuff. But it's not done hierarchally, but rather through collective participation. In that same vein: if you advocate revolution by the masses, don't you think if the masses experience such a change of consciousness as to revolt, then that new consciousness would stay through the organizing of the new society?

Your view of anarchism is horribly bourgeois. I'd suggest reading some actual anarchist theory, and particularly recommend The ABCs of Anarchist Communism, by Alexander Berkman.
i am sorry i know my idea of anarchism is messed up its just i, don't trust government, i just got out of jail for terroristic threats against the government, i was beaten i don't trust government at all any power.... it always gets corrupted.

[YSR]

Than I would expect you to BE an anarchist, or at least be more sympathetic.

Plus, your story and views are utterly unbelievable.

[Resist]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 12 2006, 09:12 PM
Than I would expect you to BE an anarchist, or at least be more sympathetic.

Plus, your story and views are utterly unbelievable.
why would i lie about something like that, i sent a letter to a friend, about certain things, it also contained certian materials which are "illegal" according to homeland security... he got arrested for pot charges the letter was found and it had my name on it i was charged with distrabution of terroristic material, i was locked up for 4 months now i am on parole....

YSR... your name suits you

[Gryphon]

why would i lie about something like that, i sent a letter to a friend, about certain things, it also contained certian materials which are "illegal" according to homeland security... he got arrested for pot charges the letter was found and it had my name on it i was charged with distrabution of terroristic material, i was locked up for 4 months now i am on parole....

So thats how it is in the U.S. now? I always thought the U.S. government were radical imperialists, but this takes the cake with their eaves-dropping and censorship. Homeland security seems to act like the Gestapo! Very alarming! Unless you wrote about killing inocent american civilians, I don't see why a letter would be terrorist material.