Anarchist word

[YSR]

I'm looking for a way of describing a (hypothetical) geographic mass in which there has been an "anarchist revolution."

My problem is that unlike the post-revolutionary Marxist paradigm, where society is structured along similar lines throughout and can thus be called a "state," anarchism (obviously) lacks this. Anarchists have tended to see themselves as non-totalizing (except all the post-leftists I've ever talked to, I guess. But they don't count here.)

Of course, the confusing thing about most forms of anarchism is that they don't require everyone to be an anarchist. I've always estimated that we only need about 15% of the population to self-identify with anarchist politics to begin an "anarchist revolution." Anarchism allows for people do act in many different ways where it takes hold. Primitivists, mutualists, communists, syndicalists, plus quite a few non-anarchist tendencies can all thrive under the sway of anarchism.

Since not everyone is an anarchist or follows all anarchist principles, what the fuck does one call this area? I've been using the terrifyingly clumsy phrase "region where anarchist principles hold sway." Is the more concise "anarchist region" correct? Is there a better term? (There always seems to be one in another language.)

Cheers.

[KC]

It doesn't exist. If it did it would be a state, which goes against everything anarchists believe.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 05, 2007 08:00 am
My problem is that unlike the post-revolutionary Marxist paradigm, where society is structured along similar lines throughout and can thus be called a "state," anarchism (obviously) lacks this.
Anarchism has a very specific structure for organising society.


My problem is that unlike the post-revolutionary Marxist paradigm, where society is structured along similar lines throughout and can thus be called a "state," anarchism (obviously) lacks this.

Perhaps in a certain way that is true. This is because anarchist praxis allows for a confederation of different ideas in terms of societal structure and political organising.

This could appear that there is no specific structure, but I don't think fluidity in organisation necessarily means that structure does not exist. For example, all anarchist communists would advocate a decentralised federated system.

The AF at the moment are having a debate about how we deal with primitivists and with John Zurzon there is discussion about whether or not there could exist a confederacy of anarchist communes: A commune of communes

Anarchism holds that any political organisation which does not threaten the self-determination of the working class and oppressed can exist. This would negate fascism and capitalism to a great extent, but in terms of ideas such as primitvism and mutualism, there is no reason why those ideas should not be tolerated within a structured anarchist society.


Since not everyone is an anarchist or follows all anarchist principles, what the fuck does one call this area?

A confederacy perhaps.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 05, 2007 02:15 pm
It doesn't exist. If it did it would be a state, which goes against everything anarchists believe.
It can be called a state if that's what you people feel is necessary, but the anarchist analysis of the state is clear and precise and quite frankly, no one should care what Marxists call it.

Providing the destruction of the centalisation of political authority is achieved, I couldn't care two shits what you called decentalised, federated organisation.

[Fawkes]

Refer to it as "Freed/Liberated Territory."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Freedom for [email protected] 05, 2007 03:09 pm
Refer to it as "Freed/Liberated Territory."
That doesn't mean anything. To be liberated and free is quite subjective.

[Black Dagger]

I like TAT&#39;s suggestion of confederacy... federation... what about *insert name of place* commune? <_<

[Vargha Poralli]

I&#39;ve always estimated that we only need about 15% of the population to self-identify with anarchist politics to begin an "anarchist revolution."

You sound like pretty much elitist. What about rest 85% of the population ?

First of all it takes more than plurality to make a revolution a succesfull one.A revolution started by 15% of population is generally called a coup and your assumption I think never included how much control the bourgeoisie have in almost all states.Exactly how will you overcome the well trained and well equipped enemy with out Mass support for your supposed revolution ? By Hopes and Dreams ?

I don&#39;t fuzz with a name for anarchist state until i have figured out how to carry out a revolution succesfully first.

[YSR]

Originally posted by TAT+--> (TAT)Anarchism has a very specific structure for organising society.[/b]

Obviously. What I meant is that anarchists allow for other types of structured societies. Like you yourself say:


Perhaps in a certain way that is true. This is because anarchist praxis allows for a confederation of different ideas in terms of societal structure and political organising.


A confederacy perhaps.

I think this is the best description I&#39;ve run across yet. Thanks&#33;


g.ram
You sound like pretty much elitist. What about rest 85% of the population ?

First of all it takes more than plurality to make a revolution a succesfull one.A revolution started by 15% of population is generally called a coup and your assumption I think never included how much control the bourgeoisie have in almost all states.Exactly how will you overcome the well trained and well equipped enemy with out Mass support for your supposed revolution ? By Hopes and Dreams ?

Pretty challenging to the totalizing Marxist worldview, isn&#39;t it?

I use 15% (more or less) as my figure because of a few reasons. This thread isn&#39;t about them, so I&#39;ll just touch on them briefly. I think that the abolition of whiteness is one of the preconditions to a massive uprising (not to say that all anarchist organizing should be aimed at this, only that I think it&#39;s the key.) Race Traitor presented a pretty convincing argument for the insurgent-style race treason and the undermining of whiteness. Their presentation only requires a small but well-organized group of people acting in a coherent way to challenge white supremacy.

My other big reason is based pretty strongly in history. It&#39;s difficult for people to see another way of running society, as our socialization and culture all work as self-propagating. Once there starts to be an active challenge to state power, people may start to see the alternative possibilities. For instance, I know that just informing people about Oaxaca and its success without a bourgeois government radicalized many liberals that I know. Imagine if we have a few more situations running around the world and we get it publicized. Definitely building a new world "in the shell of the old," a key anarchist concept.

Hope that answered your questions. Other, wiser anarchists than myself should certainly chime in and answer g.ram&#39;s question.

[which doctor]

I&#39;ve always envisioned a network of independent communes.

[Vargha Poralli]

Once there starts to be an active challenge to state power, people may start to see the alternative possibilities. For instance, I know that just informing people about Oaxaca and its success without a bourgeois government radicalized many liberals that I know. Imagine if we have a few more situations running around the world and we get it publicized. Definitely building a new world "in the shell of the old," a key anarchist concept.


A more radical period in the History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848) than Oaxaca. What did happen in the end ? and why did French revolution spread all over Europe and Russian revolution spread all over world(February revolution during which Lenin had been in Switzerland and Trotsky in America) ? Of course it is very different from our time but the oppressors too posses more venom that those periods.


Hope that answered your questions. Other, wiser anarchists than myself should certainly chime in and answer g.ram&#39;s question.

Certainly not satisfied and awaiting more responses. ;)

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:45 am

I&#39;ve always estimated that we only need about 15% of the population to self-identify with anarchist politics to begin an "anarchist revolution."

You sound like pretty much elitist. What about rest 85% of the population ?

First of all it takes more than plurality to make a revolution a succesfull one.A revolution started by 15% of population is generally called a coup and your assumption I think never included how much control the bourgeoisie have in almost all states.Exactly how will you overcome the well trained and well equipped enemy with out Mass support for your supposed revolution ? By Hopes and Dreams ?
I may not necessarily agree with YSR, but I understand where he is coming from.

I know a lot of people who would be very open to a revolution, probably the majority of the youth I hang out with. Still, they don&#39;t self-identify as anarchists or communists like I do. They may not even consider themselves radicals, but they would certainly participate in a radical revolution. Take Oaxaca for example. Many of the people who took part had little exposure to radical politics beforehand. Same thing with other previous insurrections. The revolution will have no set ideology.

[Vargha Poralli]

FOB:

I know a lot of people who would be very open to a revolution, probably the majority of the youth I hang out with. Still, they don&#39;t self-identify as anarchists or communists like I do. They may not even consider themselves radicals, but they would certainly participate in a radical revolution. Take Oaxaca for example. Many of the people who took part had little exposure to radical politics beforehand. Same thing with other previous insurrections.

I suggest you to read my second post in response to YSR.


The revolution will have no set ideology.

That revolution will obviously fail. You should have a clear idea where to move on after the revolution.

[apathy maybe]

OK, not claiming to be more knowledgeable then YSR or FoB, but here goes.
If there is considerable discontent with the present system, it doesn&#39;t matter if 15%, 5% or 50% of the population identify as anarchists (or any other ideology). I doubt that the majority of Russians called themselves either anarchist or Marxist or even socialist leading up to the Russian Revolution. But there was considerable discontent. So that is how to get the revolution.

During the revolution there would be probably some sort of constitutional convention (which I don&#39;t really agree with, but hey ...). This can be seen in the Russian Revolution, and other historical events, as well as in Fiction (such as Red, Green & Blue Mars). At the same time "Soviets" and communes will be springing up and start running things are a local level.

If such a convention brings about an anarchist system (minimal to no hierarchy and so on), then it does not matter whether people call themselves anarchists or not, just like it doesn&#39;t matter if people call themselves "liberals" or "democrats" or "capitalists" now. Most people get on with their lives without labelling themselves after (or often even thinking about) ideologies.

On topic: a confederation is better then a federation. Federation seems to imply more power in the centre then does confederation. But I think both assume some sort of "state" or "province" (like Tasmania or Alaska). In reality I think that we would not be seeing such structures, so I don&#39;t know if either is correct. Actually I don&#39;t know what to call it ...