some questions/observations on anarchism

[red head]

i notice a lot of arguement on these boards about anarchism, much moreso than about communism or socialism. i've just started on emma goldman's anarchism and other essays, as well as what is communist anarchism by berkman. a few questions and observations come to mind.
1. here's my understanding of anarchy. if its wrong in any way, that throws off the ideas in the rest of this post so please correct me if i'm wrong.
anarchy is the dissolution of heirerarchy. anarchists know that there will be as many problems without a government as with, but feel that government is for the most part unnatural and humans need to solve their problems without any bosses.
2. some anarchists feel that violence is neccessary. they think that by commiting violent acts against the system, they not only hurt capitalism, they raise awareness for their cause. others feel that it only gets negative attention and is counter-productive. i'd like to know what everyones opinion on this is.
3. anarchy is a social system, not an economic one. this is why there are anarchist communists, and even anarchist capitalists (and i know many people don't think those are anarchists). many anarchists feel the reason the economic system they support has failed is because governments were involved.
4. many (most? all?) anarchists feel that anarchism is inevitable and neccessary for human survival, as communists often do. many see anarchism as the final stage of communism. i disagree, for one, because anarchism and communism can exist simultaneously because one is a social system and the other an economic one, and two, because i view communism as more radical than anarchism. i think a government that exists only to fulfill the best interests of its people is a more left-wing and sophisticated vision than is the idea of no government at all.

please give me your opinions/corrections/arguements. thanks.

[Freiheit]

Anarchy is no rules, they only rules are the rules of the good sense, but all this does not guarantee that no people are richer than others.
(no rules=government) But the main aim is not no government, the main aim is a free community (even freeer than capitalism) without a hierarchic structre.
every one has equal and absolute free rights (But: equal rights is not equal persons, the best example for that is the industrialization: Every one was economic completly free and the system mutated to an oligarchy)

[libereco]

Quote: from red head on 4:56 pm on Nov. 18, 2001
1. here's my understanding of anarchy. if its wrong in any way, that throws off the ideas in the rest of this post so please correct me if i'm wrong.
anarchy is the dissolution of heirerarchy. anarchists know that there will be as many problems without a government as with, but feel that government is for the most part unnatural and humans need to solve their problems without any bosses.

it's not really just about government, but about any Power over people.....i'd say. And if there would be as many problems is questionable.


2. some anarchists feel that violence is neccessary. they think that by commiting violent acts against the system, they not only hurt capitalism, they raise awareness for their cause. others feel that it only gets negative attention and is counter-productive. i'd like to know what everyones opinion on this is.

well, i think there are people like this in each movement.
This is certainly not a characteristic of Anarchy i'd say.


3. anarchy is a social system, not an economic one. this is why there are anarchist communists, and even anarchist capitalists (and i know many people don't think those are anarchists). many anarchists feel the reason the economic system they support has failed is because governments were involved.

to my understanding anarchists can also be described as liberal-socialists. The equals to the right would be the followers of Neo-Liberalism i guess, but those are definetly not anarchists. Liberals yes, anarchists no.
I wouldn't call liberal-capitalists anarchists, because as far as I know most of them don't have a problem with large corporations having huge power.



4. many (most? all?) anarchists feel that anarchism is inevitable and neccessary for human survival, as communists often do. many see anarchism as the final stage of communism. i disagree, for one, because anarchism and communism can exist simultaneously because one is a social system and the other an economic one, and two, because i view communism as more radical than anarchism. i think a government that exists only to fulfill the best interests of its people is a more left-wing and sophisticated vision than is the idea of no government at all.

i don't understand what you mean....first you say that communism and anarchism can co-exist, then you describe communism as a government that "fulfill[s] the best interests of its people" (since of course it knows what those are). Those two things very much can't co-exist because the government would still be bossing everybody, and therefore anarchists would most likely be pissed off. ;)

this one government will of course be sure that they know the "one truth" and that they do the best for everyone.........well thank you very much I can look after myself.

(Edited by libereco at 7:47 pm on Nov. 18, 2001)

[libereco]

Quote: from red head on 4:56 pm on Nov. 18, 2001
1. here's my understanding of anarchy. if its wrong in any way, that throws off the ideas in the rest of this post so please correct me if i'm wrong.
anarchy is the dissolution of heirerarchy. anarchists know that there will be as many problems without a government as with, but feel that government is for the most part unnatural and humans need to solve their problems without any bosses.

it's not really just about government, but about any Power over people.....i'd say. And if there would be as many problems is questionable.


2. some anarchists feel that violence is neccessary. they think that by commiting violent acts against the system, they not only hurt capitalism, they raise awareness for their cause. others feel that it only gets negative attention and is counter-productive. i'd like to know what everyones opinion on this is.

well, i think there are people like this in each movement.
This is certainly not a characteristic of Anarchy i'd say.


3. anarchy is a social system, not an economic one. this is why there are anarchist communists, and even anarchist capitalists (and i know many people don't think those are anarchists). many anarchists feel the reason the economic system they support has failed is because governments were involved.

to my understanding anarchists can also be described as liberal-socialists. The equals to the right would be the followers of Neo-Liberalism i guess, but those are definetly not anarchists. Liberals yes, anarchists no.
I wouldn't call liberal-capitalists anarchists, because as far as I know most of them don't have a problem with large corporations having huge power.



4. many (most? all?) anarchists feel that anarchism is inevitable and neccessary for human survival, as communists often do. many see anarchism as the final stage of communism. i disagree, for one, because anarchism and communism can exist simultaneously because one is a social system and the other an economic one, and two, because i view communism as more radical than anarchism. i think a government that exists only to fulfill the best interests of its people is a more left-wing and sophisticated vision than is the idea of no government at all.

i don't understand what you mean....first you say that communism and anarchism can co-exist, then you describe communism as a government that "fulfill[s] the best interests of its people" (since of course it knows what those are). Those two things very much can't co-exist because the government would still be bossing everybody, and therefore anarchists would most likely be pissed off. ;)

this one government will of course be sure that they know the "one truth" and that they do the best for everyone.........well thank you very much I can look after myself.







(Edited by libereco at 7:56 pm on Nov. 18, 2001)

[Freiheit]

Imagine a perfect anarchistic community.
With the time some people have more wisdom and teach others some different oppionon about issues begin to exist, and the people, automatically, begin to form themselves in groups or parties or something else. These groups might have one or more leaders (intelligensia) who are maybe smarter or skifuller than the others, this people become more and more power and with the time the dominate the group (probably every member is content, but they begin to lead, then everyone needs a leader, everyone of us learn or hear or raed about socialism/communism etc. In fact there was an interligensia, maybe he is dead, but he/she taught us.)
This leader function is the begin of a new hierarchy and the destroying of the anarchy.

[libereco]

sorry for messing everything up...first the quote tags won't work the way i think they should, then i quote instead :/

can't delete it though.

[libereco]

Quote: from Freiheit on 7:55 pm on Nov. 18, 2001
Imagine a perfect anarchistic community.
With the time some people have more wisdom and teach others some different oppionon about issues begin to exist, and the people, automatically, begin to form themselves in groups or parties or something else. These groups might have one or more leaders (intelligensia) who are maybe smarter or skifuller than the others, this people become more and more power and with the time the dominate the group (probably every member is content, but they begin to lead, then everyone needs a leader, everyone of us learn or hear or raed about socialism/communism etc. In fact there was an interligensia, maybe he is dead, but he/she taught us.)
This leader function is the begin of a new hierarchy and the destroying of the anarchy.


I don't get that argument...why does the person who has new ideas also have to become a "leader"?
well, i suppose for pure anarchism to work you would pretty much need an enlightened populus, who wouldn't blindly follow the leader or allow someone to control them again.
i think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective.

[Freiheit]

hey libereco, what is your oppinion about anarchy, then?

[red head]

libereco, you said "this one government will of course be sure that they know the "one truth" and that they do the best for everyone.........well thank you very much I can look after myself." well, i'd like to see you look after yourself when a group of druglords stock up on guns and use them against you and your community. anarchy and communism co-exist because as i said, one is a social system, the other an economic one. peter kropotkin and alexander berkman are examples of anarchist communists. i'm playing devils advocate because i don't believe it, but i basically understand how it works. under this system, the government would make no laws about how people interact, etc. it would only exist to make sure wealth is distributed equally. it would be completely democratic.

[Freiheit]

red head, communism preachs: everyones owns everything, but anarchy preachs: there is no everyone, everyone looks for himself.
Anarchy is theory of no rules and freedom, complete freedom, but in communism there are rules and if this rules are broken the system breaks as well.
A communist accept to pay a part of his freedom for the community for his ideals, but an anarchist want as much freedom as possible, an anarchist wants no rules. A real communist, however, he believes that some rules are needed to have a succesful community.

[Guest]

red head- i think thAT in the case of someone up in arms agaisnt your community people would unite and fight them off, this does not mean there is a need for some type of governemnt or party to organize them to fight.

[Freiheit]

A revolution made by forces, is not for sure a revolution for the poor.

[red head]

under anarchy, the rules would be made by the people with the most force. no rules doesn't mean absolute freedom and everyone looking out for himself means some people are going to be screwed over. i don't want the country turned into some guerrilla fight like guest proposed. you'd have to be very naive to think that the less laws there are, the more freedoms you will have. there has to be a system to prevent people from taking advantage of others.

[Freiheit]

i know there must be something to take care to everyone and protect everyone. and i am ready to pay a price for it: i will have less freedom (i cant kill so for example, or i cant have a monopoly or property ...), but in anarchy is none of this rules. and thats the reason why you cant combine anarchy and communism.

[red head]

i don't understand your last post. you said there had to be "something" to protect and take care of people yet there would be no laws.

[Freiheit]

im a commie, i believe there must be something to protect the people etc. some rules are needed as well.
but the basis of anarchy is: no rules. so in anarchy is no protection and no organisation etc. and that is the reason why you cant combine anarchy and communism.

anarchy trusts the good sense, but communism thinks there must be something more. i now after marx, the state (government) should die etc., but communism results of a planned structure with a governmetn. anarchy is a revolution, and it ends with no rules, but you need some rules to develope a good sense

[Freiheit]

The utopic end epoch of communism, is almost like anarchy, but the history to get this stadium is different, communists believe in a different way to get their aims.

[Guest1]

I find Anarchy a very interesting ideology, probably the next thing I'll read up about. Personally, I'm close to, but not quite, an Anarchist. Pretty much for the same reasons presented here. I believe in social freedom, less laws there, but I also believe in Socialism. I do think that laws must be made, economic laws. You can't have that without government. Then again, when the wind blows against you, aim the stone further. That is, to get that limited social freedom in an atmosphere that fights against it, you have to push for something much more radical to get what you opriginally wanted.

Hope this made sense.

[red head]

communist anarchists support communism without laws. the true system would be anarchy i guess, but people would voluntarily form communist type industries to support eachother. it wouldn't be government monitored because there wouldn't be any government. i guess its really pure anarchy, but the people voluntarily get together to promote the welfare of the people.

[Guest1]

But it wouldn't be universal, just for those people who agree to be part of that community. Voluntary communism wouldn't be that easy to implement. Would those who have become rich by opressing the proletariat agree to be judged by them? To share the wealth with them? The powerful rarely support movements to empower the powerless.