How Does Anarchy Work?

[20cdndollars]

I don't exactly see how anarchy could work... you couldn't live in complete chaos forever, and without law and order, people could just go around killing as they please.... and that wouldn't be good.... I have read the sticky topic, but I would like a simplified version. Thanks.

[bcbm]

No man, everybody would be totally fucked up on chongers all the time, so it'd be real mellow and chill.

[Patridiot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:58 pm
I don't exactly see how anarchy could work... you couldn't live in complete chaos forever, and without law and order, people could just go around killing as they please.... and that wouldn't be good.... I have read the sticky topic, but I would like a simplified version. Thanks.
First of all, is the law the only thing that keeps you from killing people?

I would'nt say that anarchism is chaos. First we will have to define chaos, allthough I suspect what you mean. If so, you could just look at the world today and through history with all the different authorities and masters wich have ruled. Wouldnt you define many of their actions as chaos? I know I certeinly would. War is definitely chaos, and also an action of authorities.

But your thought about killing people can be answered pretty good in a quote:

"No one can kill another, except in self-defense, and be an Anarchist, because that would be invading another's equal right to live - the antithesis of Anarchism. Hence assassins and criminals generally are called Anarchists only by the ignorant and malicious." - Joseph Labadie

[20cdndollars]

Originally posted by Patridiot+April 25, 2007 09:38 pm--> (Patridiot @ April 25, 2007 09:38 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 08:58 pm
I don't exactly see how anarchy could work... you couldn't live in complete chaos forever, and without law and order, people could just go around killing as they please.... and that wouldn't be good.... I have read the sticky topic, but I would like a simplified version. Thanks.
First of all, is the law the only thing that keeps you from killing people?
[/b]
Me? No. But A lot of people, yes.

And that was just an example. It seems to me that we need laws.

[Janus]

I would recommend you find out what anarchism really is as it certainly doesn't mean complete chaos.

Anarchy? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62584&hl=anarchy)
explaining anarchy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59790&hl=anarchy)
Anarchy (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62069&hl=anarchy)
What is anarchy? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51933&hl=anarchy)
Anarchism-how would it work? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58443&hl=anarchism)

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

And that was just an example. It seems to me that we need laws.
Why do people kill?

Probably 80% of murders are money-related. The rest are the bastard children of an abusive and alienating world.

Anarchism as an ideology proposes that we eliminate those values, and if anyone still tries to commit crimes we must focus on fixing the problem and not just killing in the name of revenge, which is a crime in itself.

So we put workers in control of their jobs and promote usership rights instead of property rights (if I'm using it, it's mine. If I'm not, someone else gets to use it.) as well as the idea of mutual aid (essentially it is what it sounds like- people helping one another.)

This eliminates the material and monetary needs that fueled former crimes. We also promote tolerance and compassion in the face of mental illness and alienation, to try to prevent the other 20%.

[The Feral Underclass]

Everyone runs around a society void of technology and industry, living in huts doing what the fuck they want in absolutely no organised way at all.

[Robo the Hobo]

Not realy an anarchist myself but this was realy quite worrying.

As soon as anarchy was mentioned, the main problem you mentioned was people killing others. Why does no authority meen everyone would kill anyone they vaguely felt like.

Maby it is just some of the connotations of the word anarchy...

[BreadBros]

The word 'anarchy' has two uses. In its everday usage it usually means chaos or lack of order. When anarchists use the word anarchy they mean the lack of a state and the lack of capitalism or any hierarchical economic structure. There would still be 'order' and there would be measures put in place to stop murder and other criminal acts, but those would be implemented and enacted on the social level by people coming together on an egalitarian basis and not by the state or upper class.

[More Fire for the People]

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules just no rulers. In an anarchist society there wouldn't be laws in the parliamentary sense we have today. Instead 'laws' would be contracts between freely associating individuals. These contracts would include prohibitions such as no murdering so that individuals may reap collective benefits — complex commodities, protection, education etc. — and when you break the contract you don't get these benefits.

[Trystan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:58 pm
you couldn't live in complete chaos forever,
I think you've misunderstood what anarchy really is.



'Anarchy is order'. That's how anarchists want it. It might work . . . it might not. But I'm confident it could, and I think anarchism has a bright future.

[apathy maybe]

Anarchists obey traffic lights. Anarchists drive on the same side of the road as everyone else. Anarchists are not crazy people.


As well, anarchists believe in freedom, so long as that freedom does not impinge on others freedom. As soon as you impinge on others freedom...

So, people who do bad shit, can expect bad shit to happen to them.

[20cdndollars]

Thank You Comrades! You have cleared that up for me well, I'm interested now!

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

So, people who do bad shit, can expect bad shit to happen to them.
I disagree. To me that seems like what we have now, retribution, violence, and general "me vs them" feelings, only without some sort of general standard (ie a state) to keep things slightly less atrocious.

[Tower of Bebel]

anarchy vs. hierarchy.

Anarchy does not mean chaos, it more or less means there is no forced leadership. It also does not mean anything like 'no responsability'. Anarchy looks like chaos because of its bad conotation, but also because of the Revolution. A revolution is pure chaos, and it seems that you cannot restore order without a leader (and in that case anarchy would be chaos).
The problem of a revolution is that there is an enemy, and as long as there is an enemy the people will stay restless. You can partialy stabilize the siutation by have a 'great leader' supress the masses and preach to abolish class war against the bourgeoisie or noble men, but as long as class interest and class war exists the people will eventually stand up and fight again. So anarchy, as a classless society, is ordre.

If only I didn't believe socialism is necessairy...

[yns_mr]

Governments also may commit massacres....

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:42 pm

[QUOTE=20cdndollars,April 25, 2007 08:58 pm]
First of all, is the law the only thing that keeps you from killing people?

Me? No. But A lot of people, yes.

And that was just an example. It seems to me that we need laws.
So your opinion is that laws are the only thing that stop people from killing people? I don't think so. Many people think that killing is wrong. Many people wouldn't want to see someone die at their own hands. Laws are hardly the only thing stopping someone from killing. I would actually say that laws hardly stop anyone from killing someone. If you are smart you can kill someone and get away with it easily. If you have a knife and see someone in a dark dead end alley at night you can slice their throat and leave the scene. What is the evidence that you killed that person? You can get away with that and invisible laws can't stop you.

Anarchism, like people have already pointed out, does not mean chaos. Anarchism is about living without masters and bosses. An anarchist society will still have structure and organization it will just have a voluntary system of joining in the structure.

Here are a few leaflets on Anarchism.

What is Anarchism?
http://struggle.ws/anarchism/pdf/leaflets/...sanarchism.html (http://struggle.ws/anarchism/pdf/leaflets/whatisanarchism.html)

An Anarchist FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/


And here are several of Emma Goldman's writings in audio book form. Start with Anarchism: What it really stands for

http://audioanarchy.org/emma.php

[Tower of Bebel]

Sorry if I steal this thread, or just for digging it up, but I have two questions on anarchism.

1. How to reach anarchism? There is no DOTP, no transitional stadium (socialism, DOTP), there is no "party". The only thing there is are the masses(, the enemy) and the Revolution.

2. Is it wrong for an anarchist to support a new CP in being? Is it wrong for an anarchist to support even a new reformist party in being (when there are no big reformist or revolutionary parties)?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:05 am
Sorry if I steal this thread, or just for digging it up, but I have two questions on anarchism.

1. How to reach anarchism? There is no DOTP, no transitional stadium (socialism, DOTP), there is no "party". The only thing there is are the masses(, the enemy) and the Revolution.

2. Is it wrong for an anarchist to support a new CP in being? Is it wrong for an anarchist to support even a new reformist party in being (when there are no big reformist or revolutionary parties)?
To reach anarchism all you have to do is tie your shows in the morning without someone telling you to. :)

To reach an anarchist society there would be a revolution of some sort. We would have to destroy the state and then set up our own form of decentralized organization. This would be in the form of communal councils and such that don't report to a party or vanguard. There most definitely would be structure and communication between communes but it would all be at an equal level and voluntary.

CP as in Communist Party? Yes I think so. I wouldn't use wrong. It would just be uncharacteristic of an anarchist to support any kind of party. Especially since Communist Parties are authoritarian and anarchists believe that organization should be structured differently.

Here is an anarchist critique of democracy. I think it applies to the Communist Party.
http://www.audioanarchy.org/radio/democracy/index.php

[Rawthentic]

CP as in Communist Party? Yes I think so. I wouldn't use wrong. It would just be uncharacteristic of an anarchist to support any kind of party. Especially since Communist Parties are authoritarian and anarchists believe that organization should be structured differently.
Fuckin' strawman. That "authoritarianism" crap comes from the whole "Lenin is a boogeyman" crap. The Communis League is not "authoritarian," and we are a worker's vanguard.

Or wait, your confusion stems from the misunderstanding of what the vanguard is?
From the Manifesto:

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.


And after the revolution, we are all gonna dance and cheer that we won instead of arming ourselves and advancing the power of the proletariat to win?

[cenv]

Fuckin' strawman. That "authoritarianism" crap comes from the whole "Lenin is a boogeyman" crap. The Communis League is not "authoritarian," and we are a worker's vanguard.

I think he was referring to "Communist Parties" that seize control of the state and direct affairs in the name of the working class, not proletarian organizations that simply fight for the overthrow of capitalism. And in that case, I don't see what he said that's so controversial... even as a League member, I certainly wouldn't support any efforts by the Communist League to take control of the state in a post-revolutionary society, just as I wouldn't support Miles if he suddenly decided to join the Democratic Party and run for president. Would you?