Is it just me, or are anarchists completely out of touch ? -

[Urban Rubble]

I've been seeing a few people claiming anarchist around here so I thought I'd ask, what in the hell are you thinking ? I realize it's fun to be punk rock and draw anarchy signs, but seriously think about it. There is always going to be someone that's not content to be fair, so he's going to form a gang or an army and take over. What you would have is hundreds of thousands of warring "tribes" all around the world. It would never work. Or are you just thinking ideally and have come to terms that it could never happen ?

[Kez]

The anarchists can say nothing but "no war but class war"

on the subject if anyone in britain is on a demo and sees the AF (anarchist federation or sum shit) be careful, they have a tendency to throw bottles at police from the back of the group which injure the protestors at the front, and cause the police to charge at those in front.

[BRIN]

Anarchy only works in small non-industrialised societies
it's idiotic to think huge highly-industrialised countries could even survive a week of anarchy

[redstar2000]

It is, shall I say, unwise for those who enter the realm of revolutionary politics to speak too quickly of what "won't work" and what "will work".

The only extended period of "anarchist power" that we have a record of is that of Barcelona in the late 1930s...and it did "work".

Whether it would "work" in a large technologically advanced country or not remains to be seen...or it least properly argued.

As to Kamo's remark, it should be noted that anyone can put on a t-shirt and throw a bottle...even a cop.

:cool:

[MiNdGaMe]

Anarchism is no different to that of Communism, without the Government and Authority. To denounce Anarchism a failure, is to denouce Communism a failure

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from MiNdGaMe on 5:26 pm on April 25, 2003
Anarchism is no different to that of Communism, without the Government and Authority. To denounce Anarchism a failure, is to denouce Communism a failure

Not really, because in communism, in theory you still have a government to control community maintaince etc. Anarchy however does not. People simply do maintanace when it needs to be done, this is a noble idea but is fundementaly flawed... Some people are lazy and wont do it with out being told.

[Kez]

if the whole world was i an anarchist ideology, then how would i get my pineapple from hawaii?

[Donut Master]

Right now, we know that anarchy can only last in small, non-industrialised communities. Even if it is possible to have a stateless society on a large scale in the far, far future, it is a waste of our energy to ponder something so speculative.

What we need is to focus on pragmatic solutions to the problems we have today. Corporate corruption, exploitation of the working class, repression of civil rights, imperialism, etc.

Perhaps one day we will be able to organize a large society without a government to check it, but that day will never be seen before all of us are long dead. The ideology of Anarchism, as of today, has little relevance to solving our immidate problems.

[Urban Rubble]

I think it's fairly sound to say Anarchy, as a worldwide or even country wide system would never work. I understand in small communities it could work, and even has. The thing is, for anarchy to work you have to rely far too much on human decency. People would all have to voluntarily work, people would have to never commit a crime, it would just be chaos.

Whoever says communism is the same thing as anarchism needs his head checked. Communism is basically a government made up of the proletariat, the worker, Anarchism is the system of NO government, people are just expected to "get along" and follow the rules.

Maybe I'm wrong but this just seems insane.

[redstar2000]

"Some people are lazy and won't do it without being told." -- AK47

Which end of the whip do you plan on being, AK47?

:cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I always thought that Anarchy was a bit more involved taht just "no government", because they always argue for the worker and for classlessness. It would seem unrealistic, though, to have a classless society following capitalism, with no goverment to establish the classless society, so I always thought there was more to the system than just "no government". I never really looked into it much.

[Organic Revolution]

anarchism in theory still couldnt work because capitalist people would get greddy and try and take everything for them self........ well that happens in the us so fuck it

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 9:14 pm on April 25, 2003

Whoever says communism is the same thing as anarchism needs his head checked. Communism is basically a government made up of the proletariat, the worker, Anarchism is the system of NO government, people are just expected to "get along" and follow the rules.

Maybe I'm wrong but this just seems insane.


You are wrong.

Marx called the final stateless society 'communism', which is the same thing as anarchism in this sense. However, he believed that the state would be a neccessary step before this in order for it to be achieved.

Anarchism isn't the system of no government...it is the system of direct democracy, of worker self-management and of freedom from the state.


anarchism in theory still couldnt work because capitalist people would get greddy and try and take everything for them self........ well that happens in the us so fuck it

Congratulations for denouncing what you ultimately want to achieve...or maybe you do not want socialism as Marx saw it?

[RedCeltic]

I think that people here have probably seen too many Mad Max movies. Realistically speaking, nobody wants to live in a road warrior world. It is true that there are many punk kids who call themselves “anarchists” but know very little about the theory behind the movement. There are also people who have been in the movement for a lifetime. The local chapter of the IWW that I am in has a considerable amount of money from life long members who have willed all their possessions to the organization. Anarchists are not just children.

The misconception lies with the idea of the state, and what it means when anarchists talk about getting rid of the state.

There are different kinds of anarchists this is true, and they may not all agree on the same idea, because anarchy is a free flowing idea, not a pinned down, (dogmatic) ideology.

For most SERIOUS anarchists, the idea of getting rid of the state, means to be self sufficient. Anarchists are people who believe that socialism can not come through participation in the state, and therefore it must come through two other means.. Organization of labor in militant unionization that will take over the means of production, and organization of communities that will create cooperative, self sufficient communities that are not dependent of the system.

Anarchists do not want to get rid of the state before the state becomes obsolete. To do this would be useless. Anarchists realize that the transformation of government to a communist one will not automatically change people into thinking and living communally.

This is why the anarchist movement is more about the creation of a cooperative community than it is about living as a bunch of road warriors.

Now to address some of the ignorant statements in this thread…

“The anarchists can say nothing but "no war but class war" --- Kamo

That’s not true, we also say, “Food not bombs” , “Books not bombs”, “an injury to one is an injury to all” and “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.”

”Anarchy only works in small non-industrialized societies” –BRIN

That’s not true, anarcho-syndicalists believe in setting up worker cooperatives that work much like farmer cooperatives, which own the means of production and can work and trade with other cooperatives. Industrial unionism means all workers are organized into the same labor union and they take over the means of production and organize it into worker cooperatives. The government in this scenario is irrelevant and eventually will become obsolete, and rot on the stem so to speak.

"Some people are lazy and won't do it without being told." -- AK47

The person saying this statement, does not sound like a socialist to me. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, your politics are questionable. If you believe that people are naturally lazy, than what is the incentive for them to work in communism? A gun in the back?

In truth, the most basic human inhabitation is the egalitarian hunter gatherer tribe. Within the family unit, most people continue to show the basic communal nature of humans. Here, reciprocity is practiced even in the most advanced civilizations. The goal is not to get rid of authority and than expect people to take care of their communities, the goal is to get people used to taking care of their communities themselves, and thereby getting rid of the need to tell them to.

Does your mother still need to tell you to brush your teeth when you go to bead? Or do you just know enough to do it now on your own? I’m 32, and if humans needed to be told what to do as you seem to be saying, than why does my mother not call me up on the phone every evening to remind me to brush my teeth?

if the whole world was i an anarchist ideology, then how would i get my pineapple from hawaii?---Kamo

The same question could be asked about communism, for after all, anarchism and communism are based on the same economics. Governments have nothing to do with how pineapples get to Great Brittan. It has to do with trade. Do socialist nations trade? Even if the whole world was socialist? Yes. Well anarchists believe in a socialist economy.

Also keep in mind, that while Anarchists believe in no state or nation, we do not believe in no government. That, my friend is just not possible. Anarchists believe in no archy. “An-archy” no-archy... basically… direct participation in government.

[MJM]

The state is an agent of repression for the ruling class. To abolish classes is to abolish the state.

Anarchists and Marxists really do have a lot on common, A lot of the time anarchists are marxists who lost hope in Marxism. I have many Anarchist friends, they want the same thing I want. I consider myself to be an anarchist as well as a marxist, the two go hand in hand.

What the left needs now is for the marxists and anarchists to recognise they want basically the same thing. Work together for a common good, instead of trying to prove who is right and wrong.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:51 pm on April 25, 2003
"Some people are lazy and won't do it without being told." -- AK47

Which end of the whip do you plan on being, AK47?

:cool:


So you deny that some people are lazy?

You evidentaly do not know many people.

[RedCeltic]

AK-47: If you can not answer the question, "Why are some people lazy in the modern capitalist society" you are truly not a socialist.

[Donut Master]

People are lazy... myself included. But you don't force them to work, you provide them with positive incentive. In capitalism, the main incentive to work, for many people, is to avoid starvation. Under a more humane system, everyone would be gauranteed the necesseties of life (shelter, food, medicine) but if they want to aquire more luxuries, like buy a new car or house of their own, they will have to work to earn money.

So, to get people to work, you don't force them with punishment, you bribe them with reward. Of course, the best incentive is the desire to become a positive addition to the commninity and the joy you take in your work - but we've got to be realistic, until we build robots to clean our toilets for us, there will still be shit jobs that no one wants to do unless you offer them a large sum of cash. Until you phase out hard labor, we still need money.

RedCeltic - why are people lazy? They are disillusioned with a system where they work hard constantly and achieve nothing. Meanwhile, they see CEOs who sit around all day signing papers and eating donuts (mmm...) who get paid 200 times as much! When one of the positive incentives to work - monetary reward - is distributed so disproportiantely like this, so unfairly, people will shirk, because they just don't care anymore. In present capitalist society, the amount of money you recieve is not proporionate to the difficulty or importance of your work. We would be better off with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his deed..."

If people were truely given a fair reward for their work, like capitalism claims to do, the apathy level will reduce dramatically.

[RedCeltic]

Donut Master

what you are talking about is social-democracy not socialism or communism.

Under a socialist system, (which includes anarchy) people will work because they own the means of production. Not, that they would get paid more from their boss if they work harder, but that if the company makes more, they make more.

Anarchy is about everyone having equil say. If you have a toilet that needs to be cleaned, and nobody wants to do it than the group will need to get together and decide who cleans it. That's how anarchist collectives here in Albany New York handle things.

[Donut Master]

I never said we shouldn't have public ownership of the means of production. I'm all for a bossless workplace. It's just another reason that workers become lazy - they see half their labor's value going to the manager. A worker will always be paid less than the value of labor he puts out, so it is said in Engel's value price and profit. So yes, I agree with you, I just didn't bother to mention anything about worker self-management in my post.

[Organic Revolution]

i agree totally with you redceltic

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Donut Master on 11:03 am on April 26, 2003
I never said we shouldn't have public ownership of the means of production. I'm all for a bossless workplace. It's just another reason that workers become lazy - they see half their labor's value going to the manager. A worker will always be paid less than the value of labor he puts out, so it is said in Engel's value price and profit. So yes, I agree with you, I just didn't bother to mention anything about worker self-management in my post.


I just misunderstood you sorry about that.

[truthaddict11]

i suggest some of you people putting down anarchism to read ABC's Of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman i will even provide a Link (http://www.freewebz.com/happyanarchy/library/abcofanarchism.htm)

heres a small tid bit

Therefore I must tell you, first of all, what Anarchism is not.
It is not bombs, disorder or chaos
It is not robbery and murder
It is not a war against all
It is not a return to barbarism or to the wild state of man.
Anarchism is the very opposite of all that.

already debunking the myths of anarchism


(Edited by truthaddict11 at 10:53 am on April 27, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

I'll admit I didn't (and still don't) know much about Anarchy when I posted this. I wasn't trying to put it down I was just trying to understand a little more.

TruthAddict11, I know all those things you posted aren't "supposed" to happen in an anrchist state, it just seems like it would be very easy for it TO happen. Usually if humans have a chance to be the oppressor, they will take it.

[Som]

These threads pop up every so often, the silly little complaint that somehow anarchists don't have any basis in reality, and plenty of overly assertive statements with little to no basis. Lenin made the same mistake when talking to Nester Makhno, a leader of the Anarchist insurgency in Ukraine, and like the people with these threads, Lenins only response was "perhaps I am mistaken"

the bit from the anarchist FAQ:

While in Moscow, Makhno met with Lenin. This meeting came about by chance. Visiting the Kremlin to obtain a permit for free board and lodging, he met the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, Jakov M. Sverdlov, who arranged for Makhno to meet Lenin. Lenin asked Makhno, "How did the peasants of your region understand the slogan ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS IN THE VILLAGES?" Makhno states that Lenin "was astonished" at his reply:


"The peasants understood this slogan in their own way. According to their interpretation, all power, in all areas of life, must be identified with the consciousness and will of the working people. The peasants understand that the soviets of workers and peasants of village, country and district are neither more nor less than the means of revolutionary organisation and economic self-management of working people in the struggle against the bourgeoisie and its lackeys, the Right socialists and their coalition government."
To this Lenin replied: "Well, then, the peasants of your region are infected with anarchism!" [Nestor Makhno, My Visit to the Kremlin, p. 18] Later in the interview, Lenin stated: "Do the anarchists ever recognise their lack of realism in present-day life? Why, they don't even think of it." Makhno replied:


"But I must tell you, comrade Lenin, that your assertion that the anarchists don't understand 'the present' realistically, that they have no real connection with it and so forth, is fundamentally mistaken. The anarchist-communists in the Ukraine . . . the anarchist-communists, I say, have already given many proofs that they are firmly planted in 'the present.' The whole struggle of the revolutionary Ukrainian countryside against the Central Rada has been carried out under the ideological guidance of the anarchist-communists and also in part by the Socialist Revolutionaries . . . Your Bolsheviks have scarcely any presence in our villages. Where they have penetrated, their influence is minimal. Almost all the communes or peasant associations in the Ukraine were formed at the instigation of the anarchist-communists. The armed struggle of the working people against the counter-revolution in general and the Austro-German invasion in particular has been undertaken with the ideological and organic guidance of the anarchist-communists exclusively.
"Certainly it is not in your party's interest to give us credit for all this, but these are the facts and you can't dispute them. You know perfectly well, I assume, the effective force and the fighting capacity of the free, revolutionary forces of the Ukraine. It is not without reason that you have evoked the courage with which they have heroically defended the common revolutionary conquests. Among them, at least one half have fought under the anarchist banner. . .

"All this shows how mistaken you are, comrade Lenin, in alleging that we, the anarchist-communists, don't have our feet on the ground, that our attitude towards 'the present' is deplorable and that we are too fond of dreaming about the future. What I have said to you in the course of this interview cannot be questioned because it is the truth. The account which I have made to you contradicts the conclusions you expressed about us. Everyone can see we are firmly planted in 'the present,' that we are working and searching for the means to bring about the future we desire, and that we are in fact dealing very seriously with this problem."

Lenin replied: "Perhaps I am mistaken." [Makhno, Op. Cit., pp. 24-5]


Historically, everytime anarchism has been tryed, its worked, and only crushed from the outside, often the fault of the Leninists instead of the old order. While these revolutions were short lived, its a great track record thats hard to deny.

I know all those things you posted aren't "supposed" to happen in an anrchist state, it just seems like it would be very easy for it TO happen. Usually if humans have a chance to be the oppressor, they will take it.

The problem with that, is to be an opressor, someone has to be oppressed, and an anarchist society is simply not going to let that happen. The anarchists will protect their revolution, they will be organized to protect against authority, and will fight to hold on to their freedom.

and RC, I wouldn't say self-sufficiency is inherently intertwined with anarchism, it is a modern highly organized society, and while of course being self-sufficient is incredibly usefull, its not always practicle.

[Blibblob]

Thats why I'm Communist. Education before anarchy. The end of communism is a total anarchist state, but an educated one. The process of the dictatorship of the poletait(still can't fucking spell that!) educates the population to do what is best for society, and to not be greedy. Unfortunatly this world is full of these psuedo-punk wannabee anarchists that don't know the meaning of the word. Anarchy is also what they said, a complete democratic state, basically everything gets voted on, weither it be sub-consiously through knowing your neighbors or through a cooperative ballot. To be against anarchy is to be stalinist, a psuedo-communist, a totaltarian, for that is the only OTHER way to have any form of communism.

[Kez]

still, wheres my fuckin pineapple?

in a communist society you would have region Hawaii transport wanted good (my pineapple) to wherever i live as there is a demand for such a product where i am.

yey, i have my pineapple.

i dont disagree with anarchism at all, but rather with anarchists. You cant have anarchism during a capitaist world, just like you cant have socialism in one country

1 quesiton, wtf is anarcho-communism?

[Valkyrie]

Kamo, Nobody said you could reach a level of anarchist society without having a revolution. a capitalist overthrow or demise is going to occur first.

But even so, right now in this Capitalist society there are little enclaves of Anarchist free zones popping up. They are operating outside of Capitalism and goverment strictures. Small scale, yes, but still happening.

[redstar2000]

Blibblob, isn't it better for a kid to be a "pseudo-punk wannabe anarchist" than a real born-again christian patriot?

In other words, save your contempt for our real enemies.

:cool:

[Som]

still, wheres my fuckin pineapple?

in a communist society you would have region Hawaii transport wanted good (my pineapple) to wherever i live as there is a demand for such a product where i am.

And in an anarchist society you might get the pineapple from the hawaiian federation of pineapple syndicates.

The state doesn't really have anything to do with your pineapple.

1 quesiton, wtf is anarcho-communism?

Communism is an economic system without money.

[Palmares]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always known Anarchism to be (true) Communism, ie no government. While, Socialism is "communism" with a government as such.

I know this is generalised, but some people didn't seem to realise this.

[RedCeltic]

I know it seems like an understatement for most who understand socialist economics, but basicly... there is no diffrence between a Communist state's economics and a anarchist federation's economics. The only difference is that while statist communists believe that revolution will come through taking over (politically or violently) the Govt. Anarchists (which includes anrcho-communism) believes in implementing this socialist economics without bothering with the state, and only attacking the state when it gets in the way.

[MiNdGaMe]

I'd like to state that my original post was a very simple outline, which RedCeltic has very throughly replied too, dispite the ignorance of some.

I see how most of you disbelieve in Anarchism, and its organisation, economics etc...

Anarcho-* is the form of economics. Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Mutualism. Anarcho-Syndicalism on the other hand is a form of organisation for unions (revolutionary unionism) rather then a ideology.

To seek freedom and liberty of the upmost is human nature.

[Kez]

damn you i want my pineapple!!!
:):):)

but how on earth would a anarchist region face a fascist invasion without a planneed economy? Even the deformeed workers state of the USSR managed to smash fascism as it had a planneed economy, how would a anarchist state fight such a threat?

My answer is it wouldnt be able to, that is why we must go through a socialist transitional; period, communism, then the state can "wither away"

[Som]

damn you i want my pineapple!!!

Well maybe if you'd just... ask them nicely for it, they'd be real friendly and give it to. I don't think the anarchists would take kindly to you demanding a pineapple, orders and all.

Oh you'll get your pineapple alright, oh how you'll get it.

but how on earth would a anarchist region face a fascist invasion without a planneed economy?

Whats it got to do with the economy?
Militias, democratic anarchist armies, some would sprout up in a time of need, others would exist generally. Since theres no regular army it'd be more of a common idea.

An effective fighting force, and given its track record, I doubt traditional armies in the same position as the workers militia would have done any better.

Anarcho-Capitalism

even the term Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction, theres nothing anarcho about capitalism.

Ive read it best described that the ancaps are just anti-statists liberalists

[MiNdGaMe]

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 3:58 pm on April 28, 2003
damn you i want my pineapple!!!
:):):)

My answer is it wouldnt be able to, that is why we must go through a socialist transitional; period, communism, then the state can "wither away"


We need to go through transitional stages? centralising the government, nationalizing industry to abolishing the state and replacing it with collectives?
I sure see the logic in that.

(Edited by MiNdGaMe at 10:27 pm on April 28, 2003)

[Tasha]

Whether or not something may seem to not be logically correct you should always keep an open mind.

[MiNdGaMe]

This should apply to all individuals, Tasha. Besides were only talking about generally the fate and wellbeing of an entire population, but ofcause their irrelavant aren't they?