Anarchism - Is anarchism possible?

[TrueAnarchist]

Hi there!

As my name suggests, I am an anarchist and, obviously, a believer in anarchism. In my view, any government makes freedom more difficult, if not impossible, and relies on the use of violence and coercion to make ordinary citizens do things as please them.

My question is, because I am still in doubt about it, is it possible to combine communism with anarchism? I am worried that if there is no government, which is desirable, some people will be capable of becoming richer through the free market.

To those who know the answer to this problem, thanks for sharing!

[Dirty Commie]

In truth a great idea, but may never work. Marxism depends on a government to regulate wealth. If there was no government, a few people with access to food, weapons, medical supplies, etc. could extort power.

[MiNdGaMe]

This thread is already being discussed here http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=13&topic=774s (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=774s),

True Anarchist have you read the Anarchist FAQ (http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/)?

[TrueAnarchist]

Thanks for the link to the Anarchist FAQ, MiNdGaMe!

It helped me on some issues (although I'm not sure about it yet). Dirty Commie his argument is strong as well, so it might be that anarchism is impossible after all (or maybe only the right-winged libertarian Anarcho-Capitalism is possible).

[RedCeltic]

Welcome to the board fellow anarchist. :)


Personally I would direct you more to the works of Peter Kropotkin. He was an Anarcho-Communist, one could say he's sort of a founder of it really. He also inspired Emma Goldman. You can read their works and other in the ANARCHY ARCHIVES (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/)

also the NEFAC (http://nefac.northernhacking.org/) provides an outlook on how anarcho-communists organize and what the principles are.

Although in the last link I mention, they tend to make things a bit confusing when they talk about abolishing the state and all government.

Anarchists of course are opposed to all forms of a state; however believe in a radical democracy.

When we talk about a radical democracy, we don't mean just direct participation in politics, but also direct participation in economy. Because free market capitalism relies on wage labor and private property for production of wealth for 5% of the population, it is contradictory to what an anarchist society would be because of its anti-democratic nature.

I'd also love if you stop by my message board some time Anarchist Collective (http://pub59.ezboard.com/bgeorgiassr) it's fairly new so there isn't much there at the moment, albeit is a more anarchist friendly environment. :)

[MiNdGaMe]

I recomend a book to you ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman, it touches on most aspects of Anarchism.

[anti machine]

I would advocate that utopian anarchism is the ultimate goal of communism. It is the final stage, assuming that the agenda of maliating human nature or, as Rousseau would propose, returning himan nature BACK to its natural state. Anarchism will work only when man has rid himself of greed.

That's one hefty task, and the world seems content with its money-hungry psychological state at the present. It is the mind of man that is to be targeted in order for anarchism to ensue.

[redstar2000]

Having looked at maybe 100 or so threads along the lines of "will anarchism work?" or "will communism work?", a thought occurs to me.

Why should we care?

If we see, or think we see, a better way to organize human society, why should we not struggle for it?

Are we under some weighty historical obligation to "be right" no matter what? If all our ideas about liberty and equality turn out to be hopelessly misguided bullshit, is someone going to sue us? :cheesy:

I think it's ok and someday will be very important to figure out as much as we can ahead of time how to make communism "work" or anarchism "work".

But we don't really know and, I suspect, can't really know if our ideas will stand the test of the passing centuries. So why get hung up about it?

We should fight for what we really want and let the historical chips fall where they may.

:cool:

[LoneWolf]

Yes, we should fight for what we want, and btw, capitalism hasnt proved to work properly yet either... so who will be ablte to judge and foretell the future?

[Lefty]

First off- Lonewolf, methinks the humor in your sig may not be intentional. :)

I believe that anarchism wouldn't work on a large level, but anarchism in little bits is a great idea. For example, saying that there are NO LAWS whatsoever probably wouldn't be a good idea. People have some seriously weird (notice I'm not saying they are wrong) moral codes in the world, and maybe leaving law-making up to them wouldn't be a good idea. However, having far LESS laws would be good, and less loopholes in the law. Maybe there should be less laws, and stronger morals. I dunno, something to think about.

[mentalbunny]

redstar, can I print that out and stick it on my wall? It's perfect, it really helps when the chips are down and people are saying that communism won't work. But I think nothing will really work in the way that they mean, we'll never have a perfect society, there will always be problems to voercome and i think we must keep this in mind. Communism/socialism is the best way, not the perfect way.

[Comrade Gorley]

Here's the problem I have with anarchy:

I respect what anarchists want. Communists strive for the same thing. Both of their concepts have people supporting each other, no political trouble and no borders, thus no wars. However, the problem with anarchy is that if some cappie with a big gun and a crowd of well-armed supporters goes around and terrorizes the district and eventually takes over, what's anyone gonna do about it? In communism, the government deals with these threats so the people don't worry about it, but stays out of people's way.

This is what happened at the beginning of time, in my opinion. Cavemen lived in anarchy until someone declared himself head of the pack. This resulted in the first proletarian revolution. It repeated itself over the next centuries (the Robin Hood period, the French Revolution etc.) and the one which Marx predicted is yet to come. When it arrives, however, a system of government to replace the old one will be ready to use, and this time the proletarian will stay in power, and capitalism will be forever crushed.

[LoneWolf]

what you mean about the humor in my signature? it has no humor...
i mean what i say

and about the anarchism, i think youre right

[Valkyrie]

Well, Comrade Gorley, There can be neither guns nor Capitalism in an anarchist society, than those problems are eliminated.

[RedCeltic]

I think that it is pretty simplistic thinking to assume that someone would enter an anarchist society and take it over without the people doing anything to defend themselves. No society, even an anarchist one could, or would operate without a system of laws or a way of preventing outside influence. The absence of law and order is not anarchy, that is chaos. Anarchy is the absence of hierarchy enacting laws that we have no control over or a means of questioning them.

If an anarchist society believes in not having weapons within it’s autonomous zone, than there will be an agreed upon measure to prevent such a thing of entering.

Anarchists believe that everyone should have the right to live as they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others to live their lives as they want. This means that capitalism, or armed enforcement of leadership would be against the principles of such a society and such people would be removed.

[mentalbunny]

Thank you for that very important point, RC. We must remember that true anarchy is not what most people think of as anarchy. This is a huge problem that libertarian socialists come across. The media and other sources instantly equate anarchy with chaos when that simply is not the case.

I don't really know enough about anarchy I'm afraid, to really post a good reply but when I've finished my exams I'm planning on doing lots of reading and thinking.

[Saint-Just]

There are many views of anarchy. I support a stateless society, but not the traditional view of anarchy. Anarchy literally means without-rule.

I don't think anyone should have the freedom to exploite, subjugate and expropriate. Politics is much about which freedoms to take and which to keep. With complete freedom everyone will be happy, however there are things some people consider freedoms which others consider to negate freedom. And so, you can never have a system in which everyone considers themselves free unless absoultely everybody in that system thinks exactly alike.

Therefore everyone must have one single ideology and a sense of unity that is truly unshakable, in short a homgenous, classless society. This will be a society where the state is no longer necessary. This is literally a a society without-rule, but I would not call it anarchy but call it communism.

A heterogenous society without rulers would be chaos.

My views differ drastically from redstar2000 and RedCeltic. mentalbunny, I would not want you to become close-minded, which you may if you listen to them. I'm not saying I am as open minded as them, however, you will not listen to me so there is no threat there. I would prefer my ideolical opponents to be open-minded, so I would like for you to stay this way.

[mentalbunny]

Currently the circumstances aren't right for a revolution (I'm sure you know what I mean by revolution by the context) so I'm up for a different kind of activism, just try to fight against some of the injustices, there are too many to fight them all. So I'm open minded, I accept that everyone sees different ways of doing things and has different priorites, mine are for this generation and the next, and maybe I could have some lasting effect, who knows.

Don't worry, I will try to be constantly looking for better ways, and the best way depends on the current circumstances, circumstances always change.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 5:55 pm on May 11, 2003)