Introducing two videos to common sense ANARCHISM.

[Dejavu]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8pS9u14VMKs

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i-txgcBVbbI&feature=related

The short snip it information was pretty accurate I think. I'm impressed and hope to see a continuing series.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Agora77 is not convinced.

[IcarusAngel]

This guy has put together a hodge podge of the anarcho-capitalists on youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9D3eglpglKg

I think it explains everything. :laugh:

Post your favorite quotes. Mine are:

"Capitalist, Socialism, and Communism are basically the same thing."

"I'm tired of all the Ayn Rand bashing."

"The traditional anarchist is totally against the formation of hierarchy, this limits them to the realm of utopian dreams."

Also, notice the racism from that one ancap. Racism is alive and well in right-wing circles.

[IcarusAngel]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g

This is a good reply to that anarcho-capitalist bullshit.

Plus, the guy isn't unbearable to look at like those literal an-cap trolls.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

See my signature on Von Mises's lovely temper problem.

Apparently Milton Friedman is a socialist. :laugh:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Ayn Rand remark was interesting, as the large majority of anarcho-capitalists reject her, due in no small part to the fact that she firmly believed in a state.

Murray Rothbard publicly mocked her in a play he wrote called "Mozart Was A Red". It's actually somewhat amusing (and scathing).

What's more, a good number of Objectivists believe in the sham that is "intellectual property".

(My favorite remark was the one about Bakunin and the Russian Revolution.)

[Os Cangaceiros]

edit

[Os Cangaceiros]

Honestly, that's what anarchy looks like to me: a grown up version of Lord of the Flies. Actually the book was a metaphor for just that.

I'd be interested in a further look though.

People have a strange disposition to always imagine that other people are capable of horrible things, and need to be kept in check constantely. Whenever anyone says to me, "In anarchy, everyone is going to start killing each other," I usually reply, "Oh? Who are you going to kill first?"

There's an interesting example of this kind of phenomenon in a book I read concerning the "War on Drugs". I remember reading a survey in which a person went door to door in a neighborhood asking people two questions: 1) If illegal drugs suddenly became legal, would you try them?, and 2) Do you believe that your neighbors would try illegal drugs if they were to become legal. The vast majority of people said that they would never try illegal drugs, even if they were to become legal, but interestingly enough most had strong reservations about whether their neighbors would try them or not.

I tend to think that people are more rational than they are commonly given credit for.

[Bud Struggle]

What is going on in Iraq now is Anarchy. Individuals of similar beliefs form little bands to kill and destroy other little bands of disimilar beliefs until one the leader of one little band can take control.

And then the anarchy will be over.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What is going on in Iraq now is Anarchy. Individuals of similar beliefs form little bands to kill and destroy other little bands of disimilar beliefs until one the leader of one little band can take control.

And then the anarchy will be over.

There is a government in Iraq.

[pusher robot]

There is a government in Iraq.

But it is having a hard time ruling.

[Bud Struggle]

There is a government in Iraq.

The little government in Iraq that there exists is what keeps the Anachists from slaughtering one another.

Anarchy is not a workable theory of (non)government.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The little government in Iraq that there exists is what keeps the Anachists from slaughtering one another.

Those people who murder each other in Iraq are not anarchists.


Anarchy is not a workable theory of (non)government.

What has lead you to this conclusion?

[Bud Struggle]

Those people who murder each other in Iraq are not anarchists.
What has lead you to this conclusion?

Honestly, that's what anarchy looks like to me: a grown up version of Lord of the Flies. Actually the book was a metaphor for just that.

I'd be interested in a further look though.

[IcarusAngel]

But it is having a hard time ruling.

That just proves that weak, Libertarian states are worse off for people than strong, democratic states. It says nothing about anarchy.


But didn't you guys watch the video? According to the "anarchists of the right," Anarchism is not against the concept of a government. :laugh:

Gotta love right-wingers. :laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

People have a strange disposition to always imagine that other people are capable of horrible things, and need to be kept in check constantely. Whenever anyone says to me, "In anarchy, everyone is going to start killing each other," I usually reply, "Oh? Who are you going to kill first?"

You very may be right, but it seems to me that any time a government gets so weak that people have no sense of authority a REAL dictatorial figure arises. Napoleon after the French Republic, Hitler after the Weimer Republic for examples.

I'm not saying you are wrong Agora, I just seem to have reservations about the validity of any sort of anacharisic life.

[Dejavu]

People have a strange disposition to always imagine that other people are capable of horrible things, and need to be kept in check constantely. Whenever anyone says to me, "In anarchy, everyone is going to start killing each other," I usually reply, "Oh? Who are you going to kill first?"

There's an interesting example of this kind of phenomenon in a book I read concerning the "War on Drugs". I remember reading a survey in which a person went door to door in a neighborhood asking people two questions: 1) If illegal drugs suddenly became legal, would you try them?, and 2) Do you believe that your neighbors would try illegal drugs if they were to become legal. The vast majority of people said that they would never try illegal drugs, even if they were to become legal, but interestingly enough most had strong reservations about whether their neighbors would try them or not.

I tend to think that people are more rational than they are commonly given credit for.

Good Post.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You very may be right, but it seems to me that any time a government gets so weak that people have no sense of authority a REAL dictatorial figure arises. Napoleon after the French Republic, Hitler after the Weimer Republic for examples.

I'm not saying you are wrong Agora, I just seem to have reservations about the validity of any sort of anacharisic life.

George Washington must have been a despot then, since the Articles of Confederation lacked real authority.

Hitler's rise to power was undemocratic (he lost the election) and built on disgust with the Weimar Republic's fleeting attitude towards other nation-states. It had nothing to do with a lack of authority.

Furthermore there are countless examples in history where a lack of authority resulted in functional libertarian socialism (never capitalism, coincidentally): Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Paris, (workers' councils prior to consolidation of Bolshevik power), and Iran being some key locations.

[Dejavu]

George Washington must have been a despot then, since the Articles of Confederation lacked real authority.

Hitler's rise to power was undemocratic (he lost the election) and built on disgust with the Weimar Republic's fleeting attitude towards other nation-states. It had nothing to do with a lack of authority.

Furthermore there are countless examples in history where a lack of authority resulted in functional libertarian socialism (never capitalism, coincidentally): Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Paris, (workers' councils prior to consolidation of Bolshevik power), and Iran being some key locations.


You're going in the right direction regarding Generalissimo Washington, keep searching. :D

As far as Hitler goes , well your statement begs a few questions and I believe shows why this deity known as democracy is a sham. First of all, aside from the Communists voting for Hitler , it is true he didn't get the popular vote but he acquired his position constitutionally through the mechanics of the democratic state. Second of all, even if Hitler wasn't elected democratically, would it change anything if he was? Would you some how be morally ok with the position of Hitler's leadership if it was 'democratic?' Well?
The fundamental argument for any real anarchist wouldn't be the fact that Hitler 'wasn't elected democratically' but rather what gives a few men like Hitler the right to hold that much power while others could not? You claim only the man was flawed and maybe the courts were messed up, but you don't criticize the very institution that grants more rights to some and less rights to others. But I don't expect much else from a social democrat like yourself. :D


Furthermore there are countless examples in history where a lack of authority resulted in functional libertarian socialism (never capitalism, coincidentally): Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Paris, (workers' councils prior to consolidation of Bolshevik power), and Iran being some key locations. Those so-called Anarchists in Spain were some pretty bloody characters but at least they slaughtered communists too. :blushing:
Anywhere socialism to its higher extremities ( not lite flavored like most of W.Europe and even the USA) starvation and mass killing was usually part of the system. You don't have me convinced.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

is true he didn't get the popular vote but he acquired his position constitutionally through the mechanics of the democratic state.

Democratic state is an oxymoron. Germany, like all Western nations, was a republic. Republicanism and democracy are not interrelated structures. Socialists favor democracy; liberals favor republics.


Would you some how be morally ok with the position of Hitler's leadership if it was 'democratic?' Well?

Of course not. Would you be okay if Hitler took control of the biggest private protection agency and used it to kill millions of people?

Under a democratic system there would be no fuhrer so your point is moot. The same can't be said about your hierarchal neo-feudalist model.


hose so-called Anarchists in Spain were some pretty bloody characters

People tend to spill scarlet when they're in the midst of a Civil War. Look at your slave apologist friend, General Lee.


starvation and mass killing was usually part of the system.

Characteristically wrong. Point out where workers had control over the means of production. The best example I can think of is Yugoslavia; are you going to say Tito killed more people than Ronie Reagan? :laugh:

As I recall, all the brutal (neo-)liberals held up by Friedman, Nixon, Reagan, Johnson, and Roosevelt annihilated millions through starvation and murders as well. Thousands died of starvation thanks to deregulation under Pinochet.

*Capitalist apologist.* But they don't count.


But I don't expect much else from a social democrat like yourself.

I'll take a line from a mass murderer you probably hold up as one of the best American presidents: "there you go again." Calling me a social democrat when you're a proponent of feudalism - er the dictator-friendly Friedman - er the slave apologist General Lee - er the intellectually dishonest Von Mises. :lol:


ut you don't criticize the very institution that grants more rights to some and less rights to others.

I realize you're a plagiarist, but now you're a liar too? Where did I defend the Weimar Republic, little man? Don't worry; when you grow up you'll realize just how stupid your rambling sounds.

[Bud Struggle]

George Washington must have been a despot then, since the Articles of Confederation lacked real authority.

But that fell apart rather quickly--and then there was the Constitution. (Not that the Founding Fathers ever would have agreed to the mess it's become.) Personally, I'd be happier under the Articles.


Hitler's rise to power was undemocratic (he lost the election) and built on disgust with the Weimar Republic's fleeting attitude towards other nation-states. It had nothing to do with a lack of authority.

True, but Hitler was (besides for the Communists) generally loved--at least in the beginning. My point was more that when there is a power vacuum someone, usually a strong someone, comes along to fill it. It also happened with Napeolon, and with Franco after the Spanish Republic, and after the Russian Revolution (the Menshevicks were a lot more anarchistic than the Communist under Lenin and Stalin!) and even the second Russian revolution--Putin seems to be quite the Tsar after the free wheeling days of Yeltsin.

Just my impressions--don't be looking for some hard like belief system on my part. I personally kind of like a "Shire" like form of government. I just don't think people have enough common sense to get to such a position of (non)government.


Furthermore there are countless examples in history where a lack of authority resulted in functional libertarian socialism (never capitalism, coincidentally): Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Paris, (workers' councils prior to consolidation of Bolshevik power), and Iran being some key locations.

As I said above--all for a moment. I just don't see anarchy as being stable for the long haul. And I am a bit embarassed to admit it--but in a small way, I could see myself trying to take over in a power vacuum. There are a lot more intense people than me that would succeed.

[Demogorgon]

Honestly, that's what anarchy looks like to me: a grown up version of Lord of the Flies. Actually the book was a metaphor for just that.

I'd be interested in a further look though.

I am not an anarchist, but this is unfair. Iraq for instance is besot with violence not because there is lack of government, but rather because it has gone through a history of ethnic strife, dictatorship and most recently invasion. Even if there was a functioning Government there, it would just in practice be another faction in the war going on there.

While I do not support anarchy (due to not believing you can co-ordinate things like infrastructure without a body to do the co-ordinating), I do not understand the notion some people have that the state is the only thing stopping us from killing each other. Presuming you have never killed anybody (a fair assumption I hope!), why haven't you? Is it because the government will punish you for it or because the thought of doing it is horrific and you could never bring yourself to doing so? I know that if I were to kill anybody, even in self defence or other justified reason, I would never be able to live myself. Prison would be incidental, perhaps even a comfort, given that it would at least give me a feeling of getting what I deserved.The state is not needed for that.

Similarly, the notion that if people are naturally going to kill each other without a state has a rather major flaw: what makes the state in better? Surely if people are naturally inclined to kill each other, the agents of the state would be out there murdering hundreds a day. It does happen, but it isn't exactly common.

[Bud Struggle]

I am not an anarchist, but this is unfair.

Maybe so. I am intrigued by this anarchy stuff. I must admit in my entire life never gave it a moment of thought until I signed onto RevLeft. I'll fight you guys tooth and nail over things that I know about like the "American Dream" but I'm willing to listen a bit, too.

I'm interested in GeneCosta's thread down the street on a similar subject but I'm not sure what he's arguing about exactly.

I'll keep reading. Thanks. :)

[bcbm]

There is not a power vacuum in an anarchist society, power is exercised by all. A power vacuum occurs when a traditional government structure breaks down and no structure of any form replaces it, which is not at all the anarchist project.

[Bud Struggle]

There is not a power vacuum in an anarchist society, power is exercised by all. A power vacuum occurs when a traditional government structure breaks down and no structure of any form replaces it, which is not at all the anarchist project.

As far as I can see there ALWAYS is a power vacuum...show me an instance where there isn't.

Please.

[pusher robot]

While I do not support anarchy (due to not believing you can co-ordinate things like infrastructure without a body to do the co-ordinating), I do not understand the notion some people have that the state is the only thing stopping us from killing each other. Presuming you have never killed anybody (a fair assumption I hope!), why haven't you? Is it because the government will punish you for it or because the thought of doing it is horrific and you could never bring yourself to doing so? I know that if I were to kill anybody, even in self defence or other justified reason, I would never be able to live myself. Prison would be incidental, perhaps even a comfort, given that it would at least give me a feeling of getting what I deserved.The state is not needed for that.


We don't have a state because we can't trust ourselves, we have a state because we can't trust other people. You appear to believe that you can simply generalize your feelings onto every other person. I think that's ridiculous; at a minimum, I'm not willing to bet my life on it.


Similarly, the notion that if people are naturally going to kill each other without a state has a rather major flaw: what makes the state in better? Surely if people are naturally inclined to kill each other, the agents of the state would be out there murdering hundreds a day. It does happen, but it isn't exactly common.

You are arguing against the strawman argument that "everybody wants to kill others." The actual argument for you to counter is "not everybody wants to not kill others." Fortunately, the vast majority seeks peace, and those people largely make up the state apparatus, so there's no contradiction here.

[Demogorgon]

We don't have a state because we can't trust ourselves, we have a state because we can't trust other people. You appear to believe that you can simply generalize your feelings onto every other person. I think that's ridiculous; at a minimum, I'm not willing to bet my life on it.

You are arguing against the strawman argument that "everybody wants to kill others." The actual argument for you to counter is "not everybody wants to not kill others." Fortunately, the vast majority seeks peace, and those people largely make up the state apparatus, so there's no contradiction here.
Both these points have the same objection. Yes there are some people who wish to kill anyway. But the problem is the state doesn't stop them! They do it anyway. You might be able to argue that the state is necessary to bring those who kill to justice but you cannot claim it will stop murder from happening, because those who do not wish to kill do not need a state to stop them and those who do wish to kill will do so, state be damned.

[bcbm]

As far as I can see there ALWAYS is a power vacuum...show me an instance where there isn't.

Please.

Do you mean that a power vacuum always exists in all societies, or in an anarchist society?

[pusher robot]

You might be able to argue that the state is necessary to bring those who kill to justice but you cannot claim it will stop murder from happening.

Sure I can. First, through deterrence, and second, through incapacitation. A murderer can't murder if he is locked in a cell.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Infoshop addresses the topic of power-seekers from an anarchist perspective:


A common objection to anarchism is that an anarchist society will be vulnerable to be taken over by thugs or those who seek power. A similar argument is that a group without a leadership structure becomes open to charismatic leaders so anarchy would just lead to tyranny.
For anarchists, such arguments are strange. Society already is run by thugs and/or the off-spring of thugs. Kings were originally just successful thugs who succeeded in imposing their domination over a given territorial area. The modern state has evolved from the structure created to impose this domination. Similarly with property, with most legal titles to land being traced back to its violent seizure by thugs who then passed it on to their children who then sold it or gave it to their offspring. The origins of the current system in violence can be seen by the continued use of violence by the state and capitalists to enforce and protect their domination over society. When push comes to shove, the dominant class will happily re-discover their thug past and employ extreme violence to maintain their privileges. The descent of large parts of Europe into Fascism during the 1930s, or Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973 indicates how far they will go. As Peter Arshinov argued (in a slightly different context):

"Statists fear free people. They claim that without authority people will lose the anchor of sociability, will dissipate themselves, and will return to savagery. This is obviously rubbish. It is taken seriously by idlers, lovers of authority and of the labour of others, or by blind thinkers of bourgeois society. The liberation of the people in reality leads to the degeneration and return to savagery, not of the people, but of those who, thanks to power and privilege, live from the labour of the people's arms and from the blood of the people's veins . . . The liberation of the people leads to the savagery of those who live from its enslavement." [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 85] Anarchists are not impressed with the argument that anarchy would be unable to stop thugs seizing power. It ignores the fact that we live in a society where the power-hungry already hold power. As an argument against anarchism it fails and is, in fact, an argument against capitalist and statist societies.


Moreover, it also ignores fact that people in an anarchist society would have gained their freedom by overthrowing every existing and would-be thug who had or desired power over others. They would have defended that freedom against those who desired to re-impose it. They would have organised themselves to manage their own affairs and, therefore, to abolish all hierarchical power. And we are to believe that these people, after struggling to become free, would quietly let a new set of thugs impose themselves? As Kropotkin argued:

"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition . . . They have it in their power to apply a prompt check by boycotting such a person and refusing to help him with their labour or to willing supply him with any articles in their possession. They have it in their power to use force against him. They have these powers individually as well as collectively. Being either past rebels who have been inspired with the spirit of liberty, or else habituated to enjoy freedom from their infancy, they are hardly to rest passive in view of what they feel to be wrong." [Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, pp. 87-8] Thus a free society would use direct action to resist the would-be ruler just as it had used direct action to free itself from existing rulers. An anarchist society would be organised in a way which would facilitate this direct action as it would be based on networks of solidarity and mutual aid. An injury to one is an injury to all and a would-be ruler would face a whole liberated society acting against him or her. Faced with the direct action of the population (which would express itself in non-co-operation, strikes, demonstrations, occupations, insurrections and so on) a would be power seeker would find it difficult to impose themselves. Unlike those accustomed to rulership in existing society, an anarchist people would be a society of rebels and so difficult to dominate and conquer.


Anarchists point to the example of the rise of Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany to prove their point. In areas with strong anarchist movements the fascists were resisted most strongly. While in Germany Hitler took power with little or no opposition, in Italy and Spain the fascists had to fight long and hard to gain power. The anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist organisations fought the fascists tooth and nail, with some success before betrayal by the Republicans and Marxists. From this historical experience anarchists argue that an anarchist society would quickly and easily defeat would-be thugs as people would be used to practising direct action and self-management and would have no desire to stop practising them.
As for self-management resulting in "charismatic" leaders, well the logic is astounding. As if hierarchical structures are not based on leadership structures and do not require a charismatic leader! Such an argument is inherently self-contradictory -- as well as ignoring the nature of modern society and its leadership structures. Rather than mass assemblies being dominated by leaders, it is the case that hierarchical structures are the natural breeding ground for dictators. All the great dictators the world have seen have come to the forefront in hierarchical organisations, not libertarian structured ones. Hitler, for example, did not come to power via a libertarian organisation. Rather he used a highly centralised and hierarchically organised party to take control of a centralised, hierarchical state. The very disempowerment of the population in capitalist society results in them looking to leaders to act for them and so "charismatic" leaders are a natural result. An anarchist society, by empowering all, would make it more difficult, not less, for a would-be leader to gain power -- few people, if any, would be willing to sacrifice and negate themselves for the benefit of another.


As would be expected, given our comments above, anarchists think an anarchist society must defend itself against attempts to re-introduce the state or private property. The question of defence of an anarchist society is discussed in the next section (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci514) and so we will not do so here.
Our discussion on the power hungry obviously relates to the more general the question of whether ethical behaviour be rewarded in an anarchist society. In other words, could an anarchist society be stable or would the unethical take over?
It is one of the most disturbing aspects of living in a world where the rush to acquire wealth is the single most important aspect of living is what happens to people who follow an ethical path in life.
Under capitalism, the ethical generally do not succeed as well as those stab their fellows in the back, those who cut corners, indulge in sharp business practises, drive competitors into the ground and live their lives with an eye on the bottom line but they do survive. Loyalty to a firm or a group, bending over backwards to provide a service, giving a helping hand to somebody in need, placing friendship above money, count for nothing when the bills come in. People who act ethically in a capitalist society are usually punished and penalised for their ethical, moral and principled behaviour. Indeed, the capitalist market rewards unethical behaviour as it generally reduces costs and so gives those who do it a competitive edge.
It is different in a free society. Anarchism is based on two principles of association, equal access to power and wealth. Everybody in an anarchist society irrespective of what they do, or who they are or what type of work they perform is entitled to share in society's wealth. Whether a community survives or prospers depends on the combined efforts of the people in that community. Ethical behaviour would become the norm in an anarchist community; those people who act ethically would be rewarded by the standing they achieve in the community and by others being more than happy to work with and aid them. People who cut corners, try to exercise power over others, refuse to co-operate as equals or otherwise act in an unethical manner would lose their standing in an anarchist society. Their neighbours and work mates would refuse to co-operate with them (or reduce co-operation to a minimum) and take other forms of non-violent direct action to point out that certain forms of activity was inappropriate. They would discuss the issue with the unethical person and try to convince them of the errors of their way. In a society where the necessities are guaranteed, people would tend to act ethically because ethical behaviour raises an individuals profile and standing within such a community. Capitalism and ethical behaviour are mutually exclusive concepts; anarchism encourages and rewards ethical behaviour.


Therefore, as can be seen, anarchists argue that a free society would not have to fear would-be thugs, "charismatic" leaders or the unethical. An anarchist society would be based on the co-operation of free individuals. It is unlikely that they would tolerate such behaviour and would use their own direct action as well as social and economic organisations to combat it. Moreover, the nature of free co-operation would reward ethical behaviour as those who practice it would have it reciprocated by their fellows.
One last point. Some people seem to think that anarchism is about the powerful being appealed to not to oppress and dominate others. Far from it. Anarchism is about the oppressed and exploited refusing to let others dominate them. It is not an appeal to the "better side" of the boss or would-be boss; it is about the solidarity and direct action of those subject to a boss getting rid of the boss -- whether the boss agrees to it or not! Once this is clearly understood the idea that an anarchist society is vulnerable to the power-hungry is clearly nonsense -- anarchy is based on resisting power and so is, by its very nature, more resistant to would-be rulers than a hierarchical one.


http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci56

[Demogorgon]

Sure I can. First, through deterrence, and second, through incapacitation. A murderer can't murder if he is locked in a cell.

Yes he can, there is plenty of murder committed in prison. And further the majority of murderers do not kill more than once, so by the time they are caught it is a bit late.

As for deterrence, I am not so sure about that, murderers who kill in hot blood do so not thinking about the consequences and the relatively few who kill in cold blood do so intending not to be caught. And at any rate I am sure an anarchist society could certainly provide deterrence.

I am playing Devil's advocate here to an extent of course, I am not an anarchist. But I do not think an anarchist society would in anyway resemble a fre for all with people killing each other.