To any anarchists - dont worry this is not an argument.

[Invader Zim]

I've never understood anarchy personaly i cant see the point, but any way i wish to be enlightened, on the good points and the bad...

Ps. Have any of you heard this quote "Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit" Henry Brook Adams (1838-1918).

[Panamarisen]

Very good quote, AK, but remember anarchy doesn´t mean chaos.

Means not allowing any kind of authority or rules as to dictating how to be, how to behave in society, what is "politically correct" and what isn´t, who we should be, and what kind of people we shouldn´t be....

Anarchy isn´t as stupid as not to consider we are all social beings, not just human beings, so it works in a very specifical direction, a direction that would eventually lead all of us to a free, and -at the same time- feasible society.


¡HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Invader Zim]

Hmm.... I still dont fully understand the point of Anarchy, but ive seen some of the anarchists post rather insane belief's on this forum.

[Anonymous]

anarchy is not the word for it, anarchism is, anarchism is communism, basicly, the main diference is that most anarchists believe that anarchy should be instaured right after the revolution, without a preliminar stage between, communists on the other hand, believe that socialism is the only path to communism...

deeply communism and anarchy is the same thing, a stateless, classless society, controled by the people...


but ofcourse tehre are some diferences between communism and anarchism, yet those are not big...


plus, marx enjoyed and suported anarchism and some anarchist filosophers like Bakuine, yet he lather disagreed with bakuine due to some shit and the 2 started a personal feud against each other... yet the ideoligys are still bond to each other...

[Som]

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

An Anarchist faq.

Whats the point? To create a society free of coercion and involuntary authority, a society based on free association and voluntary cooperation. That the state is based on force, and is inherently immoral and should be abolished.
Its nothing short of completly changing the way society is organized, in order to create the most freedom for everyone.

Now isnt that something that sounds nice?

[ratm545]

is there any state in anarchist place?

if not which i am under the assumption is how it is, who regulates things? is there any trade? who paves the roads?

governments are neccessary

[Som]

is there any state in anarchist place?

if not which i am under the assumption is how it is, who regulates things? is there any trade? who paves the roads?

Of course theres no state, thats the point, states are coercive involuntary authority.

The people involved regulate things, theres trade if it happens, in many cases theres hopefully communist gift economics, in others there will be a usual socialist run of things. Whatever shows up really. The same people who always paved the roads will pave the roads, the roads need paving, you dont need a government for that.

[ratm545]

i still really don't understand the concept, whats one motivation in society to do the jobs needed to be done (paving roads was just an example)?

are you expecting all the citizens to be nice to one another and share goods for goods?

[kidicarus20]

In the case of anarcho-capitalism anarchism is chaos, hahaha.
As the great Chomsky points out, anarcho-capitalism would quickly destroy any society that tried it.

But anarchy is a decent theory, the state is justified however under capitalism, without the state, capitalism would be much worse (state intervention, obviously caputalism needs the state to exist though).
I think anarchy would be a great society with great progress and peace.

Internal wars would come up between conservatives (evil) and progressives though.

[Som]

i still really don't understand the concept, whats one motivation in society to do the jobs needed to be done (paving roads was just an example)?

are you expecting all the citizens to be nice to one another and share goods for goods?

It really depends on what sort of society would be set up.
In say an anarchist communist society, yes, all would be nice to eachother and share, labor wouldn't be specialized, and the road would get paved just because it needs paving.

In other types, where money is still present, someone theyre motivated to pave the roads because they get payed for it, likely the commune the road passes through would pave it or pay for the paving.

While material incentives of motivation would likely still be present, a social motivation would be a bigger part of it.

[ratm545]

i think that that would be the perfect society, if people were good people, but i dont think they are good enough to try this. i wouldnt even want to take part in that society if everyone did something for money.

....maybe someday this will come true, but for now i'm going to fight for socialism

[Invader Zim]

I agree with RATM545 the cosept is to idealistic it needs all pople to be nice people, or it does'nt work. So with human nature being what it is, it will never work.

[antieverything]

If you read the FAQ, you will see some pretty convincing arguments to your beliefs about anarchism.

Although, the thing is that war happened before there was illegitimate authority. There will always be disputes over the distribution of natural resources, capital, land, and goods...the legitimate responsibility of the state is to mediate these disputes fairly.

...I was once one of the black-hooded until my sister (who is a sociolagist grad-student at Harvard!) tore me a new asshole in a debate...

[Som]

I agree with RATM545 the cosept is to idealistic it needs all pople to be nice people, or it does'nt work. So with human nature being what it is, it will never work.

I rather hate the 'human nature' response, Its overly vague reasoning. Human nature is and has always been rather.. variable. Theres many paths human nature can take. The usual response to this is the example of primitive communism, where the sort of human nature most applicable to anarchist ideas, is most present, sharing, cooperating, no land ownership, so on.

Its best to remember anarchism is meant to be a mass movement as well, a popular revolution where the people create their anarchist society.

The states not necesesarily the best way to settle disputes as well, especially when it gets to 'fairly'.
The war before illigitimate authority was in an unorganized society, isolated instead of federated groups and so on, organization would create a different mode of handling things.

so and so forth really.

[antieverything]

I rather hate the 'human nature' response, Its overly vague reasoning. Human nature is and has always been rather.. variableQuite true, human nature is 99% social conditioning.


The states not necesesarily the best way to settle disputes as well, especially when it gets to 'fairly'.
The war before illigitimate authority was in an unorganized society, isolated instead of federated groups and so on, organization would create a different mode of handling things.I don't think that you can say that these were socially unorganized societies. They were cooperative, collective units that fought over limited resources...wars are very rarely fought over ideology but instead always a fight over distribution of resources. When you talk about federated groups, you point to some form of large scale social organization: I assume you mean that society will work as one unit without any central governing body...a market is a market is a market. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Collectives with the resources are just as likely to exploit their market influences to their own benefit even if that means the abuse of the society as a whole. This is why I believe in market socialism--similar to anarcho-syndicalism but with a federal form of government and a central governing body at the state and national levels.

[ratm545]

Quote: from Som on 2:08 am on Jan. 27, 2003[br

I rather hate the 'human nature' response, Its overly vague reasoning. Human nature is and has always been rather.. variable. Theres many paths human nature can take. The usual response to this is the example of primitive communism, where the sort of human nature most applicable to anarchist ideas, is most present, sharing, cooperating, no land ownership, so on.



i agree i guess, to an extent, it all matters on what enviroment you grow up in. if you grew up in a socialist country, you wouldnt think about all the evils that capitalism tries to make you revolve around.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Human nature is a factor in any state situation, a state is the reason human nature is to take advantage. If a state that could be abused was not present, there would be no abuse. Communism has the same problem, the system can and does work only in small groups. In fact most systems do, democracy, communism, anarchy, virtually all that have the possibility of fairness.

The problem is that when a system is not personal, or the effects do not seem personal it is to easy to try and benifit yourself. In a small group this would not happen, and co-operation would have to take place for the survival and developement of the group.

This is IMO the best ideology, and when people realise we don't need to depend on technology, small groups of absolute equality, held together by team spirit, will be the best life humans can live. That is where it becomes similar to communism. In fact I see Che Guevara as more of an anarchist.

Of course in practise there is slightly more trouble. However I think that if this was the only options, groups could form, divisions of countries could fall, unfortunately unless there was no opposition, it would all have to happen at once. Unless of course communism stood up to opposition, then shifted to anarchy..Original point sorry? lol

[Drifter]

human nature is 99% social conditioning,
don't tell me anyone seriously believes that

[Som]

I don't think that you can say that these were socially unorganized societies. They were cooperative, collective units that fought over limited resources...wars are very rarely fought over ideology but instead always a fight over distribution of resources.

What I meant by that is that the only case where you could say there was war without illigitimate authority would be in the case of hunter-gatherer societies and much smaller units. These units while cooperative within it, never formed any sort of federated unity that wouldn't be a state to help peacefully resolve anything.
These societies were essentially lacking the bottom up super democratic descision making of an advanced anarchist society.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Collectives with the resources are just as likely to exploit their market influences to their own benefit even if that means the abuse of the society as a whole. This is why I believe in market socialism--similar to anarcho-syndicalism but with a federal form of government and a central governing body at the state and national levels.

While I see the danger of even the democratic cooperatives becoming sorts of power structures on their own, I think there are other non-statist ways to deal with this.

It really all depends on the sort of anarchist society really implemented. In many of these societies, markets would be much less of a factor in the overall view of things, and some would like to have no free market at all. Production for instance may be federated to be cooperative instead of competitive, which would cut down the edge for exploitation.

In the anarcho-syndicalist model, the trade union would likely be the largest force to stop this, almost in some actions acting as a sort of economic democratic body.

This all comes back to really the authority to stop authority if a collective begins to act that way.

[Blibblob]

anarchy was the starting way of life, back in pre-social man. it will never happen again, humans need a governing body, they cant live on their own.

[antieverything]

As crazy as it sounds, most sociologists actually agree that our human nature is almost completely conditioned and not instinctive. Children who have grown up in the wild without human contact were completely wild when they were rediscovered. Human behaviour is learned.

Som, it seems that what you describe is not so much anarchy as it is a state run without republicanism instead favoring direct democracy. Unless I am mistaken in which case I ask, what makes the decision of the majority stick? Eventually somebody gets pissed off, leaves, and everything falls apart.

(Edited by antieverything at 3:34 am on Jan. 28, 2003)

[Som]

Well that all depends on definitions of the state and anarchy.

I would consider that bottom-up organization as not a state, and still within the ideas of anarchy, on the basis of the idea that these organizations are non-authoritarian, and entirely voluntary.

Since these ordered organizations are based solely on social consensus with those involved, are essentially non-hierarchal in nature, and most importantly do not utilize coercion to get their descisions enacted, they would not be considered a state or government in the anarchist sense.

What makes the descision of the majority stick is basically the need to follow out that descision. If a descision is best for most, then the few that disagree will likely follow out of a sort of mutual need to work with the descisions of the federation they're voluntary a part of.
Thinking of it on small terms, its like if a few people are deciding where theyre going to go, if most agree to go to somewhere, the rest will probably follow, or then again, they could just stay home if its really doesn't suit them. Its this sort of really basic idea of group descisions applied to larger levels.
Either way Its all very subjective. If they leave this grouping, its not a large problem, anarchist organization is incredibly fluid, free association and so on.

(Edited by Som at 3:44 am on Jan. 28, 2003)