More questions on anarchism:education+parenting

[Black Sheep]

Okay,questions regarding anarchism:
1)I have seen anarchists (self-proclaimed at least) to propagandize ideas for a 'libertarian education'..
Like, a child should choose if it wants to be educated or not.I am not sure at which level of education this stands for,but that is the main idea,which i find ridiculous.
2)What about parenting?Parents applying coercion to the children.Is a child considered free or is there an age limit? Sounds kinda stupid,but it breeds from "Anarchism,against all authority".Or is it a kind of like the shoemaker's authority in shoe-making?

Maybe i am examining anarchism a little too 'sharply'.

[Black Sheep]

Any replies? Cm on, people!

[Forward Union]

Okay,questions regarding anarchism:
1)I have seen anarchists (self-proclaimed at least) to propagandize ideas for a 'libertarian education'..
Like, a child should choose if it wants to be educated or not.I am not sure at which level of education this stands for,but that is the main idea,which i find ridiculous

Anarchism has no specific view on this issue. My view, as an Anarchist, is that all people should have equal acess to infomation.

Children should be sent to school when they are too young to decide themselves. And sent though the cirriculum. If at any point they wish to leave, they may.


2)What about parenting?Parents applying coercion to the children.Is a child considered free or is there an age limit? Sounds kinda stupid,but it breeds from "Anarchism,against all authority".Or is it a kind of like the shoemaker's authority in shoe-making?

Parents have authority over their children.

"If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge" - Noam Chomsky

You can't set age limits without running into problems. As a loose rule, when a child is old enough to rationally challenge your authority over him/herself then you begin to loose the right to 'parent' them in such a controling manner. It's a fairly organic process.

[Kal98]

'Freedom' of information would inevitably mean access to information contrary the required Communist formation of every child, which is what is needed in a socialist society.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

children love there parents and choose to follow them, then when they reach a stage in there life in which their ideas differ they go their own way it's not aturitarian it's liveing in which the learn lesson of the parents are utilized by the children. some parents take this to far, but a true anarchist would not.

[Kal98]

children love there parents and choose to follow them, then when they reach a stage in there life in which their ideas differ they go their own way it's not aturitarian it's liveing in which the learn lesson of the parents are utilized by the children. some parents take this to far, but a true anarchist would not.
Well in a socialist state the State is the true 'Father'.

[Annie K.]

Rebellion in a socialist state is needed to install communism. If the state is the true father, then we must hope that the children will kill him.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

this tread is about anarchism

[Kal98]

this tread is about anarchism
So anarchism doesn't voice as it's intention the conquer of political power by the working class?

[nuisance]

Well in a socialist state the State is the true 'Father'.
:laugh:
I wonder what you think when religions claim such a ridculous notion!


So anarchism doesn't voice as it's intention the conquer of political power by the working class?

What has this got to do with a State? Nothing.
Rather the liberation of the working class through self-defence. The Ruling class can't exist without hierarchy, so for our liberation it is necessary to destory the class system.

[Kal98]

:laugh:
I wonder what you think when religions claim such a ridculous notion!
What?



What has this got to do with a State? Nothing.You can only have a dictatorship of working people or a dictatorship of the bourgeios, anarchists like to skate around this question but they never answer which they support.


Rather the liberation of the working class through self-defence.How so? Conquering political power requires more than mere 'self-defense' to be successful. Violent aggression, not defense, will suffice.


The Ruling class can't exist without hierarchy, Indeed, in capitalism the bourgeois rule over the proletariat, in socialism the proletariat destroy such rule and replace it with their own. Socialist society must be democratic in a new way (for non-propertied peoples) and repressive in a new way (against exploiters).

You can't talk about getting rid of the old system without a hierarchy of the working class over the exploiters, the reactionaries, the lumpenproletarial gangsters, the saboteurs etc.


so for our liberation it is necessary to destory the class system.Socialism abolishes capitalism first before it abolishes itself, you can't skip over productive phases.

[Annie K.]

Anarchism generally don't deny the marxist theory about the historical action of the working class taking power from the capitalist hands, and it support (and takes part in) this action, but it support first the destruction of the class-based society and of all the powers it supposes, for the benefits of all.


Socialism abolishes capitalism first before it abolishes itself, you can't skip over productive phases.You can as long as you want. The revolution is not magic.

[Kal98]

Anarchism generally don't deny the marxist theory about the historical action of the working class taking power from the capitalist hands, and it support (and takes part in) this action, but it support first the destruction of the class-based society and of all the powers it supposes.
How so? The dictatorship of the proletariat is the only thing which can abolish class. Are you saying anarchists think class contradictions can be abolished overnight?

[nuisance]

What?
It's self-explanatory.



You can only have a dictatorship of working people or a dictatorship of the bourgeios, anarchists like to skate around this question but they never answer which they support.
The anarchist slogan 'smash the State' mean nothing to you? However of course anarchists side with the working class, after all it is a working class ideology. So no skating around points mate, you just have a distinct lack of knowledge of what anarchism is. Therefore instead of making your dodgy critiques, ask some questions and learn.


How so? Conquering political power requires more than mere 'self-defense' to be successful. Violent aggression, not defense, will suffice.
Take a material assessment of modern day capitalist, every piece of working class resistance is self-defence. Every time a community rejects a shop being built on their street that is self-defence. Every time a worker joins a union, this is self-defence and when the working class revolutionises society, this will be in self-defenc, an objection to class rule.


Indeed, in capitalism the bourgeois rule over the proletariat, in socialism the proletariat destroy such rule and replace it with their own. Socialist society must be democratic in a new way (for non-propertied peoples) and repressive in a new way (against exploiters).
This is only efficient through federalism, not through a centralisd State that only exists to perpetuate itself.


Socialism abolishes capitalism first before it abolishes itself, you can't skip over productive phases.
Socialism with not abolish itself. The State takes any action necessary to continue its control, for example the dissolvement of the Free Soviets by Lenin, which resulted in the mass centralisation of all things.
Who spoke of skipping over phases?

[Annie K.]

Anarchists think the proletariat itself can't exert a dictatorship, and that permanent revolution (it has many names) suffice to abolish class without need to substitute another dominant class.

More exactly, and there i speak for myself, class contradictions cannot be abolished overnight. And that is why all powers must be destroyed as soon as possible, so that these contradictions won't last until the return to the ancient free-market capitalism
is the only possiblity.

[Post-Something]

well in a socialist state the state is the true 'father'.

do you even know what a father is???

[Kal98]

Oh god, I am so leaving this thread, too many naive liberals - too little space.

[Kal98]

Anarchists, if they do not serve the dictatorship of the proletariat, ultimately serve the counterrevolution.

[nuisance]

Oh god, I am so leaving this thread, too many naive liberals - too little space.
:laugh:
What has been said that could be termed liberal? Or are you just plucking terms out of the air again?

[nuisance]

Anarchists, if they do not serve the dictatorship of the proletariat, ultimately serve the counterrevolution.
Have you read a word wrote? No one has insinuated that the ruling class reaction needs not to be destoryed, however the Marxist fixation of the State has repeatably been, one of, its downfalls, with the consolidation of the State, as Bakunin predicted would happen before the Russian revolution took place. It is for this reason that we oppose hierarchy and centralisation of political of authority. Nothing to do with counter-revolution.;)

[Kal98]

Have you read a word wrote? No one has insinuated that the ruling class reaction needs not to be destoryed, however the Marxist fixation of the State has repeatably been, one of, its downfalls, with the consolidation of the State, as Bakunin predicted would happen before the Russian revolution took place. It is for this reason that we oppose hierarchy and centralisation of political of authority. Nothing to do with counter-revolution.;)
Oh please, your overly moralistic liberal diatribes against the 'state' are complete petite-bourgeois and you know it, they make me sick just reading your 'centralization' nonsense.

[Annie K.]

Didn't you left this thread ?

[nuisance]

Oh please, your overly moralistic liberal diatribes against the 'state' are complete petite-bourgeois and you know it, they make me sick just reading your 'centralization' nonsense.
Wow, you know absolutely nothing! Btw is the '98 in your name a reference to your birth year? Not to be condesending but your assertions would be more understandable if they were coming from a ten year old.
OK, I'll ask again, what is liberal about being anti-state? It is after all this that upholds capitalism and the class system, whilst constantly eroding liberty for its own aims. It also inherently constitutes hierarchy of minority rule, like what, unsurprisingly, your DoP's have descended into.
Oh, and what has been said that is petit-bourgeois? Go on, just try to back up your non-sensical use of buzz words.

[Black Sheep]

It would be great if people stayed on topic, instead of debating statism and anti-statism in every single thread!

[nuisance]

It would be great if people stayed on topic, instead of debating statism and anti-statism in every single thread!
The answers to your intial question can be found here:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ6.html

[OI OI OI]

Originally posted by Bakunin (God and The State , Chapter 2)
Must we, then, eliminate from society all instruction and abolish all schools? Far from it! Instruction must be spread among the masses without stint, transforming all the churches, all those temples dedicated to the glory of God and to the slavery of men, into so many schools of human emancipation. But, in the first place, let us understand each other; schools, properly speaking, in a normal society founded on equality and on respect for human liberty, will exist only for children and not for adults: and, in order that they may become schools of emancipation and not of enslavement, it will be necessary to eliminate, first of all, this fiction of God, the eternal and absolute enslaver. The whole education of children and their instruction must be founded on the scientific development of reason, not on that of faith; on the development of personal dignity and independence, not on that of piety and obedience; on the worship of truth and justice at any cost, and above all on respect for humanity, which must replace always and everywhere the worship of divinity. The principle of authority, in the education of children, constitutes the natural point of departure; it is legitimate, necessary, when applied to children of a tender age, whose intelligence has not yet openly developed itself. But as the development of everything, and consequently of education, implies the gradual negation of the point of departure, this principle must diminish as fast as education and instruction advance, giving place to increasing liberty. All rational education is at bottom nothing but this progressive immolation of authority for the benefit of liberty, the final object of education necessarily being the formation of free men full of respect and love for the liberty of others. Therefore the first day of the pupils' life, if the school takes infants scarcely able as yet to stammer a few words, should be that of the greatest authority and an almost entire absence of liberty; but its last day should be that of the greatest liberty and the absolute abolition of every vestige of the animal or divine principle of authority.
The principle of authority, applied to men who have surpassed or attained their majority, becomes a monstrosity, a flagrant denial of humanity, a source of slavery and intellectual and moral depravity. Unfortunately, paternal governments have left the masses to wallow in an ignorance so profound that it will be necessary to establish schools not only for the people's children, but for the people themselves. From these schools will be absolutely eliminated the smallest applications or manifestations of the principle of authority. They will be schools no longer; they will be popular academies, in which neither pupils nor masters will be known, where the people will come freely to get, if they need it, free instruction, and in which, rich in their own experience, they will teach in their turn many things to the professors who shall bring them knowledge which they lack. This, then, will be a mutual instruction, an act of intellectual fraternity between the educated youth and the people.
.