Proudhon

[Communist_99]

Proudhon is one of the best anarchist thinkers and in my opinion most accurately describes what the ideology actually entails. In his essay 'what is government?' he puts it best, 'To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.'

however, most of what he describes above is in actual fact inescapeable. You can never be totally free from being governed or controlled. When your born you have no say in the certification of your birth or being initiated into any particular faith. You can never be fully anrachistic. Some anarchists thinkers beleive that the only ultimate ideological conclusion of anarchism is in fact suicide.

what do you think??


Just so you know this is an argument against Anarchism

[F9]

Bring me the knife.....................i am going to suicide!:rolleyes::lol:


Anw Welcome on board:star:

[revolution inaction]

I don't think he was a particular good anarchist, he was sexist and racist and his economics where crap.


In his essay 'what is government?' he puts it best, 'To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.'

however, most of what he describes above is in actual fact inescapeable. You can never be totally free from being governed or controlled. When your born you have no say in the certification of your birth or being initiated into any particular faith. You can never be fully anrachistic.

anarchism is about achieving the maximum possible freedom, not some abstract idea of absolute freedom.



Some anarchists thinkers beleive that the only ultimate ideological conclusion of anarchism is in fact suicide.


I find it difficult to believe that an anarchist said this, but some anarchists are idiots, and of lots of idiots claim to be anarchist, so its possible one of them said this.



Just so you know this is an argument against Anarchism

i fail to see how, in what sense do you think it invalidates anarchism?

[GPDP]

cool story bro

[Pogue]

cool story bro

cool story bro

[Holden Caulfield]

probs best not to start debate in your into thread, people dont really read them (i didnt) :)

welcome to the forum tho, maybe start a Proudhon thread in the Theory section?

happy posting

[ZeroNowhere]

The only person who is completely free is a despot. Anyways, that's just Proudhon. Most anarchists don't aim for some kind of 'complete freedom', or define 'government' as such. No rulers doesn't mean no rules.
Well, technically, anarchists don't want to be 'governed' by 'creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so', and I don't see what exactly is wrong with that. :rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

If there was no Proudhon, there probably wouldn't have been a Bakunin (by Bakunin's own admission), and hence no anarchist movement as we know it today. So for that at least he gets my respect.

I have no idea what this thread is doing in this area of the board, though.