Is anarchism a bundle of contradictions?

[benhur]

Comrades,

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance. There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen. There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines.

I can go on and on, but the point is, the very idea of 'no rule' seems contradictory and impracticable. In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules':D, which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.

I hope my anarchist comrades aren't offended by this, just thinking out loud. Hopefully, someone can come up with good responses.

[F9]

Comrades,

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance. There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen. There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines.

Governance and leadership in Anarchism?:confused::lol:Who told you such thing?Thats totally false!However people may speak for "leadership" where this will contain the most informed comrades on the issues and with the most ability on the theory, will be the "leadership" and they act first!However this kind of "leadership" has nothing to do with the leadership that you probably have in mind, like having leaders who organize us always etc etc.Such things dont happen!
Which Anarchists organizations have hierarchy?


I can go on and on, but the point is, the very idea of 'no rule' seems contradictory and impracticable. In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules':D, which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.

Its not contradictory at all!It was just a simple point out, that the ruling of the communes will be held by all people, no one is going to personally rule, but everyone will contribute to the commune and in someway rule it!


Fuserg9:star:

[Invincible Summer]

Comrades,

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance. There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen. There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines.

I can go on and on, but the point is, the very idea of 'no rule' seems contradictory and impracticable. In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules':D, which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.

I hope my anarchist comrades aren't offended by this, just thinking out loud. Hopefully, someone can come up with good responses.


Fuser has said msot of what I would have said.

However, I would like to add that the term "rule" is very misleading with anarchists - indeed anarchism is against hierarchy and authority, but that does not mean we are against organization or democratic worker's control.

What we are against, however, is the idea that a single individual or party will lead a revolution, as those tactics inherently have a hierarchy.

Anarchism is not so much a bundle of contradictions so much as misunderstood by Marxists, due to the differences in semantics.

[apathy maybe]

Comrades,

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance. There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen. There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines.

I can go on and on, but the point is, the very idea of 'no rule' seems contradictory and impracticable. In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules':D, which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.

I hope my anarchist comrades aren't offended by this, just thinking out loud. Hopefully, someone can come up with good responses.

You are quite right, anarchism is contradictory. We are all confused liberals who don't actually know our own ideology! How could I have been so blind! Obviously having a vanguard party and democratic centralism isn't compatible with anarchist thought, why didn't I notice that before?

Oh god, my entire politics are rubbish! I can't believe I was supporting the Labor party at the last election, that's so contradictory!

Honestly, I hang my head in shame at the sillieness of it all.


(Seriously though, of the serious anarchists, there are two sorts: those who actually know what they are talking about, and thus aren't contradictory, and those who don't, and thus are. The second sort aren't really anarchists, because they want a permanent police force etc.)

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Personal, I find a difference between leadership and rulers (inb4 measuring equipment).

Leaders are more like teachers, you can look up to them and learn from them, but when it comes down to it, you are on the same level. A ruler, however, is someone who is "above" you.

All the anarchists that I know are autonomists (myself included), which negates any need for a hierarchy.

[The Feral Underclass]

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory.

It seems that what you've read is utter nonsense. Would you mind telling me what exactly it is you've been reading?


On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance.I became an anarchist five years ago and in that time I have read rather extensively on the subject from various different theoreticians and commentators and not once have I ever come across any of them suggest that an anarchist society would be without rules.

The question of governance is a semantic one. Some will say that what we suggest as political organisation is in fact a government. Providing that societal administration is done in a de-centralised, federated and directly democratic way then you can call it whatever you like.

Examples of this will be in the anarchist areas of Spain during the civil war and the free regions of the Ukraine during the revolution.


There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen.You have just argued in this sentence that revolutions happen because there are leaders. Not only is that a non-materialist analysis and thus anti-Marxist, it's empirically inaccurate.

Revolutions don't "just happen", you are correct, but they certainly don't happen because there are leaders; although there are leaders that lead revolutions, or more accurately claim them.

A revolution occurs because of struggle between the workers and the bosses. Revolution comes about as a spontaneous reaction towards capitals refusal to allow the exploited the freedom to organise society based on their own needs and desires. It happens because the workers make it happen, not because of leaders.

Karl Marx himself said: "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves"


There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines. Organisations do have hierarchies and they do function along those lines, but that does not mean that organisations have need of hierarchy or have to work along those lines.

Take the Anarchist Federation for example. There is no hierarchy and decisions are made by consensus.There are no institutionalised positions of authority and no rank of seniority. Everyone is treated equally and have an equal say on all matters.

It is, in fact, an organisation that has no hierarchy and functions without it.


I can go on and on...Please do.


...but the point is, the very idea of 'no rule' seems contradictory and impracticable.We agree.


In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules':D, which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.

I wouldn't listen to what he says.


I hope my anarchist [comrades] aren't offended by this, just thinking out loud. Hopefully, someone can come up with good responses.No not offended. Although it would be better if you'd take the time to study anarchist ideology and theory before making such posts. There are actually many threads through this forum that deal with the same points. Points, I might add, that are both generic and repetative.

You're not, funnily enough, the first person to have made these arguments.

[Decolonize The Left]

Comrades,

Most of the things I hear/read about anarchism are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they say there's no rule, then they say there's governance. There's no leadership, but someone has to lead, revolution doesn't just happen. There's no hierarchy, they say, but anarchist organizations do have a hierarchy, and they function along those lines.

It seems you are confused due to a lack of clarification in regards to the terms you are using. For anarchism, in theory (and practice by many), is not self-contradictory. It becomes so when individuals distort and/or confuse terms and meanings.

Let's try and clarify some things.
1) What does "anarchism" mean?
Literally, it means "without rulers."
2) What is a "ruler?" Wiktionary says: "A person who rules (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rule) of governs (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/govern); a person who exercises dominion (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dominion) or controlling power over others."
We see immediately that this word is not synonymous with "leader." In fact, a cursory study of the anarchist movement will reveal numerous leaders.
We also see that opposing rulers generally leads to opposing governments. Please note that "a government" is not synonymous with "governance."
3) Is it possible to have a society without rulers?
Of course - but further explanation, if desired, is perhaps best for a new thread.

I hope this helps.

- August

[rebelworker]

Its true to an extent that anarchism is full of contradictions... you talk to 50 anarchists your going to get 40 different answeres to a question.

On the other hand I personally think (having spent time in many different camps) that Bolshevism has just as many contradictions, and some of them are extreemly dangerous..

I suggest you spend sometime looking for the best of Revolutuionary theory.

I call myself an anarchist communist, but without significant parts of marxist theory, and the distancing myself of some wing of anarchism id have nothing...

Theory must be a living praxis, otherwise your going to end up being a deluded ideolgue.

[apathy maybe]

In fact, someone here (was it apathy maybe?) became so confused as to suggest that 'no rule' is actually 'everyone rules', which can give us an idea as to how contradictory this position can be.
I wouldn't listen to what he says.
Just for the record, I don't recall ever saying "no rulers" or "no rule" is actually "everyone rules", if this is taken to mean that everyone has rule over everyone else. (Though some people seem to take it to mean that.)

If I ever said anything like that, I would have meant, "no body rules over you, except yourself". That is to say, each individual rules them self, and no one else. (Which is not contradictory with the "no rulers" idea.)

There are a lot of semantic problems for certain people to understand anarchism, but seriously, it isn't that hard.

(And as to TAT saying don't listen to me, he's just jealous. He doesn't like my ideas regarding non-communist anarchism, but seems to agree when it comes to certain other things, such as "police".)