Anarchy

[Nickademus]

I believe it was RedCeltic who at one point briefly discussed anarchy and how it doesn't work (with reference to something else). Anyway, I just found this article and thought it might be of interest to some of you

I find it refreshing that an article looks at anarchy as not being evil, especially considering this was poblished in a 'conservative' newspaper.

Anarchism: Its time has come again
Rick Salutin

THis colum has no, as they say, hook, other than a fear the news media will begin to discuss anarchism rather than just referencing it. So far, they've been content to simply substitute the term for communism, terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and similar fringts: "Anarchy reigns in Genoa 'war zone.'"; "Men in black behind chaos; anarchists, hardliners plan 'actions.'" "Chretien: Canada will punish anarchists at next G8 summit"; Its meaning is more or less assumed. Anarchists are violent; they believe in chaos. There are wry asidess ("anarchists by definition are not supposed to be organized" ) on how contradictory it is to belong to an anarchist group or go to an anarchist convention!

There hasn't been much by way of 'alaysis' or 'in depth' with sidebars and headshots of Bakunin, Kroptking and Emma GOldman. That's the vacuum I'm rushing to fill.

What about all that chaos and anarchy? It sounds like a big pillow fight. How can they oppose organization and order? Actually, anarchists don't. They oppose order imposed from above; in other words, they oppose authority and power. Anarchism isn't about disorder but about the absence of authority. You could say it's taking th notion that power corrupts, really seriously. It assumes people are naturally social and don't require laws to force them to get along; in fact, the natural human state is anarchy, which comprises the only true order. The coercive order of governments and laws distorts this state. "If there is a devil in human histor", said one anarchist "it is the principle of command." You can disagree with this, but it's arguable and interesting.

The anarchist rejection of governmnets is based on this faith in the human impulse to self-regulate; every government by its nature imposes an order on society. But the principle of anarchism is not primarily anti-government, it's anti-hierarchy. In our time, many people on both the left and right think the power of government has declined, while that of the private sector has grown. But the fight of anarchists has always been against all forms of domination, so you can see why they take a big role in protests against both corporate and state power.

Yeah, but what about the bomb-throwing and guys in black smashing up cars? Isn't that what they mean by direct action? Well, what's the alternative to direct action? It's indirect action, which is exactly the electoral systems we have. By voting, you transfer your power to act to representatives who, inevitably it seems, end up lording it over you. Direct action is the general term for people exercising political power themselves. That might mean the American Revolution, going on strike, creating co-ops or refusing to fight a war. The violent impulse is one strand of direct action, but so is the non-violence of Gandhi or Leo Tolstoy -- figures in the anarchist tradition. It was an anarchist who said "It is impossible to seize power in order to abolish it."

It couldn't possibly work, it's never even been tried. Actually, it has, for brief periods. During the English Revolution of the 17th century, the "masterless men" in groups such as the Diggers and Ranters applied anarchist principles. The Paris Commune of 1870 ran the same way. The most extensive experiments came in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. when whole cities operated, successfully it seems, on anarchist models. All these were brought to an end by the armed forces of wealth and power, not by internal failure. The jury is still out. Youcould say the same of democracy or Christianity.

Let me finish by saying something personal about the new appeal of anarchism. For me, that appeal lies in an ability to reconcile individualism with a commitment to society. I detest being forced into the anti-individual position. Voices ont eh right tend to claim individualism as theirs -- even if most of them are locked happily inside big instutions such as the Fraser Institute, the National Post or the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Those of us who incline, even if grumpily, to the left are expected to defend the collective against the individual.

Yet think about it. Which individuals flourish under the dominant economic and political culture today? Mainly the rich. Only they can afford the best health care, education, leisre, culture, plus music lessons and theatre trips for their kids. And even for them, there's a strong downside, especially if they have a social conscience. This system preaches individualism but actually grinds most individuals into poverty or pre-occupation with survival, destroying the chance for their individuality to thrive. Anarchism declines the choice. It teaches, in Emma Goldman's words, "how to be on'e self and yet in oneness with others", or, in Mikhail Bakunin's: "Man is not only the most individual being on earth, he is also the most social." That is, you can onlyt ruly be individual(ist) by being truly social(ist). I love wiggling out of those dichotomies.







(Edited by Nickademus at 2:27 pm on Aug. 10, 2001)

[pce]

you actually found this in a real newspaper??!!

i was just wondering (out of my ignorance) what would happen in an anarchist system to someone who commits murder (or any other crime) ? or is that the point, that no one will commit crimes because people are inherently good?

i didn't know anarchism had ever been tried out-that's interesting.

[paris.]

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

On Crime:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58
(Edited by Valkyrie at 11:02 pm on Aug. 10, 2001)


(Edited by Valkyrie at 11:06 pm on Aug. 10, 2001)

[El Che]

In my opinion anarchy is crazy and i dont think you can resonably defend it. If we lived in anarchy it would be like that movie mad max, law of the jungle.If there is no authority there is no law and if there is no law i can go around killing and loting every thing, and aint nobody gona stop me unless they got more force that me. I think this would result it a sort of medival feudal age, where there is a total lack of security that makees ppl join up in armed communities to be able to opose also armed agressive groups that might pose a threat to them.
Also if man is naturaly social, isnt social order also necessary? and doesnt order have to be impossed?
To say that we should have no impossion of order is to institute the law of the jungle, i think its possibly the worst most absurd model of society. In fact its the end of society as we know it, a community with institutions and servises, goverment, citizens , etc...
You may not like the police but if you get mugged or if some one you know get killed or baterd then you gon want the police.
Power Corrupts yes , thats why its got to be regulated, the police is has to be regulated but it also has to be there cuz if its not all you got left is your own defense skills... Same thing applies to the goverment, to have to regulate it through democracy , power must justify its self to the ppl in courts, if there is no govement there will still be power, power of guns, stones, sticks, clubs whatever exept you aint got no courts or democracy to regulate it
All you -A- i like you but take a minute to think your theory over and after you do wellcome to the socialist/comunist clube

[RedCeltic]

While I still don't agree with Anarchism, this article clears up somewhat what they believe in. I have to admit I had always viewed it as El Che put it...like a Mad Max film.

[Nickademus]

First of all to PCE yes this was in an actual newspaper, the Globe and Mail, a canadian paper that is generally seen as conservative.

Quote: from El Che on 10:12 pm on Aug. 10, 2001
In my opinion anarchy is crazy and i dont think you can resonably defend it. If we lived in anarchy it would be like that movie mad max, law of the jungle.If there is no authority there is no law and if there is no law i can go around killing and loting every thing, and aint nobody gona stop me unless they got more force that me. I think this would result it a sort of medival feudal age, where there is a total lack of security that makees ppl join up in armed communities to be able to opose also armed agressive groups that might pose a threat to them.

first of all, anarchy is based on the idea that everyone is equal and free. a lot of looting and murders occur for money, in a truly anarchist society money wouldn't exist and everyone would be on the same social level.

Also if man is naturaly social, isnt social order also necessary? and doesnt order have to be impossed?
To say that we should have no impossion of order is to institute the law of the jungle, i think its possibly the worst most absurd model of society. In fact its the end of society as we know it, a community with institutions and servises, goverment, citizens , etc...


You may not like the police but if you get mugged or if some one you know get killed or baterd then you gon want the police.

I TOTALLY DISAGREE!!!!!! (yes everyone out there i'm about to reveal my sex.) I was raped about 1 year ago and frankly i didn't want the police involved, not because I was ashamed but because I don't believe they have or should have any special power to punish the guy who raped me. Don't assume everyone likes the police when you think they need them.

Power Corrupts yes , thats why its got to be regulated, the police is has to be regulated but it also has to be there cuz if its not all you got left is your own defense skills... Same thing applies to the goverment, to have to regulate it through democracy , power must justify its self to the ppl in courts, if there is no govement there will still be power, power of guns, stones, sticks, clubs whatever exept you aint got no courts or democracy to regulate it
All you -A- i like you but take a minute to think your theory over and after you do wellcome to the socialist/comunist clube

[Guest]

"(yes everyone out there i'm about to reveal my sex.) I was raped about 1 year ago "
-nickademus

nickademus, i don't see how you revealed your sex. all you said was that you were raped!! both sexes are perfectly capable of rape. let's not make any assumptions

i think i got your point though, and as a member of the opposite sex, i'm sorry

[pce]

the above was, me - pce. i forgot to log in

those were some interesting links valkyrie. but i don't think people are inherently good. otherwise power wouldn't corrupt them. i don't think people are evil either, i just think they are "human" there are other "crimes" or "anti-social" behaviors that don't rise from property/education/child rearing/etc. issues. for example- crimes of passion - like murdering a cheating spouse. a crime such as this doesn't rise from any organized government/social program, such a crime only occurs because of a fault of human beings and that is -"jealousy." and i think this should be punished, maybe not with the traditional form of police as nickademus said, but it needs to somehow be punished through society- otherwise we'd live in a Mad Max world (that's a great example el che)

[paris.]

I also don't agree that people are inherently good, I think they are inherently self-centric and opportunistic. I have little faith in man rising above it on their own accord. PARADOXIALLY, I also think people can live peacefully and cooperatively together out of NEED of survival or they would otherwise be SELF-ostracized and SELF-alienated by not cooperating in a given society. I think the problem of greed of a competitive nature is more prevalent then criminal intent of and probably there will always be a part of society inclined towards crime. But it would diminish considerably when conditions improve.

I think anarchism and Marxism are similiar in their stuctures both being based on mutual aid & cooparation. Both utopian in their right context. The only difference is how it's applied. socialism by a transitional centralizedl government or socialism by people concensually deciding what is best. In either, the basic structures of society, MINUS Capitalism, remain intact.
pce or Nicademus, (I don;t know which) Women are always at risk of being overpowered. they say, rape is a crime of power, not sex, Consider always to try carrying a can of mace or pepper-spray. Though I have heard contrary of trying to defend against such an attack in case it may backfire.



(Edited by Valkyrie at 11:14 am on Aug. 12, 2001)

[El Che de Boca Jrs]

Anarchism is a form of socialism only with more sence of democracy and less authoritarian. In many cases its ideology is mixed with communism in what is known as "Libertatian Communism". I used to call myself an anarchist when I knew little about politics but the truth was that I just hated the American government (lmao) and I didnt know about the enlightened forms of government (ie: socialism). My grandfather knew some anarchists from the CNT when he fought in the Spanish Civil War, they actually delayed many of the attacks because every time one was planned, the anarchists demanded to vote on weather to attack that day or not. I agree in their sence of democracy but when it comes to battles, it could really cause sectarian feelings bettween their allies.

[El Che de Boca Jrs]

Good libertarian communist site to check out: http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/index2.html

[paris.]

Sorry - I just want to address something you said El Che. Comrade, people are armed & are overly so now. There is a major gun issue for example in the US; (I don't know if you live there) but it takes little to get a gun permit or gun and requires more ID to get a passport or driver's license. A rifle can be purchased over-the-counter on sight at any retail department type store that carries them. There are probably more people armed than there are police and it still has not made for a Mad Max society. I don't think people are compelled towards looting and running around the streets with guns, they are not even compelled to do this when there are good reasons for uprisings and revolts of that nature. besides the fact that there shouldn't be guns or weapons anyway and that there are maybe the real problem that needs to be eliminated.
social programs would be the same as those in a centralized government as in a a coop. society. it is just done in a smaller concept, applied in a grass roots effort.




(Edited by Valkyrie at 8:27 pm on Aug. 12, 2001)

[pce]

valkyrie, seeing as to how you are very educated on the subject, maybe you can answer this for me: In an anarchist society, where there are no rules or "governing forces," can't capitalism creep back in? what's to stop it?

[filimarxist]

el che you have been misinformed, to learn what anarchism really is go to http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...atis_intro.html
it tells about the history and true beliefs of anarchists, and their ideas were inspired by the manifesto.

[paris.]

I don't know of a single prevailing view about anarchism, except they are all pretty much socialist-pacifists, but of different types. I would envision it a society without money, replaced with a trade/barter system, so in that respect, capitalism would not have a chance gaining ground again. Without a typical government, the treasury would fall with it .

In a society with money, probably industry would be only service-oriented, and capitalism would not have very much chance in creeping in. Some favor small cottage industry type businesses, like woodworking, etc. And some favor direct-democracy of officials. it's a pretty active movement though from what I hear, organizing food co-ops, community gardens, trade exchanges, squatting abadoned houses and land for the homeless. They all seem to be gathering in Eugene, Oregon, there is something like 50,000 anarchists living there.



(Edited by Valkyrie at 10:01 am on Aug. 12, 2001)

[pce]

valkyrie - by bartering you mean trading say...apples for a gallon of gas-right?

so if the person with apples is the only person with apples around, that person could raise the "price" in gallons of gas per basket of apples. he would be a capitalist of apples. by selling a very little amount of apples for a large quantity of other things that person could aquire the highest supply of apples and wheat and water. then everyone in that area would be dependent on him and capitalism will be restored. capital is whatever is viewed as the most valueable thing (today it = gold)capital is not money (though money is capital today because money represents gold) . if apples become the most valuable thing then apples are capital and he who has the most apples = a capitalist.

my point is that i think laws are required in society to prevent such things-no?

[paris.]

I don't know exactly how a trade system might work. I wouldn't think gas or apples would be commodoties for trade, food being an entitlement in socialists societies and gas an enviromenetal issue that needs an alternative solution.

Maybe trade would be limited to incidental items, and probably alsosome services. Essential services would probably be given on behalf of society. If some one is trading something, let's say a chair(s), capital being raised is not an issue unless a profit is turned from the chairs, ie capitalism, making the trader a capitalist by a profit margin. Because there is not a cash exchange and because the two items being traded now become of equal value, no matter what their previous value had been, the exploitation of profit is eliminated. In the same respect, a surplus of chairs would be useless if there is no demand or "market" for them eliminating the potential accumulation of wealth. Wealth, the seemingly value of something would not accumulate through trade since material items depreciate over time with wear, tear and age. So, in a trade system, the cost/value/profit of things would be cancelled out. The value would be derived from the people making the trade and an even and fair and equal transaction would occur when the trade is agreed upon, no matter what the cost or value it held in a capitalist society.

But, I see what you're saying, for the potential of capitalism occuring, though I think trade is much the same as a cash/merchandise exchange, except money is not used in the former. I don't know. but maybe that is how a trade system might work. Still though, there are laws in an anarchist society, just not coming down from on high, ie. the hierarchy.




(Edited by Valkyrie at 8:17 pm on Aug. 12, 2001)

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Guest on 7:59 am on Aug. 11, 2001
"(yes everyone out there i'm about to reveal my sex.) I was raped about 1 year ago "
-nickademus

nickademus, i don't see how you revealed your sex. all you said was that you were raped!! both sexes are perfectly capable of rape. let's not make any assumptions

i think i was going to say outright what my sex was and then i changed my mind (i think you figured it out though) and i didn't edit my post


(Edited by Nickademus at 9:33 am on Aug. 12, 2001)