Anarchists... - Page 2

Goingonit · January 31, 2002, 18:18

double post

Goingonit · January 31, 2002, 18:18

I went to RaiseTheFist, saw the word "anarchosyndicalist" and all I could think of from then on was Monty Python.

Quote:

ARTHUR
Well ... I AM king.

DENNIS
Oh, very nice. King, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine
clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that?
By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our
society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ...

An OLD WOMAN appears.

OLD WOMAN
Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh!
how d'you do?

ARTHUR
How d'you do, good lady ... I am Arthur, King of the Britons ...
can you tell me who lives in that castle?

OLD WOMAN
King of the WHO?

ARTHUR
The Britons.

OLD WOMAN
Who are the Britons?

ARTHUR
All of us are ... we are all Britons.

DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN.

... and I am your king ....

OLD WOMAN
Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were
an autonomous collective ...

DENNIS
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship,
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...

OLD WOMAN
There you are, bringing class into it again ...

DENNIS
That's what it's all about ... If only -

ARTHUR
Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in
that castle?

OLD WOMAN
No one live there.

ARTHUR
Well, who is your lord?

OLD WOMAN
We don't have a lord.

ARTHUR
What?

DENNIS
I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

ARTHUR
Yes.

DENNIS
... But all the decision of that officer ...

ARTHUR
Yes, I see.

DENNIS
... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority
in the case of purely internal affairs.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
... but a two-thirds majority ...

ARTHUR
Be quiet! I order you to shut up.

OLD WOMAN
Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR
I am your king!

OLD WOMAN
Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR
You don't vote for kings.

OLD WOMAN
Well, how did you become king, then?

ARTHUR
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by
Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ...
That is why I am your king!
|
| OLD WOMAN
| Is Frank in? He'd be able to deal with this one.
|
DENNIS
Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out
swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme
executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from
some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR
Shut up!

DENNIS
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would
put me away!

ARTHUR
(Grabbing him by the collar)
Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS
Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR
Shut up!

PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.

DENNIS
(calling)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR
(aware that people are now coming out and watching)
Bloody peasant!
(pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off)

DENNIS
Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.

ARTHUR
Come on, patsy.

DENNIS
did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've
been on about ...

Brundlefly · January 31, 2002, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
People organize.

We are tribal in our essential nature.

So anarchists attempt (completely unsuccessfuly) to deny their own inherent natures.

-=Vel=-

I suppose if you believe in God then you can believe that God conceived of Man and then created Man with an essential nature. However, if you don't believe in God then you might be willing to consider that Man has no essential nature since there was nothing to conceive of it. We define our essence every moment with the choices we make. We are free to do what ever we choose to do, form a tribe, become an "anarchist". So long as you are true to yourself, that's all that matters.

faded glory · January 31, 2002, 18:39

damn Fee..

As a religous man, what you said made me stop and think about it for a second

General Ludd · January 31, 2002, 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Timex, interesting post!

And correct me if I'm wrong here but:

One of the key differences between us and the other monkeys is the fact that we can use *language* to communicate ideas.

In order that we can communicate effectively, is it not a pre-requisite that we have standardized meanings to words? Otherwise, how can ideas be communicated at all?

No. The thing that seperates us, is that our language is fluent and adaptive - we can describe abstract ideas and objects and subscribe words to them. Other animals can communicate but are limited to a selection of different 'words' to use, and are unable to use them in anything but the litteral context, so to speak.

But if your argument against anarchism is based soley on the deffinition of the word, well... it's not really an argument at all, it's just some lame word game.

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 18:42

Genetic memory.

The world (despite what you see on TV documentaries these days) is a whole lot safer place than it once was.

Being true to yourself twenty thousand years ago and striking off on your own generally led to such unpleasantness as being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger.

Strike out on your own in ancient times, and you were a goner. Simple as that.

Thus, sticking together (there's the group thing again) was a Darwinian survival trait--Darwin, good person to quote, esp. for folks that don't believe in God, as you mentioned!

And it's stuck with us.

Can't easily undo thousands of years of ingrained history.

Or...maybe YOU can...and if so, that's great! Just know that it's not the norm.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 18:50

Osweld...you're certainly entitled to your opinons bro....not gonna deny that for a moment! (Just as I am entitled to mine)

The essential nature of the word, "anarchy" (in fact, the very definition of the word) is a lack of order and implied violent protest. Someone calling themselves an "anarchist" is either: a) violently against order, or b) using the wrong word for their movement. Simple as that.

To paraphrase Ben Frankiln: Feel free to flail your arms about all you like...but remember that your freedom to do so stops at the tip of my nose."

That phrase....makes a lot of sense....especially in this thread.

I've done the reading, and what I found was....a lot of noise and not a lot of substance.

-=Vel=-

Brundlefly · January 31, 2002, 21:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx

Being true to yourself twenty thousand years ago and striking off on your own generally led to such unpleasantness as being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger.

Strike out on your own in ancient times, and you were a goner. Simple as that.

Thus, sticking together (there's the group thing again) was a Darwinian survival trait--Darwin, good person to quote, esp. for folks that don't believe in God, as you mentioned!

-=Vel=-

True, there are certain facts in the past that one cannot change. However, nothing in the past can CAUSE me to do anything now. There is nothing that can be considered a human action (apart from reflexes or bodily functions) that follows necessarily from the past.
Using your example, as a member of a tribe I may have seen the remains of tiger-mauled people who had struck off on their own away from the group. If I choose to stay with the tribe instead of striking out on my own because I feel fear about being eaten by a tiger, I choose (remember, we create our essence every moment through our choices) the tiger as an insurmountable obstacle and choose myself as defeated. The fear of tigers is based on facts from my past. The choice to stay or not stay with the group based on past facts is mine and I am responsible for it. This proves the point in my original post that there is no inherent or essential nature for human beings to stick together -- it is an individual choice.

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 21:44

Another good point.

I would say to that though, that had humanity no "essential nature" tending toward groups then, that we would be asexual creatures who did not need a mate in order to further our kind.

As this is not the case, clearly, there is a "built in," inherent NEED for a group, even if that group only consists of two.

Else, the individual who chooses to go off on his own is assured that his "kind" will last exactly one generation, and then be no more.

-=Vel=-

DarkCloud · January 31, 2002, 22:23

osweld- it is only a "one sided argument" because you havent' backed up why anarchy is correct?

Individualism can only be accomplished in reality through regulation.
It amy sound like a paradox, but realize this, if the govenrment does not protect your rights and you are a disabled person, who will protect you at all in an anarchist govenrment?

General Ludd · January 31, 2002, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
osweld- it is only a "one sided argument" because you havent' backed up why anarchy is correct?

I'm not an anarchist.

And you guys have yet to say why it's incorrect, you are just babbling on about nothings and irrelevancies.

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 22:35

"nothings and irrelevancies."

That would be an *outstanding* description of the stuff I've read today on the "ideology" of these so-called anarchists....

-=Vel=-

DarkCloud · January 31, 2002, 22:38

I frankly don't think you can read.
We have cited our reasons.
It won't work because people will be killed- even the strong will be since we now have weapons of mass destruction.

There would be no civlization with anarchy.

I think we proved more than you did.

Goodbye Troll.

(At least if you cannot admit that those are real points, even if you disagree)

Ramo · January 31, 2002, 22:50

Quote:

The essential nature of the word, "anarchy" (in fact, the very definition of the word) is a lack of order and implied violent protest. Someone calling themselves an "anarchist" is either: a) violently against order, or b) using the wrong word for their movement. Simple as that.

It strikes me as absurd how people can criticize a two century old political ideology (and even claim to be authoritative on it) while looking no further into the matter than a dictionary (and apparantly a fairly bad one at that).

First of all, the word "anarchy," from its Greek roots, literally means "without a ruler," not "no order." The context of "ruler" is not simply limited to the state, but to the market as well. In other words, workers should own and control the means of production, often through syndicates.

For this reason, among others, the assertion that anarchists reject groups and organizations is patently absurd. What we have problems with are coercive organizations.

Of course, like many words, its literal translation is not a comprehensive definition. As Timex pointed out, the word may cover a vast range of beliefs. Some anarchists, I'd wager, would not consider myself among them, and the converse is also true.

Famous anarchist philosophers include Mikhail Bakunin, Petr Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman.

In a nutshell, what I believe in American is libertarian socialism. Please attack that belief (hopefully after reading up on it), or that of other anarchists, rather than vague rejections of "order."

Quote:

What I find odd is that they would choose as thier "utopia," so to speak, a state that lasted barely two years and who was completely and uterly crushed due to its ineffective leadership.

*Gives Stefu the que for the 'Troll Song'*

Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

General Ludd · January 31, 2002, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I frankly don't think you can read.
We have cited our reasons.

You have yet to show you understand what anarchism is - and now that someone from "the other side" has come and explained what anarchism is, he has not recieved a real response - just some garbage about semantics.

Previous to that, your "debate" consisted a bunch of people who don't really know what anarchism is, thinking up reasons why it's wrong based on dictionary deffintions and general ignorance.

Quote:

I think we proved more than you did.

Indeed, you have proven my point quite nicely.

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 23:04

Hiya Ramo!

I know...I know....you prolly just skimmed the thread before you posted, BUT....

Had you read more closely, you would see that I did, in fact, at the recommendation of another poster, do some more web-searching and reading on the topic. Thus, to say that I based my entire opinion of the matter on the dictionary definition (webster's online, btw) is....ummm....completely false?

And, having read more on the topic by some thinkers who weighed in on it, I came to my own personal conclusion that there was a lot of noise and quite little substance.

Since you have provided me yet more names, I will also have a look at what they have to say on the subject.

If it's anything like my earlier reading, I suspect my opinion will be unchanged, but it's been an interesting little side trip....

As to your own views....I don't see that there's much to debate on, frankly. In the first place, they are your own, and in the second, the verbage used conveys a much deeper sense of what you believe in than the almost generic term "anarchist," which by definition (even in the greek, since when the word was coined all political power came from a king...thus encompassing ALL order, even with your own definition). Aain, if you go back and take a bit of a closer look, you'll see was my point to begin with (now re-stated for the third time).

-=Vel=-

General Ludd · January 31, 2002, 23:19

How would you clasify Velociryx?

I'd say that he's the (some what predictable) combination of Nitpick and Artful Dodger

Ramo · January 31, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

As to your own views....I don't see that there's much to debate on, frankly. In the first place, they are your own,

And is shared by the vast majority of anarchists (though we tend to disagree in the specifics).

Quote:

and in the second, the verbage used conveys a much deeper sense of what you believe in than the almost generic term "anarchist," which by definition (even in the greek, since when the word was coined all political power came from a king...thus encompassing ALL order, even with your own definition). Aain, if you go back and take a bit of a closer look, you'll see was my point to begin with (now re-stated for the third time).

The existence of a "ruler" is not the same thing as the existence of "order." Order can be voluntary or involuntary. For example, I consent to obeying the wishes of my mom. Ruling is, by definition, involuntary. I do not consent to obeying the wishes of state; it coerces me into obeying (if I don't, it could throw me into prison).

"By definition," capitalism means "belief in capital." That doesn't make me a capitalist.

Quote:

Had you read more closely, you would see that I did, in fact, at the recommendation of another poster, do some more web-searching and reading on the topic. Thus, to say that I based my entire opinion of the matter on the dictionary definition (webster's online, btw) is....ummm....completely false?

I'm sorry if I was wrong, but frankly, you still have no clue what anarchism means, and all you know about the subject seems to be limited to popular biases without any appreciation for history or politics.

Quote:

And, having read more on the topic by some thinkers who weighed in on it, I came to my own personal conclusion that there was a lot of noise and quite little substance.

Which writings have you read? Whose writings have you read.

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 23:30

Cute site Osweld!

I'm not sure though, where you came up with the classification.

Perhaps you were unaware, but debate is, after all, conducted via...ummm...language, yes? By that I mean we do not implant thoughts in each other's minds telepathically, nor do we gesticulate madly at the screen.....we type in WORDS and make SENTENCES...or at least, that's generally how I've understood the process, after several years of debate. And the first step in any debate is to codify and clearly outline the language to be used to define and describe the positions involved.

::musing now:: Perhaps the rules have changed tho....something else that should make an interesting side trip.

Nonetheless....having begun with the basic premise that "anarchist" is a misnomer (at best) in terms of describing a political ideology....having read more on the topic based on the names of deep thinkers who have written about it....having formed my own, more solidified opinion on the matter based on that further reading, and decided for myself that there's a) not a lot TO the whole "ideology" and b) very definately using the wrong word to describe what little there is, and further, having re-re-re stated that quite plainly, in a pretty close approximation of the Queen's English....I'm just not sure I get where you're coming from.

To each his own tho....

-=Vel=-
It was a cute site tho...thanks for the chuckle!

Velociryx · January 31, 2002, 23:55

Hey again Ramo!

The example of obeying your mom is a good one, but, would you not agree that in any case, you mom has no *political power* over you?

Political Ideologies, by definition must be couched in terms of their relationship to political power, would you not agree?

And, while it is true that rule and order do not have to be mutually exclusive, I think you will find that, historically it has mostly been the case (King/Warlord of a City-State/whathave you lays down the law and enforces order). Non-voluntary order, yes. You either obeyed or were killed or sent to a MOST uncomfortable place.

Especially in ancient times when there was, in general, little value placed on life, if you disobeyed the King or an agent of the king, you got killed, and that was pretty much the end of that.

So...in terms of *political power* yes. In ancient times, when the word in question was formed (and since we took it back that far), The King, or Lord, or big dog with an army was the source of all political power. There were groups that certainly had varying degrees of influence, but all politcal power was centralized in that one authority, parceled out to his faithful servants who (supposedly) acted in his name/on his behalf. That's pretty classic Feudal structure at work.

So....to defy order per the definition of the word, is not just to get rowdy against the notion of rule enforced by might, but to rebel against the entire substructure which held the society together. ALL order (again, per your root definition). Anarchists in the first place, do not believe that themselves from what I have read, and thus, my initial statement that they're simply using the wrong term to describe what they are and what they believe in.

If in fact, most "anarchists" believe in libertarian socialism, then why not say that? Why use a word whose root definition is NOT what they stand for.

For example....if I tell you I have an uncle who is a fireman, is it not reasonable for you to assume that he probably spends his time either a) at a firestation, or b) putting out fires?

Would you have any particular reason to picture him in a 3-piece suit trading bonds on Wall Street?

Of course not! Because the language I descirbed him in was quite clear.

As to where I began my search - Since a quick websearch on the abovementioned names (not the ones you listed, I have not gotten the chance to look yet...I refer to the names listed somewhere on page one of this thread), I looked where I could find data, starting with:
http://www.spunk.org

Including:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/brown/sp001735.html

And chasing links from there.

-=Vel=-

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 00:30

Quote:

So...in terms of *political power* yes. In ancient times, when the word in question was formed (and since we took it back that far), The King, or Lord, or big dog with an army was the source of all political power. There were groups that certainly had varying degrees of influence, but all politcal power was centralized in that one authority, parceled out to his faithful servants who (supposedly) acted in his name/on his behalf. That's pretty classic Feudal structure at work.

So....to defy order per the definition of the word, is not just to get rowdy against the notion of rule enforced by might, but to rebel against the entire substructure which held the society together. ALL order (again, per your root definition). Anarchists in the first place, do not believe that themselves from what I have read, and thus, my initial statement that they're simply using the wrong term to describe what they are and what they believe in.

Huh? You're saying that because in certain special cases, coercion completely held a society togther (which I don't agree with; there have always been voluntary bonds in every society in every time), to be against coercion is equivalent to being against society? Uhh.. that makes no sense at all.

Quote:

If in fact, most "anarchists" believe in libertarian socialism, then why not say that?

Actually, in the 19th century, a synonym for anarchism was libertarianism.

Quote:

Why use a word whose root definition is NOT what they stand for.

Because words tend to change over centuries and over hundreds of kilometers of land. You might as well ask why languages change.

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 00:43

You might want to check this out for more information:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Keep in mind that I disagree with a whole lot of the opinions presented there....

Quote:

The example of obeying your mom is a good one, but, would you not agree that in any case, you mom has no *political power* over you?

I obey through my consent, so she has no "power" over me.

And what's the import of the distinction between a political and nonpolitical power? Why shouldan armed thug that calls himself the state be set in a different class from one that doesn't?

Velociryx · February 1, 2002, 01:12

Getting ready to hit the hay here, but I will reference this thread tomorrow and check out your link.

I'm curious though...if the 'vast majority of' "Anarchists" believe as you say (and in the same things that you yourself believe in) why are you in disagreement with a 'whole lot' of the opinions on this site?

As to the notion of those "Certain special cases" when coersion in one form or another held a society together....since those "certain special cases" represent the vast majority of human history....yes, I'd say my statement makes a fair amount of sense.

Differences between political and non-political power: So....in your mind then, there is no difference between the concensual agreements and structure made in a familial group to society as a whole? That's...interesting to me.

I *am* genuinely curious to know more, however. I have a thirsty mind, and your postings here have stirred up my curiosity, so I was thinking of some questions.....I have no real sense of what any of this would look like, and since they are YOUR beliefs, I figured I'd ask. Here goes:

Let's say that, tomorrow, the USA suddenly caught "anarchistic fever" and became fully, 100% anarchistic.

What would, say, General Motors look like, post anarchy? How would production schedules be handled?

Military. Submission to forced order is a big no-no, and yet, the military requires such. What would the military look like in such a state?

How would foriegn affairs be conducted after the change?

Hypothetically, what would happen if we dropped twenty anarchists onto a patch of forested and hilly land with two shovels, two axes, a bow with a quiver of arrows, and some random seed packs, and nothing else save the clothes on their backs, what would happen on day one?

-=Vel=-

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 01:38

Quote:

I'm curious though...if the 'vast majority of' "Anarchists" believe as you say (and in the same things that you yourself believe in) why are you in disagreement with a 'whole lot' of the opinions on this site?

Like I wrote earlier, we mostly agree on the generalities, but it's such a broad category that I disagree with a lot of the specifics.

Quote:

As to the notion of those "Certain special cases" when coersion in one form or another held a society together....since those "certain special cases" represent the vast majority of human history....yes, I'd say my statement makes a fair amount of sense.

Point to me a single society in which there were no voluntary bonds.

And the vast majority of human society was uncivilized. Hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be rather free.

Quote:

Differences between political and non-political power: So....in your mind then, there is no difference between the concensual agreements and structure made in a familial group to society as a whole? That's...interesting to me.

I don't know what you're asking...

What I did write was that there's no substancial difference between a state that extorts you and a gang that extorts you.

Quote:

What would, say, General Motors look like, post anarchy? How would production schedules be handled?

It would be a worker owned and controlled business.

Quote:

Military. Submission to forced order is a big no-no, and yet, the military requires such. What would the military look like in such a state?

Remember when I wrote about anarchism being a broad category? Well, I do believe in a reasonable military (without drafts, of course). I think of anarchism as a rough outline of a society. Some people are more... dogmatic.

Quote:

How would foriegn affairs be conducted after the change?

In a similar manner that it is conducted today, with less power to the executive.

Quote:

Hypothetically, what would happen if we dropped twenty anarchists onto a patch of forested and hilly land with two shovels, two axes, a bow with a quiver of arrows, and some random seed packs, and nothing else save the clothes on their backs, what would happen on day one?

I think you've seen a wee bit too many episodes of Survivor.

Seriously, the people who wanted would organize into some kind of syndicate, while the people who didn't want to participate would be left alone.

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 01:44

By asking me how foreign affairs'd be conducted, did you intend to ask me what foreign policy changes I would make, rather than the mechanisms for the decisions to take place?

Imran Siddiqui · February 1, 2002, 02:07

Quote:

Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

You mean like the American revolution

Frankly, I think the whole idea of worker owned business (like a worker owned GM) is absurd (well, it could happen, but it'd be a total and utter failure). And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

However, saying that, most of these people protesting the World Economic Summit, saying they are 'anarchists' are simply using the word without thought for what it really means. They think it is some cool thing where they can break things and start talking about no order and chaos. They just use the term without any understanding of what that means.

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 02:21

The Americans had the French, Prussians, etc. helping them, while the Catalonians were facing Soviet assistance.

Quote:

Frankly, I think the whole idea of worker owned business (like a worker owned GM) is absurd (well, it could happen, but it'd be a total and utter failure). And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

Need I point out the syndicates of Barcelona?

DinoDoc · February 1, 2002, 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

Nevermind of course, the ill concieved alliance with the Stalinists that led to that very situation.

Ramo · February 1, 2002, 02:32

Quote:

Nevermind of course, the ill concieved alliance with the Stalinists that led to that very situation.

Nevermind, of course, that the Stalinists weren't that powerful in the Republican gov't when the war began. And nevermind, of course, that the liberals and socialists also participated in the reaction against the CNT-AIT and POUM.

Quote:

And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

And I don't think libertarian capitalism can work anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

Imran Siddiqui · February 1, 2002, 02:53

Quote:

Need I point out the syndicates of Barcelona?

Point them out. They were no where near the scale of GM, and they only lasted 2 years. If they were allowed to last 20, the economy would have been utterly ruined. Just wait until worker owned companies have to deal with boom and bust, they'd never be able to do it.

Quote:

And I don't think libertarian capitalism can work anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

No ****, sherlock. At least I admit it

.