Are you an anarchist?

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Dissident: I do not believe it is in human nature to not exploit people. People will stab even their friends in their back to get ahead. There have been college studies that have proven this.

I don't think that's right. According to what I've read about behavioral studies, approximately 25% of the population will almost always do what's right even if it doesn't maximize gain for themselves. And approximately 25% will always do whatever they think they can get away with - back-stabbing, treachery, criminal behavior, whatever - in order to get what they want.

And the 50% in the middle will do what (they perceive) everybody else is doing. So if they're in a moral environment, they'll behave morally; and if they're in a back-stabbing environment, they'll be just as treacherous as anybody else.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by nationalist


Sorry Monk, but you have waaaaaay too much faith in your fellow man. You live in the U.S. Do you really think that the inner city will evolve beyond the need foy laws in 15-20 years? Do you think that all of our social problems will solve themselves? There would be unimaginable violence the second that laws and authority disappear, because there woiuld be nothing to restrain people from doing and taking whatever they wanted. Anarchy would last about five minutes unitl the military would step in take control.

I don't think that anarchy will ever "evolve" because people are still peole. They have wants and desires, and always will have them, even the most "wise and enlightend" individuals. Some people will inevitably develop mental illnesses and go on a killing spree. How would an anarchic "society" deal with a madman who is slaughtering people? Would they unite to protect themselves from him? The formation of these types of groups would be the beginning of government, just as the Enlightenment thinker Hobbes had envisioned in the "State of Nature" Anarchy is the Sate of Nature, and humanity would never stay in this state. Why would anyone want to? I am glad that we have a government. People can't control themselves or take persoanal responsibility for themselves as is. Why do you think that all of the sudden everyone will be able to? Also, Anarchy would require use revert to a primative lifestyle, simply because there is no societal structure to create materials or provide goods. How many of you anarchists can build a car or a computer from scratch? How many of you know how to farm effectively or to build a house? There are going to be some cold, hungry days ahead from you when the government declares itself useless.

You're absolutely right that anarchy, in the current world as we know it, is utterly unthinkable. You should form a committee to get these so-called anarchists run out of the country, and in fact, I will happily donate $100 to your cause.
But, that said, there are great changes coming. There is a time coming when anarchy will no longer be so unthinkable, but instead, an inevitable byproduct of a much wiser world. It requires no necessary faith in humanity, as you might put it old friend.

[Frankychan]

am I an anarchist? NO.

The true purpose of 'The State' is to protect the individual's under it from any form of harm, whether they be internal threats or external threats. Once 'The State' fails in this obligation, it fails it's people. What's happening in Iraq is the state (in this case, the US) is fulfilling it's obligation to it's citizen's.

Anarchists don't believe in any form of government and it's this reason alone that I do not believe in it. Without a form of government, the people will not be protected from threats.

(I'll stop the threadjack now)

Sorry!

[orange]

no, but I play one on TV

[Frankychan]

[Az]

It's not so much a thing that can be seen as subjectively good or it's just a future stage in human evolution. I am not an anarchist by any sense of the defintion, i just realize that once man becomes wise enough, governments will no longer be needed. As I said, this is further down the road than socialism.

how will we be able to conquer the galaxy then? yes, it's a serious question.

[PeteH]

While I always hesitate before putting on a label, in many ways yes I guess I am. A couple things:

I do not believe it is in human nature to not exploit people. People will stab even their friends in their back to get ahead. There have been college studies that have proven this

Studies of bahavior in people brought up in the current culture will of course find behavior that is expected in that culture. Modern culture stresses the 'inherant competitive nature' of man, and so it will be expressed. However, this is a fairly new development, and for >90% of human history, no such belief existed. Current archeological and anthropological studies have shed a great deal of light on the lifestyle of early humans.

In the same way, I don't look at anarchy as a step forward. I believe it is much more about getting back to a way of life that was ecologically and evolutionally stable for hundreds of thousands of years. an article that may be interesting for some:

"You May Be An Anarchist And Not Even Know It," interview of John Zerzan
http://derrickjensen.org/zerzan.html

(DJ = Derrick Jensen JZ = John Zerzan)

the opening question:

Enemy of the State: An Interview with John Zerzan
published in The Sun
September 1998

DJ: What is Anarchism?
JZ: I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination. This includes not only such obvious forms as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism, homophobia. Also it is the attempt to expose the ways our philosophy, religion, economics, and other ideological constructions perform their primary function, which is to rationalize or naturalize--make seem natural--the domination that pervades our way of life: the destruction of the natural world or of indigenous peoples, for example, comes not as the result of decisions actively made and actions pursued, but instead, so we convince ourselves, as a manifestation of Darwinian selection, or God's Will, or economic exigency. Beyond that, Anarchism is the attempt to look even into those parts of our everyday lives we accept as givens, as parts of the universe, to see how they, too, dominate us or facilitate our domination of others. What is the role of division of labor in the alienation and destruction we see around us? Even more fundamentally, what is the relationship between domination and time, numbers, language, or even symbolic thought itself?

The place where this definition gets a little problematic is that some Anarchists see some things as dominating, and some don't. For example, some Anarchists don't see the technological imperative as a category of domination. I do, and more and more Anarchists are finding themselves taking this anti-technological position. The further we follow this path of the technicization of both our interior and exterior lives, fewer and fewer Anarchists--and this is true as well of people who don't call themselves Anarchists--valorize technology and production and progress and the categories of modern technological life.

[Al B. Sure!]

How can anarchists be marxists? in an anarchist system, anyone with the biggest gun will control the means of production... if you manage to get the strong people to somehow not take over then you have a communist system... so what do anarchists believe in then?


thanks

[JCG]

Anarchism just for the sake of Anarchism is pathetic.
Why? Because the sanitized, idealistic and peaceful "Anarchism" (?) some of you long for will probably not come in our lifetime, if ever...Too much would have to change, including human nature and nurture.

Instead, it seems we WILL get some more of the ever-so-common "I do whatever the **** I want and nobody try and stop me, or else" variety in the near future though.

That's what the failure of modern society has caused, and I'm sure you've all seen plenty of examples.

[Berzerker]

Some people here don't even know what anarchism is and still voted

At it's root (as I understand it), anarchism is a system based on voluntary cooperation. An act that is not voluntary may be prohibited by law and not violate the anarchist principle. Murder is not a voluntary act, therefore it may be outlawed. Eating ice cream is a voluntary act, therefore it cannot be outlawed. Get the picture?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Some people here don't even know what anarchism is and still voted

At it's root (as I understand it), anarchism is a system based on voluntary cooperation. An act that is not voluntary may be prohibited by law and not violate the anarchist principle. Murder is not a voluntary act, therefore it may be outlawed. Eating ice cream is a voluntary act, therefore it cannot be outlawed. Get the picture?

That sounds like Communism + Libertarianism to me. More than that, it sounds like a pipe dream. Besides, Vegans wouldn't agree with the ice cream analogy, because the cow didn't agree to give its milk for ice cream.

[Traianvs]

*listening to the sex pistols-anarchy in the uk*

[alva]

Originally posted by nationalist


That sounds like Communism + Libertarianism to me. More than that, it sounds like a pipe dream. Besides, Vegans wouldn't agree with the ice cream analogy, because the cow didn't agree to give its milk for ice cream.

No one says you need to take it to extreems.


This way of life would sure beat capitalism IMHO.

[Dis]

I had a feeling I would get these kinds of responses.

Not everyone is as smart and civil as you guys.

There are parts of Afghanistan that are technically in anarchy. They have no real form of goverment. Look how great it is there.

Do you guys actually think there would some incentive to grow food, build computers? You may as well say goodbye to Apolyton.

I just can't help but think some people do not have a realistic view of the world. Maybe you should get out more.

[Dis]

What I want to discuss is present day anarchists.

What do they do when they get older? who pays their bills? How do they afford rent? Because I don't think you can be an anarchist and have a job. At least not a job where you pay taxes. Perhaps panhandling and such would be acceptable.

But I guess if you want to live like a bum, that is ok by me.

[alva]

They have no real form of goverment.

Yes they do, they are called warlords, not really the form of goverment one really wants, but there you go.
( Ohh, and the other one they've got is religion, probably even worse )

[St Leo]

As a Social Liberal, I am very much against the anarchist political system.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Anarchy is inevitable, but it is further down the road than socialism. I would say we should expect it sometime around 2020, give or take a year or two. People often think anarchy has sinister conotations, but all it is really is mankind evolving beyond the need for governments.

I don't think that is going to happen, not in 2020, not in 2200, not in 3020. The way I see it, Anarchism is just an extreme form of Libertarianism. The problem with Libertarianism is it is based on the faulty assumption of "natural rights," ignoring equality in favour of maximising liberty. I hold that there is no such thing as "natural rights," hence, there is no basis for Libertarianism and Anarchism.

[Odin]

The ideal purpose of government is to protect people from crime and to prevent the exploitation of the working class untill utopia is reached, and government becomes unnessisary.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
How can anarchists be marxists? in an anarchist system, anyone with the biggest gun will control the means of production... if you manage to get the strong people to somehow not take over then you have a communist system... so what do anarchists believe in then?
thanks

Non-violence for example. Many intellectual anarchists throughout the history were pacifists, some are even to this day. Some years ago I studied the subject, so I don't remember all I wish I could, but I try... Some anarchists in the age of Karl Marx argued about "freedom and power to the people" basically in the same manner as Marx did, but they disagreed on certain issues. Their common ultimate goal "freedom and power to the people" was actually the same goal as the liberalists once had, but these the factions later corrupted into either capitalism or communism. (and various forms of those)

One of those anarchists who disagreed with Marx about the issue of the proletarian dictatorship, was called Bakunin, but he also supported the use of violence against the oppressor.
Proudhon, another anarchist, was a christian and belived in non-violence. So "anarchists" is not a homogenous group.

[Ramo]

Anarchism is, in general, a rejection of authority (i.e. force or constraint), regardless of its source. It is opposition to state authority as well as the various forms of private authorities - capitalism, [organized] religion, racism, sexism, etc. It is a belief in liberty.

But anarchism isn't necessarily a rejection of all authority. I don't want to generalize too much, but anarchism is basically the idea that an authority should not exist unless it can be justified. Some anarchists believe that force can never be justified, including prisons, etc. Other anarchists, myself included, believe that there are situations where force can be justified. Thus, I do believe that war can be justified. I do believe that prisons and police can be justified. Etc., etc. It's just that we believe that they can be justified only insofar is these institutions increase liberty. In that respect, authority such these are almost always unjustified.

It really is an elegant theory. On the one hand, the lack of private authority means that there are no groups that can effectively co-opt the state. In capitalist societies, you consistently see either the rich using the state to break strikes, fund corporate subsidies, etc. or the poor using the state to seek redress through welfare, etc. Wealth disparity has always lead to the growth of the state.

On the other hand, the lack of state authority means that force cannot be applied to create economic hierarchies from the lack of them. Which you see in communist societies like Soviet Russia where the state took control of businesses from their workers, and created bureaucrats, managers, and political commissars to command them. The state is the enemy of socialism; it always has been and always will be.

What does an anarchist society look like? Whoever made the comment that it sounded like a mix of communism and libertarianism was accurate. Take the LP platform, increase state authority in some respects, reduce state authority in other respects, and replace capitalism with worker ownership of the means of production, and you have an anarchist society. There have been a variety of anarchist societies in the past such as Catalonia and other areas of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. If you're really curious about anarchism, and are not only after making idiotic trolls, you might want to check it out.

BTW, a semi-feudal society like Afghanistan is just about as far from anarchism as you can go. The incentive to grow food or build computers is pretty much the same incentive that you have to grow food or build computers in our society.

And anarchism has absolutely nothing to do with "natural rights." That's a libertarian [capitalist] philosophy, not an anarchist one.

[ThePlagueRat]

And there is also the big difference between 'anarchy' and 'Anarchism' as an ideology.

In the world affairs where UN has virtually no power,
it's the strongest one who call the shots, and we can call it
an anarchic world situation. (instead of anarchistic)

[Mellian]

What humanity needs is telepathy me thinks...

-Mellian

[Frogman]

Spiffor is right, you'll never see anarchy as a workable system for our species. Even beyond security and defense issues, people want a central system to control public works. We still need a legal system to settle disputes. Government is not going away, we can only work to keep it from being overly intrusive.

[Az]

but anarchism is basically the idea that an authority should not exist unless it can be justified.

Call me an anarchist then.

"justified" is such a vague term.

And I ask again, how would it help humanity dominate the universe? It may sound corny, but this is our goal as biological beings, non?

[badman]

Mmm I kind of agree but domination does not sound right to me.
I say, as biological beings it is our purpose to develop, make progress, and to spread throughout the universe but we should not dominate it. Domination always means that a single individual / group / country / life form has monopoly on something and that always puts an end to (at least slows down) progress, wealth, and equality.

I do have some anarchic viewpoints. On the other hands there are many socialist anarchists but I think socialism/marxism is not working, would stop any progress and marxism does not go along with our nature.
I don't want to change that nature either, it has helped us to develop into what we are now and I think if there was a better way, evolution had gone it.

I also think that capitalism is the best and the most natural form of anarchy and capitalism combined with democracy is the best system (which I know). It guarantees equality as well as wealth, progress and freedom for everyone.

BTW: I voted "No I'm not".

[Az]

Mmm I kind of agree but domination does not sound right to me.
I say, as biological beings it is our purpose to develop, make progress, and to spread throughout the universe but we should not dominate it. Domination always means that a single individual / group / country / life form has monopoly on something and that always puts an end to (at least slows down) progress, wealth, and equality.

by domination, I mean a situation similar to what we have now on earth, being the species with the largest total mass.

[Hobbes]

I'm a soft core anarchist. I'm not blowing up credit card buildings or anything, but I like the idea of freedom, by cutting ties to authority. That and I hate wearing socks and want to hitchhike all over the place like a bleedin' beatnik.

[alva]

I also think that capitalism is the best and the most natural form of anarchy and capitalism combined with democracy is the best system (which I know). It guarantees equality as well as wealth, progress and freedom for everyone.

hmm, the illusion maybe....

[Ramo]

Call me an anarchist then.
"justified" is such a vague term.

Ah, but the authority of a justification needs being justified itself. The idea that authority needs to be justified is another way of saying that freedom should be maximized in a society.

And I ask again, how would it help humanity dominate the universe? It may sound corny, but this is our goal as biological beings, non?

Why? Maybe the ability to leave the Earth may be important in the event of massive natural disaster, but that's the only relevance I can see...

BTW, I found some interesting numbers from the Economist for you in the immigration thread, if you haven't checked it out yet.