Any Anarchists in the house? Can you explain something to me?

[Virginia Dare]

Why is Anarchy an attractive form of public society for you? Because, frankly I'm not getting it. However, as a relatively open minded individual I'm prepared to put away my prejudices and preconceived notions for a short time if someone can educate me on this.

Why is defacement of public property and knocking people over their heads an acceptable and constructive form of protest? Why do the Anarchists consistently hide behind peace activists? Why not organize your own protests, or as Anarchists are you incapable of organization? :shrug:

Can anyone out there convince me that Anarchists are nothing but a bunch of violent thugs who perpetrate violence and destruction just for the sake of doing it, and not for any grand political statement?

[Gman]

1. You don't see middle-aged or old anarchists

I think it's just misguided youth.

[asthmaticeog]

5. Some misguiged youths:

[bananas]

21. The novelist and Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[Gman]

39. Leo Tolstoy was a great man

in 2007, I see no anarchists anywhere near Tolstoy's age. Remember that 30 in Tolstoy's time was the lifespan equivalent of 50 now.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. More recent than Tolstoy:

Noam Chomsky

http://www.alternet.org/images/managed/Story+Image_thumb_noam_chomsky_human_rights.jpg


Anthony Burgess (author of A Clockwork Orange:




Hunter S. Thompson:




John Cage, composer:




George Carlin:




Alexander Cockburn, essayist and journalist:




Michel Foucault:




Michael Moorcock, fantasy/sf author:

[Gman]

97. Don't know about the others

but I'd hardly call George Carlin an anarchist. Hunter S Thompson... I don't know that he'd have wanted to belong to any group that would have him as a member.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Don't forget these people:

[Virginia Dare]

29. I think the poster was referring to present times...n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

47. Noam Chomsky is still alive. n/t

[rman]

15. not true

Noam Chomsky identifies himself as an Anarcho-Syndicalist

[Gman]

40. Ok, there's one... and are there any more today?

[davekriss]

64. That doesn't count?

I identify myself as an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I think of this as a variant of Anarchism.

(On edit: I am in my late forties.)

[Virginia Dare]

67. Please explain what that means!

What is your view on how society could/should work this way!

I'm a socialism geek!

Thanks! :hi:

[davekriss]

86. Let me start here...

...then I have to run off for an appointment:

Kropotkin, Anarchism, 1905
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1905.eng.html

<snip>

As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing, maintain that the now prevailing system of private ownership in land, and our capitalist production for the sake of profits, represent a monopoly which runs against both the principles of justice and the dictates of utility. They are the main obstacle which prevents the successes of modern technics from being brought into the service of all, so as to produce general well-being. The anarchists consider the wage-system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress. But they point out also that the state was, and continues to be, the chief instrument for permitting the few to monopolize the land, and the capitalists to appropriate for themselves a quite disproportionate share of the yearly accumulated surplus of production. Consequently, while combating the present monopolization of land, and capitalism altogether, the anarchists combat with the same energy the state, as the main support of that system. Not this or that special form, but the state altogether, whether it be a monarchy or even a republic governed by means of the referendum.

The state organization, having always been, both in ancient and modern history (Macedonian empire, Roman empire, modern European states grown up on the ruins of the autonomous cities), the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life - the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and so on - as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education, state-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralization, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery.

In common with most socialists, the anarchists recognize that, like all evolution in nature, the slow evolution of society is followed from time to time by periods of accelerated evolution which are called revolutions; and they think that the era of revolutions is not yet closed. Periods of rapid changes will follow the periods of slow evolution, and these periods must be taken advantage of - not for increasing and widening the powers of the state, but for reducing them, through the organization in every township or commune of the local groups of producers and consumers, as also the regional, and eventually the international, federations of these groups.

<snip>

Now, I'm with Jello on this one (what an odd thing to say!). The world is not ready for Anarchism now. There is an argument to be made to strongly counter the power represented by concentrated wealth (which is now as concentrated as it was in the Guilded Age) through democratic means. That means co-opting as much as the state as is possible and, like termites, nibbling away at the foundations of monopoly and inequalitarian power.

[Virginia Dare]

98. Thanks again...

I guess I'm just not getting the nuance between socialism and anarchism, and why anarchists don't believe in anarchy. Additional research on my part needs to be done I suppose.

[mdmc]

112. kick

[rman]

83. It's a form of Anarchism - any form of Anarchism is a form of Anarchism -

why would it not qualify as Anarchism? If it is because it is a form of Anarchism, then no form of Anarchism qualifies as Anarchism, which think it not a useful way to categorize.

[davekriss]

88. I ask the rhetorical question

because (I thought) someone dismissed listing Chomsky as a living Anarchist because Noam is an "Anarcho-Syndicalist". Of course it qualifies as "Anarchism"! :)

[rman]

94. ok fine

:)

[deutsey]

44. There is folk singer/anarchist U. Utah Phillips

I can't say I can live his way of life, but I admire it (and him) very much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Phillips

From "Anarchy" on "The Past Didn't Go Anywhere"

I learned in Korea that I would never again in my life, abdicate to someone
else my right and my ability to decide who the enemy is.

I got back from Korea, I was so mad at what I had seen and done. I wasn't
sure I could ever live in the country again. I got on the freight trains up
in Everett north of Seattle and kind of cruised the country for 2 years
making up songs. I was drunk most of the time and forgot most of those. I'd
heard that there was a house in Salt Lake City by the roper yards of the
Denver Rio Grand and Western where there was a clothing barrel and free food.
So I got off the train there. I was headed for Salt Lake anyway. I found
that house right where they said it was. But most of all I found this wiry
old man, 69 years old, tougher 'n nails, heart of gold, a fellow by the name
of Ammon Hennessey. Anybody know that name? Ammon Hennessy?

One of Dorothy Day's people, the Catholic Workers. During the '30s they
started houses of hospitality all over the country there are about 80 of
them now. Ammon Hennessey was one of those. He'd come West to start this
house I'd found called the Joe Hill House of Hospitality. Ammon Hennessy was
a Catholic, anarchist, pacifist, draft dodger of two World Wars, tax refuser,
vegetarian and one-man Revolution in America, I think that about covers it.
He was pure hell. First thing he did, after he got to know me, he said "You
know you love the country. You come in and out of town on these trains
singing songs about different places and beautiful people. You know you love
the country, you just can't stand the government, get it straight! He quoted
Mark Twain to me, "Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government
when it deserves it." Get it straight.

It was an essential distinction I had been neglecting. And then he had to
reach out and grapple with the violence but he did that with all the people
around him. The Second World War vets on medical disabilities and all drunked
up. The house was filled with violence which Ammon, as a pacifist dealt
with, every moment, every day of his life.
He said, "You've got to be a pacifist!"
I said, "Why?"
He said, "It'll save your life."

My behavior was very violent then.
I said "What is it?"
He said, "Well I can't give you a book by Ghandi, you wouldn't understand it.
I can't give you lists of rules that if you sign it, you're a pacifist. You
look at it like booze. You know alcoholism will kill somebody, until they
finally get the courage to sit in a circle of people like that and put their
hand up in the air and say 'Hi, my name's Utah I'm an alcoholic.' And then
you can begin to deal with the behavior. And have the people define it for
you, whose lives have been destroyed. It's the same with violence. An
alcoholic, they could be dry for 20 years. They're never going to sit in that
circle and put their hand up and say 'I'm not an alcoholic anymore.' No
they're still going to put their hand up and say 'Hi, my name's Utah I'm an
alcoholic.' It's the same with violence. You've got to be able to put your
hand in the air and acknowledge your capacity for violence, and then deal
with the behavior. And have the people whose lives you've messed with define
that behavior for you. And it's not going to go away. You're going to be
dealing with it every moment, in every situation for the rest of your life."
I said, "Okay, I'll try that."
Ammon said, "It's not enough!"
I said, "Oh."
He said, "You were born a white man in mid-twentieth century industrial
America. You came into the world armed to the teeth with an arsenal of
weapons. The weapons of privilege: racial privilege, sexual privilege,
economic privilege. If you wanna be a pacifist it's not just giving up guns,
and knives, and clubs, and fists, and angry words. But giving up the weapons
of privilege and going into the world completely disarmed. Try that!"

That old man has been gone now about 20 years, and I'm still at it. But I
figure that if there's a worthwhile struggle in my own life, that's probably
the one. Think about it.

I'd always wanted to write a song for that old man. He never wanted one about
him. He was that way, but something mulched up out of his thought. His
anarchist thought. Anarchist in the best sense of the word.

Oh so many times he stood up in front of Federal District Judge Ritter, that
old fart. He'd be picked up for picketing illegally. He never plead innocent
or guilty he plead anarchy.
Ritter'd say "What's an anarchist Hennessey?"
And Ammon would say, "Why an anarchist is any body who doesn't need a cop to
tell him what to do. Kind of a fundamentalist anarchist."
Ritter'd say, "But Ammon you broke the law what about that!"
Ammon would say, "Oh judge, your damn laws, the good people don't need them
and the bad people don't obey them, so what use are they?"
Anarchy.
Anarchy.
Well I lived there for 8 years and I watched him, mainly watched him. And I
discovered watching him that 'anarchy' is not a noun but an adjective. It
describes the tension between moral economy and political authority,
especially in the area of combinations--whether they're going to be
voluntary, or coercive. The most destructive, coercive combinations are
arrived at through force. Like Ammon said, "Force is the weapon of the weak."
Anarchy. Think about it. Anarchy.

[slj0101]

2. I'm no anarchist, but I also don't think it's as simple as that.

I remember reading somewhere that Jello Biafra (punk rock singer/spoken word performer) is an anarchist, but also believes humanity is not yet ready for anarchy as a practice. Someone with more info on the subject may be more helpful.

[tuvor]

9. Jello Biafra is a member of the Green Party.

Can an anarchist also be a member of the Green Party?

[slj0101]

13. Here's a quote on his philosophy:

"I am an anarchist in my personal life. I try to live my life in a way that I don't need cops or baby-sitters to keep me from infringing on others. But I don't feel we have evolved far enough as a species to make anarchy work in society itself. We still need government to transfer the wealth from those who have too much to those who have too little, to make sure important projects get done, and keep territorial humans from screwing over and killing each other."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jello_Biafra

[tuvor]

18. Thank you for that.

Much obliged!

[H2O Man]

3. "The ideally non-violent

state will be an orderly anarchy." -- Gandhi (Gandhi on Non-Violence; Thomas Merton; page 55)

[Virginia Dare]

6. I guess that's where I lose it...

humans are incapable of that, except for maybe Ghandi, but there was only one of him.

Essentially how I see it, humans are mammals, and as mammals, we need order. There always has to be a leader, and there always has to be a low man.

[H2O Man]

11. Gandhi

advocated order. The quote makes that clear. And his life demonstrated that "leaders" should volunteer to be that "low man" you mention. That may be harder for people from western culture to understand, but a study of Gandhi's life and teachings helps.

[rman]

26. Ghandi to said we need order

It's just that contrary to popular belief, anarchy does not exclude order.

[bread_and_roses]

31. There must be a "leader" and a "low man." Why?

We may share 99% of our genes with the great apes, but it is that 1% that allows us to conceptualize a different reality. And to work toward it.

And your characterization of anarchism as inevitably violent is mistaken. A quick search will yield some basic definitions that perhaps would avert such an error.

[Virginia Dare]

37. I don't know why...

I believe it's human nature, otherwise why would we accept it so readily. There are plenty of people who are willing and desirous of being led. Others prefer to lead. Some people do a little of both. I honestly don't think we are capable of having a society full of equals. I could be wrong.

Admittedly, I may be wrong, but my impression is that many people in modern times who subscribe to this philosophy seem to think it means rebellion against all aspects of government authority.

[rman]

51. there have to be elected representatives and those who elect them -

why do you think of those who elect the representatives as "low"?

[BurtWorm]

52. I think anarchism begins with the principle that property is theft from the commonwealth

and the original sin of "government," which, even in democracy, looks out for the interests of property owners--and the owners of the most property, in particular--over everyone else.

If anarchy ever takes root on this earth, it will take the form of a community/society in which people own only what they need and use to live. The structures of state required to legitimize inequality of wealth will have withered away.

This doesn't mean there won't be dominant and passive types, or leaders and followers. It only means the leaders won't take more than what they need and use to live.

Of course, this is why anarchism seems impossibly far away. Those who own most of the earth are very well protected by the states that legitimize their wealth.

[davekriss]

77. Good post, Burt

And your last sentence is of course the reason why so many Anarchists in the early years of last century died young. They stood in opposition to the illegitimate state buzzsaw that, well, in the words of D.A. Levy:

Really
the police try to protect
the banks - and everything else
is secondary

SUBURBAN MONASTERY DEATH POEM

[davekriss]

69. Anarchism does not = chaos

That is cartoon Anarchism, what repressive powers want you to buy in to in order to render the movement unattractive.

[G_j]

92. that is a very profound statement

:thumbsup:

thank you

sort of reminds of my friend Starhawk who is an Anarchist of sorts

www.starhawk.org

[bryant69]

4. There are varieties of Anarchism

I'm not an Anarchist, but obviously there are some that are all about defacement of public property and youthful rebellion, but that's not all of them. It's a bit like saying "Peace activists are all about wearing birkenstocks."

I think it starts with the question of what value is there to societal systems that force individuals into specific roles and then beat the shit out of them if they don't play along. Wouldn't freedom be better? And can you really have freedom within a system, no matter how benign that system might be?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Virginia Dare]

7. Yes, I understand the concept, but how does it work?

how do you have a functional society where everyone operates on their own whims?

[bryant69]

32. well i think it starts by humans not being assholes

I personally am not sure that's possible; i think we are assholes right down to the bone. But if you believe that mankind could evolve to the point that we aren't assholes, we are willing to take responsibility for our lives and what we do, than why in that state, do we need rules and laws and societal norms to keep us in line?

If we could govern ourselves we wouldn't need to be governed.

But like I say it's all a pipe dream, because we are all rat bastards.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[asthmaticeog]

8. You might want to do some real research

before you go appealing to a message board with leading and frankly ignorant questions. You obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're even asking. No personal offense intended, mind you, but I'm stunned by how totally misinformed your premise is.

[Virginia Dare]

19. I'm asking why it appeals to some people...

I don't see where that is an ignorant question.

[rman]

27. what's appealing to people about it is not what you think anarchy is

Yours is not an ignorant question.

[asthmaticeog]

36. You're asking...

1) why vandalism and thuggery are appealing

and

2) why the concept of organization is anathema

neither of which has the slightest thing to do with anarchism, and the questions themselves are a greivous insult to an incredibly important strain of political thought. So there you go, ignorance.

[Virginia Dare]

41. Okay, I'll admit my ignorance...thanks for the insight...n/t

[rman]

10. Anarchism is not what it is made out to be by the MSM

(that should hardly be a surprise)

Anarchism means literally "without one single leader" - it does not mean "without leadership" - it just means that not one person should have more power than any other elected official.
In case of the US if you'd remove the 'special' powers from the presidency and the secretaries while keeping congress, it'd be pretty close to Anarchism.
So when congress makes a decision by majority vote - that's it. No president with veto right and presidential signing statements to overrule or change the decision.
Another way of putting it is that it is a less hierarchical implementation of Democracy.

Of course the ruling class doesn't want any of that, so they have made it look bad by associating anarchy with disorder and violence.

[seabeyond]

16. it does not mean "without leadership... dictionary says so. n/t

[rman]

20. "Archo" (greek) = leader

an archo = without leader

it is not, as wiki now claims an archos (plural)

[seabeyond]

12. absent any form of political authority. disorder and confusion.

personally i dont feel we need any more disorder and confusion, lol

vandalism and violence to another is just that. criminal.

[rman]

17. that's what the MSM told you

[seabeyond]

30. no. that is what the dictionary told me. look it up n/t

[The2ndWheel]

14. There wouldn't be an organized event

Nor would they spray paint something on the Capitol steps saying that it's our building. It doesn't make any sense from a decentralized, non-authoritative perspective.

But then anyone can call themselves anything because everyone has their own definition of what and who they are, especially with a term like anarchist, which can't really have A definition by definition.

[Breeze54]

22. Get out on the wrong side of the bed?

"Why do the Anarchists consistently hide behind peace activists?"

:wtf:

What tripped your trigger? Just asking.

"Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was so nearly an Anarchist
that he uttered the famous aphorism, "The best government is that which governs the least."
The Declaration is so nearly an Anarchist document that there is probably not an Anarchist in
the world, except the few Nietzscheans, who would reject its fundamental logic.
For example: That all men are equal in rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness;
That governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed;
That whenever any government becomes destructive to the above rights, it is the right and duty
of those who have formed it, the people, to take whatever measures may be necessary to secure
their own safety and happiness, even to its complete abolition. In other words, the logic of
the Declaration is that the individual is sovereign and supreme where he has his true rights,
and the government only his tool, which he has made and has a right, therefore, to unmake at
his pleasure."

[Virginia Dare]

28. Nothing at all...

I admitted that I had prejudices and preconceived notions, I'm just trying to open my mind here. As a D.C. area resident, whenever there is a large peaceful protest of some type, it always seems like we get reports of a small group of so-called Anarchists who get up to mischief.
If I'm wrong, please tell me so. :hi:

[Breeze54]

46. Don't blame peace activists for over-zealous kids!

Sounds like some youngsters got carried away.
Don't blame peace activists for the over-exubarance of youth!
Hell; graphitti happens everywhere, although I imagine living in DC,
that all the influx of anti-war demonstrators gets tiresome.
Maybe that'll stop as soon as the war in Iraq ends and the troops come home!

Move!! :rofl:

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

57. Yeah, I tell myself that a lot...

"Move" that is. Between the overzealous protestors and the ignorant tourists, it does get tiresome! Not to mention the squatters that come in to "shake things up" every four to eight years! :hi:

[Breeze54]

68. There are ignorant tourists

where I live, every summer and we get inundated,
in Boston every September, with over 35,000 students! ugh! lol
You try driving with all those 'out-of-staters on the roads!!
They don't understand 'rotaries'! :rofl:

Every place you live has some sort of issue like that! ;)

[Virginia Dare]

74. Hey, you Bostonites are crazy drivers!!!!

I'm from D.C. where we have crazy awful traffic, but you guys take the cake imo! We call them "circles" not "rotaries" :crazy:

[Breeze54]

79. See? You missed it!!

We have over 35,000 people from out of state who come here and make us look bad!!!

:rofl:

[rman]

24. Noam Chomsky on Anarchism

Noam Chomsky on Anarchism
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

....

1. What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have developed and animated it throughout history?

The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions -- all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did; a sign of its significance, in my opinion.

more...

[Junkdrawer]

25. Are you referring to the "Spray Paint on the Capitol" incident?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=74393&mesg_id=74393

[Virginia Dare]

34. That got me thinking about it, yes...

but these things happen a lot in D.C. Every year during the World Bank/IMF protests, we get these types of incidents and they are almost always blamed on "anarchists". :shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

45. There's always an incident or two in every big anti-war protest...

and the initial reports always make them seem more ominous than they were. And, yes, "anarchist groups" are usually blamed - whether it's true or not.

Sounds to me like they find the nuttiest splinter group and infiltrate them with agent provocateurs. So far, it's been pretty ineffective.

[eShirl]

33. anarchy is not the same concept as Anarchism

[Bridget Burke]

35. Anarchism (not Anarchy) is a weighty, complex subject.

You won't get an answer in one post. In fact, it's hard ask an intelligent question in one post.

You could do worse than start at the good old Wikipedia & follow the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchism_by_region

This is from the article on Anarchism in Spain, where the movement has a proud tradition:


There's a lot more to Anarchism than Trust-fundies in black, smashing up Starbuck's.

[Virginia Dare]

42. I guess that would be the point...

that these so-called "trust-fundies" smashing up Starbucks aren't anarchists at all, they are anti-authoritarians.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. You obviously know nothing at all about anarchism.

If you really want to know, here's some suggested reading:

Pierre Joseph Proudhon:

"What Is Property? - http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/pjproudhon/whatisproperty/toc.htm

Emma Goldman:

"Anarchism and Other Essays" - http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/nrcsm10.txt

Piotr Kropotkin:

"Anarchism" - http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1905.eng.html

Mikhail Bakunin:

"What Is Authority?" - http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html

Those ought to be a good start.

[Virginia Dare]

43. But could it work?

In reality, is it a workable form of societal function?

[rman]

49. as far as i understand

it is in essence Democracy - just more of it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. On a small scale, perhaps.

But probably not for larger society. It presupposes a commonality of interest and a level of mutual respect and tolerance among individuals that don't exist on the level of larger society. It also depends on what sort of anarchism you're talking about: there are several schools of anarchist thought, including libertarian socialism (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc); anarcho-capitalism (Ayn Rand on steroids, more or less); individualist anarchism, and so on. And as with communism, socialism, democratic socialism, progressivism and liberalism are all "leftist", there's SOME degree of commonality, but they vary widely within themselves.

[The2ndWheel]

53. Scale is what it's all about

The larger everything gets(consumption, population, production, corporations, governments, travel, technology, communication, etc), the more control and order is needed. The more control and order there is, the fewer specialized people have power, because to keep that kind of order and control, you can't have every dumbass with an opinion doing what they think is right.

[Virginia Dare]

59. I've seen some theories about the future of social society...

especially with the coming crisis of global climate change, that we will eventually go back to living within small communities and surviving off what the small community produces. We will eventually have to totally abandon the suburban way of life, where you have to get in your car and drive everywhere.

[The2ndWheel]

70. The only problem being

that we've molded this large scale global world with 6.5+ billion people, and there is no way to voluntarily slow down to avoid the wall of limits. I happen to think we still live in a world of limits, and at some point we won't be able to push the reality of those limits off into the future by complicating the problem we're trying to find an ever elusive solution to. So we have no choice but to continue to grow in scale, and implement more order and control to keep the system together, because if we don't, entropy takes over, and the scale of death would be worse than all 20th century dictators combined.

There is no destination, but we're trying our best to get there quickly. If we can keep this up, and find even better energy resources that will allow every ounce of life's demands be met, and we can keep growing with no more cares, that would be great. However, if that can't happen, we'll have quite a few large and complicated problems to deal with.

[Virginia Dare]

76. My view is that eventually the problems will get too big...

for any one person or group of people to solve, and that people will have to resort to living within their own means, within smaller communities. Perhaps this is a couple of hundred years down the road, but I see us moving back to a more agrarian lifestyle, living in farm communities, and smaller cities. That is, those of us who survive. :scared:

[The2ndWheel]

78. Can't argue with that

The problem is that we think there are solutions. We've never really solved anything though, we just make things bigger and more complex. When we cure death(which is really the main problem we've been trying to solve), that still won't be a solution to our troubles since that will create a whole set of new and enhanced problems.

[rman]

62. I think it only needs more control at a larger scale if you want centralized control

I'd think that in a larger community it'd be wise to have more people with power, not less. Moreover, in a larger society more of such specialized people are available, because there are more people to begin with.

[The2ndWheel]

75. Civilization is centralized control

"I'd think that in a larger community it'd be wise to have more people with power, not less."

Unless you take away their means of survival, which then leaves all of us dependent on a centralized authority. That's why corporations like Monsanto want to own the seed of the plants and DNA of different species.

"Moreover, in a larger society more of such specialized people are available, because there are more people to begin with."

But the ratio doesn't go in the right direction.

Look at Congress as an example. Somehow each person in the House represents hundreds of thousands of people, a few million per person in the Senate.

Take elections as another example. That's a specialized event. Takes place at a certain time, for a certain amount of people. After that, everyone goes back to what they've been specially trained to do(doctor, IT worker, plumber, whatever), and doesn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the process since that's not their job. However, it is increasingly becoming the specialized job of the politician to govern, which is why they're increasingly out of touch with what happens to everyday people who are doing their specialized job and have little to no time for anything else because every second of their life is tied up in this or that specialized activity.

[rman]

81. The ultimate of centralized control is Dictatorship/Despotism,

which also happens to be the opposite of Democracy.

I think we agree though that Despotism is not the ultimate of civilization.

[The2ndWheel]

90. Predictability is the ultimate of civilization

Relatively the same shirt at every relatively identical Wal-Mart is the ultimate of civilization.

Relatively the same burger at every relatively identical McDonald's is the ultimate of civilization.

Those two paragraphs are the ultimate of civilization.

Mass production is the ultimate of civilization. Lack of actual diversity is the ultimate of civilization. Political candidates that are all picture perfect and told what to say as to not say anything because it might cost them a vote is the ultimate of civilization. Time and the clock are the ultimate of civilization. Everyone getting up at basically the same time each morning, going through the same process of getting ready and getting to work and leaving at the end of the day at the same time, only to repeat the process again the next day is the ultimate of civilization. The list can go on and on like that.

Call it despotism, call it democracy, as long as we're all pretty much the same, we'll have no problems.

[rman]

95. But under Despotism we are not all the same, on the contrary

Under Despotism there are a few with A LOT of power - who are only likely to use it to their own advantage, and there are those with no power - who are only likely to be the victims of those who use their power to their own advantage. Or at least that's how despotism has worked out so far.

[The2ndWheel]

101. So democracy doesn't really exist?

America wouldn't be here if the few didn't take from the many. We all wouldn't enjoy the luxury we have if that process wasn't eventually made global. I'm as guilty as the next person. I'm pretty sure my shoes were made somewhere I'll never get to go to, probably by some 7 year old which I'll never be able to meet and say I'm sorry for taking advanatage of a system that objectifies all life.

If we have a top-down society, this is what we're going to get. We have a top-down social structure because of specialization, production, and the fact that we all know everyone can't do everything. Since we know the third part, we have to make the second part as efficient as possible(because what is life without production?), so we then must have the first part to keep order.

I agree that we're not all the same when it comes to power. However, that's sort of the point of power. All power does is centralize and consolidate. You can break it up, but it then starts centralizing and consolidating again. We're all chasing this thing called power, and nobody can ever quite get it all, which is good. However, we're screwing everything else up in our quest to catch the phantom. We seem to have this need to prove to ourselves that we're above all other life on the planet(our big brain, use of tools, whatever excuse we come up with), but by doing so we're taking everything with us. I'm sure a tree lizard, a lion, a goat, a bird doesn't really care, but we'll prove it anyway. Sounds like despotism.

[rman]

106. I think most current democracies are lesser forms of democracy

Not only because of the corporate media and other influences of big money interests, but also because of the system of government. I say when the body of elected representatives makes a decision by majority vote - that should be it, that's democracy. There's no need for one man to sign it, or to over rule it, to change or amend it.

To which extent power can consolidate does depend on the rules we make, on the system we create.

And i think it's quite a stretch to equate actual despotism of man over man with any supposed despotism of man over nature.

[The2ndWheel]

109. I have no problem disagreeing with you

:evilgrin:

"And i think it's quite a stretch to equate actual despotism of man over man with any supposed despotism of man over nature."

Even though man is a part of nature, and the bible tells us to do it, and science gives us the ability to do it...but :evilgrin:

I guess it all depends on the definition and point of view. But hey, that's diversity.

"To which extent power can consolidate does depend on the rules we make, on the system we create."

What about the sun? Laws of physics at work there. I'm pretty sure we're stuck with those, no matter what we do. The same process that makes the sun do what it does, makes empires do what they do. They even go through the same life cycle, just like humans. They start out small, grow, mature, then die. America started as 13 colonies(even smaller, but go with it). It expanded in all directions, as far as it could. There is nowhere else to expand to, and we're going through a bit of a mid-life crisis. We're not dead yet, but we're closer to it then to the beginning.

[rman]

110. We don't make the rules that govern the sun

We do make the rules that govern ourselves.

big difference

[rman]

48. maybe that's why the OP asks for explanation

?

[stillcool]

54. Labels, labels everywhere...

One definition
Anarchism:a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
In theory I am an anarchist...according to this definition. Because some one else uses this label to describe their actions, or to describe other's actions, does not alter what I believe is a better way of governing. Anarchy is an adjective describing lack of order, which has nothing to do with anarchism. We use the term 'democracy' to describe our political system, when in reality it is anything but.
---------------------------------------------------------
Communism, Zionism, Colonialism, Imperialism, utilitarianism, structuralism, Situationism, syndicalism, fascism, liberalism, libertarianism, Islam, Federalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy, Lukashism, Totaliarianism, Tribalism, Socialism, Ethnocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

[Virginia Dare]

60. How does your ideal society work?

I'm curious, what makes it appealing to you and in reality, how do you see it working?

[stillcool]

93. whatever label is chosen...

for my 'ideal' society will not accurately reflect the reality. I don't believe that our government has been true to the ideals of the Constitution since it's birth. Legislation protecting the elites of any society from any form of hardship seems to be a universal and natural occurrence, regardless of the label. I don't know how one would go about shrinking heads to see the value of the individual vs. the continued prosperity of one's own sect. Mass schooling in human nature might be a beginning step to determining the rules of my ideal society.

[bread_and_roses]

55. An interesting, relevant work of fiction is

Ursula K. LeGuin's "The Dispossessed." It explores the human response - both rewards and tensions in an society based on Anarchism.

[Bridget Burke]

89. Another interesting novel: "Shadow of the Shadow"....

It's a historical mystery written by Paco Ignacio Taibo II, a Mexican professor. Born in Spain to a political family, he folds history into his popular mysteries.

"Shadow of the Shadow" tells the story of four friends investigating odd occurrences in Mexico City, just as the revolution was winding down & the rule of PRI was beginning. Anarchism is not the main theme of the novel, but there are scenes with local labor activists that show a different side of the philosophy.

I really love this book, so I'll recommend it every chance I get. The author wrote a biography of Che Guevara. And he's recorded his generation's experience in Mexican politics--friends of his youth died in the Tlatelolco Massacre. But he's not afraid to add a bit of silliness.

[XemaSab]

56. Anarchy is a misrepresented philosophy

It's a bunch of people working together peacefully without the need for a nanny.

A lot of collectives, communes, and intentional communities are anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist, but I understand where anarchists are coming from.

[Virginia Dare]

61. Are there any relevant examples?

Has this ever been a workable solution for any society that you know if, I mean other than a group of 20 or 30 people here and there? It sounds wonderful in theory. :hi:

[XemaSab]

65. Like I said, I'm not an anarchist

I can't think of any examples. :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I'm an Anarchist.

I'm non-violent.
I'm not a thug.
I am a peace-activist.

I am also against the concept that people "need" to be led by "leaders". I believe that most people are capable of "leading themselves". I believe that Lord Acton was right about power.

I'm not a utopian. I oppose power being in held in the hands of the few, no matter how they come to power. Whether they are elected, appointed, hired, or seize power. Whether they are politicians, CEOs, Kings, Czars, presidents, popes, mullahs, priests, generals, supervisors, or the biggest kid on the block.

I believe that those in power must always be held accountable, no matter what their "good intentions" might be, how "patriotic" they are, no matter what party they may belong to, or what ideology they espouse. And, I believe it is the responsibility, the duty, of "We the People" to reign in their power.

I'm a socialist (Left-Libertarian - aka Anarchist) because the accumulation of wealth and private ownership of natural resources and the means of production confers power.

I believe that all individuals are due dignity despite their "status" in society.

I don't like the idea, or the reality, that one individual can force another individual to become a murderer for such nebulous concepts as God or Country.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." - Thomas Jefferson

“In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” Gandhi

[Virginia Dare]

66. Thanks for the reply...

I lean Democratic-Socialist as well, but don't consider myself anarchist. I believe in a governing authority, because I think as humans we need it. I realize there are many out there who don't share that opinion. I think the Founding Fathers had it right, if only we would follow their guidance.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! :hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Thanks for asking.

One last word, as has been pointed out by others, "anarchy" has nothing to do with "Anarchism". And, Anarchism, by it's very nature, is not easily corralled into one precise explanation.

[Breeze54]

72. Then you are an anarchist!! lmao!

"I think the Founding Fathers had it right..."

;)

[Virginia Dare]

73. No, I'm an anti-monarchist....

;-)

[Irreverend IX]

84. I'm still curious...

In the past, you've advocated gun bans and stated you disbelieve in a right to keep and bear arms. How does that jive with anarchism? Banning common items like guns or drugs kind of necessitates a big, intrusive government presence and helps "concentrate power in the hands of the few."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Not if the community agrees to it.

I'm also against Weyerhauser clearcutting, Exxon drilling in ANWR, the networks controlling elections, and my nextdoor neighbor shitting on my driveway.

I don't find my advocacy of banning guns inconsistent. As Chairman Mao said, "Power flows from the barrel of a gun." Being an Anarchist, and against power, I see that as necessary for the safety of the community.

If people wish to use drugs, that's their right, and their responsibility. But, I think it's also the right of the community to ban driving under the influence, annoying your neighbors, or beating on my door at 3am to see if I have any weed to sell.

But, as an Anarchist, I feel under no obligation to be consistent. As I said, I'm not a Utopian. I don't believe there will ever be anything approaching a perfect society in which even the majority of the people will be satisfied.

[Irreverend IX]

99. If every member of the community agrees...

That they don't want guns, then no one will acquire any. Pretty simple. But what if a bunch of people in an anarchist society like owning guns and aren't willing to give them up? Will you form an Anarchist ATF Agency to kick in their doors and confiscate their weapons? Weyerhauser clear-cutting is a more clear-cut example (heh heh) because it's one company doing something that a majority number of people probably disapprove of. But when your society starts proscribing the ownership of certain things and lots of people are in violation, there's no way to counter that other than creating a big intrusive police presence that's anathema to anarchy in the first place.

You say you're against power, but it's not something you can "get rid" of; in any given society, either the people or the government will hold power. Restricting the use of arms to law enforcers means that the government will hold all power over individuals, and there's no way that could be called anarchism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Call it whatever you like. It's not going to happen anyway.

I must admit there's a personal aspect to my anti-gun stance. My father was shot and killed by another member of my family in a dispute. By a "legal" gun wielded by a non-criminal.

However that may be, as I said, I'm not a utopian. There will always be people wielding power, restraining that power is the best I can hope for and advocate.

I'm not in favor of law-enforcers having guns either. But, the vicious circle of the citizenry having guns, necessitates it.

[LynneSin]

80. I think most anarchists could not survive in a totally anarchistic society

Case in point - New Orleans right after Katrina was about a close that you could get to totally anarchy and I know I wouldn't have wanted to be there. The law just about totally escaped, there were no public services and it was each person for themselves - it was a horrible situation.

Maybe this is a bit to stereotypical, but the Anarchists I see around here are usually teenagers dissatisfied with mom & dad's rule

[bread_and_roses]

105. Did not people organize themselves and take care of each other in the Dome?

I remember reading that they did - organizing themselves for protection and to care for each other as best they could.

All in all, when the alarmist reports were debunked, there seems to have been remarkably little victem-on-victem violence in NO, and much of the violence that did occur seems to have come from "official" sources like police.

[Irreverend IX]

82. The Black Bloc kids don't care about politics.

If they are indeed acting of their own accord and not as agitators for the FBI (which I suspect to some degree) they perpetrate their violence for the sake of self-aggrandizement. There's no real difference between them and a bunch of drunken frat boys turning over a car. Around the time of the last DC protests, someone was commenting on the Black Bloc and asking "how can we help these youth turn their energy toward positive purposes?" The answer is that you can't; they act out of pure selfishness and vanity, motivations that cannot be turned to altruistic ends.

[rman]

87. Why do they show up at political events if they're not interested in politics,

why don't they just overturn a car instead.

I for one think it is not coincidence that they do show up at political events. Whatever disturbance they create at such an event, it will have some political impact even if only minor.

Even if only minor it generally serves to discredit whatever legitimate movement it is where they show up and cause a disturbance. I think that's not coincidence either.

[Irreverend IX]

96. It's a way to get into the spotlight.

Turn over a car on a regular day and no one but the owner, the police dispatcher and the insurance agents will be talking about it. Turn over a car during a protest (or after a football game, or near the St. Patrick's day parade...) and you'll be on TV and in the papers. It's the same deal as with soccer hooligans, who are way more interested in destroying things then they are in the sport. I asked a group of anarchist kiddies about their political views once, and they could barely string together two sentences about their ideal society would work.

[Virginia Dare]

100. My theory is because of the concentration of law enforcement...

which is the real "power" they're trying to fight. There is a real head game going on between those two forces.

[rman]

103. That's plausible at least

But if they think they're fighting the "real power" by fighting the police, they are misguided. It doesn't take much to realize that law enforcement 'foot soldiers' are merely tools of the tools of the real powers behind the scenes.

Also they should realize that as John Lennon put it: "when you resort to violence they know how to handle you".
Of course we have the right to defend ourselves, but we're never going to win because we're more violently forceful than them - physically and materially we're not stronger than the big money interests.

[Virginia Dare]

111. I just presented that very argument in another thread...

that there is nothing constructive about violent or destructive protest, that in fighting the so-called "power" with violence, you are only playing into their hands. We need only look inward to ourselves so see what our real strengths are, and there we have our answer.

[rman]

104. selfdelete

[Unperson]

85. Edward Abbey was an anarchist.

[Annces]

107. I knew a self-described anarchist

It seemed to me he was very noble, but he liked to march to his own tune, and basically have fun. He really bristled around military people, although when I knew him as a teenager, he used to love military paraphernalia.

[MilesColtrane]

108. Question with Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about political philosophy, so this is indeed a sincere question.

Question: If Anarchy is the abscence of a single leader, that is to say many leaders, then hasn't the entire world throughout history been in a state of Anarchy, with it's attendant wars and ethnic cleansings?