Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

After being banned from Anarchopedia for vandalism (sort of a joke while also being my own anti-Anarchist experiment), I've suddenly come to the conclusion that Anarchism does not exist. It is theoretically possible to be Anarchist, but it goes so strongly against human nature and is so nonsensical, that it is not only impossible for Anarchism to be implemented, but "Anarchism" as an ideology could not even truly develop.

First, I begin by asking, "What is Anarchism?" Anarchy comes from the Greek word, anarkhia, which means "lack of a leader," which the noun form of anarkos, which means "rulerless," literally an- "without" + arkhos "leader." And so, Anarchism is not just defined by opposition to the modern, traditional perceptions of a government, but opposition to leadership and authority, as a whole. And truly, the only philosophical foundation for total opposition to modern government is the belief that authority over others can never be justice, and this is the argument Anarchists use.

But at the same time, to exercise authority is human nature. Even self-defense itself is authority. It is reactive authority, yes, but still authority. And there is virtually no Anarchist individual or group who would not exercise authority. There are countless examples of Anarchists committing acts of violence. Though it's wrong to characterize Anarchism as a violent movement, there is no doubt that they have exercised much authority themselves. Because of this absurdity, of opposing authority while also exercising it, there are Anarchist "parties" and "organizations."

If I were to go to one of their meetings and vandalize their property, insult them, or commit acts of violence, there is no doubt that (even Anarchists would admit), that they would exercise authority over me. Of course they would. How couldn't they? It is unavoidable. If they DIDN'T exercise authority against people who committed vandalism or otherwise disrupted their meetings, then they could not effectively run organizations at all. So, TRULY Anarchist organizations cannot exist for the same reason that it's impossible for groups which sincerely support evil to exist. Yes, Anarchists may claim to support Anarchy and some Pagans may claim to support the "Dark Arts," but in practice, they are neither Anarchist nor evil. And even Satanists have morals. Really, they are essentially just Libertarians.

And it is this collective authority which is the foundation for all modern government. Any organization which makes decisions, that at the least involve settling disputes, and has a claimed monopoly on violence is a government. And so, all Anarchist collectives and Anarchist communities are still governments. They're just unorthodox and ineffective governments. Often, Anarchists will claim that it is "voluntary," because you can leave the community at any time. Except the same is true of any nation, in general. Anarchist don't like the American government? Move to Canada. :twisted:

Thus, there is no such thing as Anarchism. It is nothing more than a collection of radical (pretty much left-wing) revolutionaries who oppose the current regimes and wish to replace it with one of their own. Probably the clearest evidence of this is the many flavors of Anarchism. But if Anarchism is solely rulerlessness and lack of authority, how many ways can you define "rulerlessness"? And so, they may be Minarchists and support unorthodox governments, but nevertheless, Anarchists today still support their own governments, their own views on the justifiable use of authority (and they do exercise authority). Therefore, any claims to being "Anarchists" or "anti-government" are false. They themselves support government.

Usually, the claim to Anarchism is just a mask for a radical, oppressive ideology. By claiming to oppose government while supporting an oppressive ideology, they can gather more followers than they would if they were to say, for example, "Hey, help us establish a Soviet-style state which ignores property rights!" Today, the term "Anarchist" is to "Communist" what "Progressive" is to "Liberal." Because the words, Communist and Liberal, have become so derogatory, Communists and Liberals pulled out their history books, to find some new terms they could hide behind.

Take a look at the list of the various versions of so-called Anarchism and you'll see, they all do support exercising authority over others, under some circumstances:

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

So, it's dubious to call it "Anarchism." Perhaps it's possible for people, such as Jesus, to have opposed exercising authority over others as his choice as an individual. But, as we know from the Bible, such is suicide. And so, there is no such thing as Anarchism. There never was.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: First, I begin by asking, "What is Anarchism?" Anarchy comes from the Greek word, anarkhia, which means "lack of a leader," which the noun form of anarkos, which means "rulerless," literally an- "without" + arkhos "leader." And so, Anarchism is not just defined by opposition to the modern, traditional perceptions of a government, but opposition to leadership and authority, as a whole.

Th term means 'no state', that being an accurate transliteration from the ancient Greek that you've used. Obviously it does not mean no leadership, as that could only be achieved though no human interaction. To define the term as you have would mean that showing someone anything would be a contravention of anarchy. It's as pointless as claiming that being a conservative is impossible since change is inevitable and everything can not be conserved.

I agree with the rest of your attack on the principle, but perhaps you should read up on anarcho-capitalism, mutualism, and individualist anarchism - all of which I feel fit the term anarchism well and all of which are compatible anyway.

[The Ferryman]

In a Jungian sense, anarchism will never be an archetype.

[Nathyn]

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: First, I begin by asking, "What is Anarchism?" Anarchy comes from the Greek word, anarkhia, which means "lack of a leader," which the noun form of anarkos, which means "rulerless," literally an- "without" + arkhos "leader." And so, Anarchism is not just defined by opposition to the modern, traditional perceptions of a government, but opposition to leadership and authority, as a whole.

Th term means 'no state', that being an accurate transliteration from the ancient Greek that you've used. Obviously it does not mean no leadership, as that could only be achieved though no human interaction. To define the term as you have would mean that showing someone anything would be a contravention of anarchy. It's as pointless as claiming that being a conservative is impossible since change is inevitable and everything can not be conserved.

I agree with the rest of your attack on the principle, but perhaps you should read up on anarcho-capitalism, mutualism, and individualist anarchism - all of which I feel fit the term anarchism well and all of which are compatible anyway.
Conservatism is possible, in practice, though, because Conservatives will actually enforce traditionalist ideals in their daily lives. I.E., try showing up with a green mohawk at a convention held by the Christian Right and you'll definitely get some stares. So, their actions don't directly go against their principles the way it is with Anarchists. Change is inevitable, yes, but they at least oppose change. Anarchists don't oppose government at all. They just selectively define government to suit their own agendas. Anarcho-Capitalism is just Corporatism, plain and simple. Eliminating the government and placing political power in the hands of the largest businesses is not a new ideology, and it is neither Anarchist nor Capitalist. And again, even though Individualist Anarchism is the only theoretical form of Anarchism, in practice, it does not exist. If you offend an Individualist Anarchist, he would exercise authority over you. And so, Individualist Anarchists are nothing more than generally benevolent despots whose dictatorships aren't recognized as legitimate.

[FinnMacCool]

I wasn't going to respond to this but whatever. Your posts give me a headache.

There is no collective authority involved in anarchism. The collectives exist soley to make things that can be used and thats it.They don't have a "monopoly on violence" since everyone single person is equally capable of being violent and since every person is involved in a collective they are all equally capable of doing something so therefore all equally capable of having a say. IS it government? I suppose if you want to go to the dictoonary on this one you would be right but government and state, as understood today, there is no government. Going by that same dictonary entry, you can say that gangs are government.

In regard to "authority" is violence excercising authortiy? Yes its authority. But its justifiable authority. Anarchists believe in justifiable authority. When anarhcists describe anarchism as abolishing authority, they say this in order to simplify and so better get people to understand the principes of anarhcism. There are certains things inherent in nature that make some forms of authority neccesary. For example, if my sister were to try and walk across the street while there were cars speeding down the road, I believe I am justifed in stopping her. This is authority but its justifable authority and one that be clearly seen as justifable authority.

[The Ferryman]

Like Hugo Chavez?

[Nathyn]

FinnMacCool wrote: I wasn't going to respond to this but whatever. Your posts give me a headache.

There is no collective authority involved in anarchism. The collectives exist soley to make things that can be used and thats it.They don't have a "monopoly on violence" since everyone single person is equally capable of being violent and since every person is involved in a collective they are all equally capable of doing something so therefore all equally capable of having a say.
Unless the group of people that disagree with you are bigger and stronger.

[The Ferryman]

FinnMacCool wrote: I wasn't going to respond to this but whatever. Your posts give me a headache.

There is no collective authority involved in anarchism. The collectives exist soley to make things that can be used and thats it.They don't have a "monopoly on violence" since everyone single person is equally capable of being violent and since every person is involved in a collective they are all equally capable of doing something so therefore all equally capable of having a say.

But, like I said, it'll never be an archetype. An archetype is something that is innate in the 'collective unconciousness' (Jung's concept) that is ascendant, like love, as opposed to hate, which is descending, from which violence stems.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote:
Unless the group of people that disagree with you are bigger and stronger.

Assuming that they would actually resort to violence.

And if they did resort to violence, you would have to prove to me that somehow this would topple the whole system.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: But, like I said, it'll never be an archetype. An archetype is something that is innate in the 'collective unconciousness' (Jung's concept) that is ascendant, like love, as opposed to hate, which is descending, from which violence stems.

Your gonna have to explain that to me.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Anarcho-Capitalism is just Corporatism, plain and simple. Eliminating the government and placing political power in the hands of the largest businesses is not a new ideology,

No, the point is that there is no political power. Without the legal recognition of corporations as people, and with all the special protection that entails, plus the vast swathes of regulation, subsidies, patents, copyrights and tariffs that prop them up - I don't think those 'evil' corporations would present even the slightest risk.

In both systems you have governments, probably, in yours there is the state. Woudl you sign up to a democratic protection agency or a hierachical one, if you decided to sign up at all? If the latter then that is your choice and if the forme than I don't se how you can argue how it'd be worse than now.

[The Ferryman]

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: But, like I said, it'll never be an archetype. An archetype is something that is innate in the 'collective unconciousness' (Jung's concept) that is ascendant, like love, as opposed to hate, which is descending, from which violence stems.

Your gonna have to explain that to me.

Ok Finn, I'll do my best.
I'm using a 'Jungian' framework to prove the nihlistic characteristic of anarchy.
An archetype is something that is natural and innate and is 'built in' to a collective unconcious that involves (and evolves) the perpetuation of the 'striving to do better than before' of humankind (or ascendance). Jung was an optimist concerning human nature.
Disorder, chaos, lawlessness cannot be an archetype, because it is unnatural.
Jung would argue that 'love' is an archetype because it naturally promotes humanity.
Jung would argue that anarchy, by it's very unnatural nature, disorder-chaos-lawlessness would lead to the teaching of hate (hate is not innate, it has to be taught) and is not part and parcel of the collective unconcious of mankind's ascendant nature.
Therefore, anarchy is self-defeating, self-destructive, and has not nor will ever have wide appeal as it is a descendant concept.

[FinnMacCool]

So does that mean that progressives are nihilist? Cause, after all, they will never achieve a perfect society. . .

[djolibertas]

I think there is a misunderstanding here as to what anarchism actually means, and although the etymology of the word can be somewhat informative, it certainly can't serve as a complete, informative definition. Words, especially in political and philosophical contexts, quite often take on meanings that are entirely different from what would be suggested by their linguistic roots. The hard part, then, is establishing some sort of definition. Even among those who call themselves anarchists, there is no agreement as to what "true" anarchism is.

For my purposes, I will define what I personally see anarchism as, and explain why I think that form of anarchism does exist. Though this is my "personal" view of anarchism, I think it is also in many respects a common view of anarchism. Since my definition of anarchism is very different from yours, in a sense I am conceding your point that anarchism as you defined it cannot exist, although I think that your definition is (unintentionally) somewhat of a straw man.

Anarchism does not propose an "end state", plan, or model of society, since it is fundamentally opposed to anyone forcefully structuring society according to any ideology. Anarchism is more of a way of life than a political ideology, in that someone is an "anarchist" if they seek to maximize personal freedom and exercise control over their own lives, rather than letting themselves and their world be coerced and formed by others (such as government).

Anarchists recognize that only individuals can make value judgements, and that each individual is capable of acting so as to maximize their own happiness. Because of this (and because aggression and coercion are detrimental to life and liberty, and therefore wrong), it is illegitimate for a government (or any other group, such as gangs) to impose its values or desires -- whether they are the will of a majority or of a king -- on individuals. This does not mean that anarchists do not believe in any standards of behavior, or that people should be free to do absolutely whatever they want. Anarchists believe that human beings thrive and find happiness in an atmosphere of peace and cooperation, and because of this (and/or because of a belief in natural rights), they refrain from violent or coercive action. Since every anarchist seeks to live free from coercion by others, it makes perfect sense to accord others the same freedom. On the other hand, defensive use of force is perfectly in accordance with anarchist ideas, since securing one's own freedom makes self-defense necessary.

The most basic tenets of anarchism, then, are:

Individual freedom (including respect for the freedom of others) and
Opposition to aggression/coercion

Anarchists seek to bring about a society in which no one is subjected to aggressive force (with theft/taxation, imposition of laws, and fraud being forms of aggression).

None of this is contradictory or impossible, at least in theory. Of course the realization of these goals is not easy, but that is why anarchism is a way of life and something to strive for, rather than an easy (and ineffective) quick fix. Even if a purely anarchist society is impossible, that doesn't mean that it is not worth striving for. There will always be murders, but does that mean we should not oppose murder? The world is not a perfect place, and can never be made into a utopia, but that fact makes it all the more important that we work hard to make things better.

One last note: Anarchism is not destructive or hateful or violent. Those who call themselves anarchists just to throw moltov cocktails or vandalize things are not real anarchists, and are not considered to be anarchists by any real anarchist thinkers. The association of anarchism with violence and bombs and vandalism is just the result of ages-old smear campaigns against anarchists by governments who fear losing their power. If you consider the huge number of people killed in wars, unjustly beaten and jailed by police, and slaughtered for their religion/political beliefs/etc, all victims of violence by governments, it becomes almost laughable that governments accuse anarchists of being violent.

[FinnMacCool]

To the above

I agree but I don't believe in the whole "Living the dream crimethinc way" anarchism, you know what I mean.

And don't think forget the reason why anarchism has a bad reputation is because thats what governments gave it.

[Fido]

I think you are absolutely right in saying anarchism is not an ideology. It is much more of anti-ideology than ideology. Nothing can be defined only by what it is against or what it is not. What anarchism is imo is the recognition of each person's authority in their own affairs. Governments built to defend freedom can never begin by limiting freedom. In any event, the power of the individual to injure or enslave another is limited already. The true danger for liberty and peace and safety comes from government and institutions sanctioned by government, and their ability to do damage should be strictly limited, and those limits should be enforced. The only way society will be free, is for the individual to be free from the intrusion of government, and from the free actions of corporations or other institutions. Governments which do not govern the actions of cabals and conspiratorial institutions must limit the ability of its citizens to seek justice as individuals, and so they make themselves obnoxious.
Our Government is worse by far than no government, but because people cannot imagine freedom from government, and because they fear their neighbors, and all that might happen if their neighbors suddenly found themselves free they cling to government like a child to their blankey. What does it matter if no ideology supports anarchism? What does it matter if anarchism supports no ideology? The demand for maximum human freedom should be heard, and will not be counted out on technicalities.

[FinnMacCool]

Fido wrote: I think you are absolutly right in saying anarchism is not an ideology. It is much more of anti-ideology than ideology. Nothing can be defined only by what it is against or what it is not. What anarchism is imo is the recognition of each person authority in their own affairs. Government built to defend freedom can never begin by limiting freedom. In any even the power of the individual to injure or enslave another is limited already. The true danger for liberty and peace and safety comes from government and institution sanctioned by government, and their ability to do damage should be strictly limited, and those limits should be enforced. The only way society will be free, is for the individual to be free from the intrusion of government and the free actions of corporations or other institutions. Governments which do not govern the actions of cabals and conspiratorial institutions must limit the ability of its citizens to seek justice as individuals and so they make themselves obnoxious.
Our Government is worse by far than no government, but because people cannot imagine freedom from government, and because they fear their neighbors and all that might happen if their neighbors suddenly found themselves free they cling to government like a child to their blankey. What does it matter if no ideology supports anarchism? What does it matter if anarchism supports no ideology? The demand for maximum human freedom should be heard, and will not be counted out on technicalities.

How can you say anarchism doesn't support any idealogy when there have been tons of things written about anarchism for about 400 years and longer?

Try reading this

[Fido]

FinnMacCool wrote: Fido wrote: I think you are absolutly right in saying anarchism is not an ideology. It is much more of anti-ideology than ideology. Nothing can be defined only by what it is against or what it is not. What anarchism is imo is the recognition of each person authority in their own affairs. Government built to defend freedom can never begin by limiting freedom. In any even the power of the individual to injure or enslave another is limited already. The true danger for liberty and peace and safety comes from government and institution sanctioned by government, and their ability to do damage should be strictly limited, and those limits should be enforced. The only way society will be free, is for the individual to be free from the intrusion of government and the free actions of corporations or other institutions. Governments which do not govern the actions of cabals and conspiratorial institutions must limit the ability of its citizens to seek justice as individuals and so they make themselves obnoxious.
Our Government is worse by far than no government, but because people cannot imagine freedom from government, and because they fear their neighbors and all that might happen if their neighbors suddenly found themselves free they cling to government like a child to their blankey. What does it matter if no ideology supports anarchism? What does it matter if anarchism supports no ideology? The demand for maximum human freedom should be heard, and will not be counted out on technicalities.

How can you say anarchism doesn't support any idealogy when there have been tons of things written about anarchism for about 400 years and longer?

Try reading this

A lot was written about ether as a way of explaining force at a distance, and even complex experiments contrived to attempt a proof of its existence without result. That does not mean it does not exist, but apparently in mathematical equations it has just about a value of zero. Now, the value of anarchism is far greater to me than ether, but it is no less an anti ideology for that. For example, if everyone demonstrated self control it would still not be possible to dispense entirely with some social structure called government to make official the will of the people. Some tasks are actually done better and most efficiently by government. The problem with government is not with this fact, but that government like any organization will have a form reflecting its function. If government is built to serve society, and society is many individuals, then why is government so preoccupied with limiting individual action while giving a free hand to industry. In fact, they are the same function. It is to serve industry that they enslave the population when, if their aim were to free the population they would soon find they must enslave industry.

[adleberg]

I agree that anarchy in practice would be contrary to basic human nature. Just look over history where millions of poeple have been very happy to hand over control of thier lives to an organisation or leader. Anarchy must be leaderless..any society founded on anarchism would by definition have no leader because any sort of leader is frought by the self-perpetuation complex. ie. they are working to maintain thier position. Anarchism relies on the idea that deep down all humans are programmed to work together. If you say that anarchism allows for a leader then you are basically describing extreme communism

[FinnMacCool]

Fido wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Fido wrote: I think you are absolutly right in saying anarchism is not an ideology. It is much more of anti-ideology than ideology. Nothing can be defined only by what it is against or what it is not. What anarchism is imo is the recognition of each person authority in their own affairs. Government built to defend freedom can never begin by limiting freedom. In any even the power of the individual to injure or enslave another is limited already. The true danger for liberty and peace and safety comes from government and institution sanctioned by government, and their ability to do damage should be strictly limited, and those limits should be enforced. The only way society will be free, is for the individual to be free from the intrusion of government and the free actions of corporations or other institutions. Governments which do not govern the actions of cabals and conspiratorial institutions must limit the ability of its citizens to seek justice as individuals and so they make themselves obnoxious.
Our Government is worse by far than no government, but because people cannot imagine freedom from government, and because they fear their neighbors and all that might happen if their neighbors suddenly found themselves free they cling to government like a child to their blankey. What does it matter if no ideology supports anarchism? What does it matter if anarchism supports no ideology? The demand for maximum human freedom should be heard, and will not be counted out on technicalities.

How can you say anarchism doesn't support any idealogy when there have been tons of things written about anarchism for about 400 years and longer?

Try reading this

A lot was written about ether as a way of explaining force at a distance, and even complex experiments contrived to attempt a proof of its existence without result. That does not mean it does not exist, but apparently in mathematical equations it has just about a value of zero. Now, the value of anarchism is far greater to me than ether, but it is no less an anti ideology for that. For example, if everyone demonstrated self control it would still not be possible to dispense entirely with some social structure called government to make official the will of the people. Some tasks are actually done better and most efficiently by government. The problem with government is not with this fact, but that government like any organization will have a form reflecting its function. If government is built to serve society, and society is many individuals, then why is government so preoccupied with limiting individual action while giving a free hand to industry. In fact, they are the same function. It is to serve industry that they enslave the population when, if their aim were to free the population they would soon find they must enslave industry.

I really honestly cannot comprehend anything you just wrote. I'm not big on philosophy can you please try and explain this babble? Are you trying to say anarchism is an anti idealogy cause it doesn't work? Because that doesn't make it an anti idealogy