Political Crossfire Forums

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Quote: Just look over history where millions of poeple have been very happy to hand over control of thier lives to an organisation or leader
Yeah ands lets conveniantly ignore the many examples of when humans have refused a ruler and worked together.

And by the way, there is a fundamental difference between having a ruler and having a leader.

Anarchism is communism also.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13438 Location: San Diego

Nathyn wrote: 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.

How could corporations exist in the absence of a state? They are, by their very nature, legal constructions. Ergo, the state is a pre-requisite for their existence.

By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13438 Location: San Diego

FinnMacCool wrote: 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.

But collectives work in democratic means, for the most part. Yes, there are collectives that believe on reaching unanimous concensus, but they are also tiny and, for the most part, self-sustaining. (Most of them also failed within years, by the way.)

My point is, if a collective is to work on democratic means, meaning the majority rules, that majority is inherently a form of force and coercion. Group A (the majority) decides for Group B (the minority).

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Quote:
My point is, if a collective is to work on democratic means, meaning the majority rules, that majority is inherently a form of force and coercion. Group A (the majority) decides for Group B (the minority). I agree with you about democracy. I don't think its such a great system that everyone makes it out to be. But in an anarchist society, there are certain things that aren't going to be solved in a vote. For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

Except that people have voted to do such things before.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Robin Hood wrote: Quote: For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

Except that people have voted to do such things before.

Yeah but without a government, how can they organize a vote to exicle gays? Not to mention the fact that anarchism is going to be ingrained in every person we teach and the revolutionaries who started the movement are highly unlikely to be anti gay

Walter F. Starbuck · Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 27

Nathyn wrote: 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.

Semantics.

If properly defined, one could claim that no political ideologies can exist.

One progressive act could negate conservatism. One conservative act could negate progressivism. One individualistic act could negate collectivism...

I'm not even an anarchist and I can see that your post was just silly.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

FinnMacCool wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Quote: For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

Except that people have voted to do such things before.

Yeah but without a government, how can they organize a vote to exicle gays? Not to mention the fact that anarchism is going to be ingrained in every person we teach and the revolutionaries who started the movement are highly unlikely to be anti gay

So because of your wonderful teaching nobody will ever have bad feelings again? Where will you do this teaching, perhaps special camps out in the countryside? The point is that with collective control of all property you have collective control of all people. That is the state, and different from the current one in that it is much more authoritarian even than now.

djolibertas · Joined: 21 Jun 2006 Posts: 185

jawsome wrote:
By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:

I'm not sure if this is meant as a joke, but even if it is, other people have expressed things along the same lines, and I'm completely bewildered by this kind of statement. Why do people have the impression that anarchism is only possible in some sort of secluded, unrealistic context? Why do people think anarchism is at all incompatible with property or human interaction?

Anarchism is as simple as this:

Anarchists strive to maximize their personal freedom, as well as those around them, and only use violence defensively to ensure their freedom.

Yes, this means opposing the government who robs you and imposes arbitrary laws on you, but it does not exclude interaction with others in social and economic contexts. In fact, it encourages these types of interaction even more than a government system, since people are viewed as autonomous and sovereign entities, not as subjects or slaves to law or government.

Yes, there will sometimes be conflict in an anarchist "system" due to the lack of an all-powerful government, however this violence must be seen as traded off against all the violence of the state that is abolished. No states means no mass-scale wars; no constant theft through taxation; no oppression of minorities, religion, or political belief; and no latent violence of the oppression of arbitrary law that serves to enrich the powerful and well-connected in government.

Just as a democratic system need not be perfect to exist, neither does an anarchist system need to be perfect. The same criticisms of anarchism presented here were widely believed to be true of democracy before the American revolution, because democracy was seen as mob rule with no sufficient central authority. It was claimed that political factions would constantly war against each other, rather than respecting the institutions of democracy -- that seems very likely in theory, but it didn't happen because people (and political parties) respected the ideas of democracy, just as they can in the future respect the ideas of anarchism.

SeamushMacEoghain · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 1059

Being one of the few voices of Mutualism, I would say that an anarchist society could exist. But I would say that a "worldwide" anarchist society would utterly fail...if ever establish. A main tenet of anarchism is individual freedom, and I find it asinine to believe that everyone could set down and agree on one single form of goverance, so in hence people would need to be coerced.

I don't want a "worldwide" anarchist society. A small nook here and there would be nice. :)

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Quote:
So because of your wonderful teaching nobody will ever have bad feelings again?
Not nearly as much homophobic feelings as there are now
Quote: Where will you do this teaching, perhaps special camps out in the countryside?
No. Probably in a radical free school.
Quote: The point is that with collective control of all property you have collective control of all people. No. Not if its voluntary.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote:
So because of your wonderful teaching nobody will ever have bad feelings again?
Not nearly as much homophobic feelings as there are now
Quote: Where will you do this teaching, perhaps special camps out in the countryside?
No. Probably in a radical free school.
Quote: The point is that with collective control of all property you have collective control of all people. No. Not if its voluntary.

Well as an anarchist myself, I see little problem with everything being voluntary. I just hope that you don't try to take what property I have, and I won't try to take anything from your collectives. If you would desire to trade, fine by me, and if you decide not then that's cool aswell.

Fair deal?

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7582 Location: Tampa, FL

Nathyn wrote: 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.
I'm sure the millions of Indians freed by pacifism would disagree.

Anyway, you may be right, but I hesitate to call those individualist anarchists (for instance, Christian anarchists) anarchists at all since they don't specifically want the destruction of the government; their political actions are neutral. Specifically Christian anarchists (or other religious anarchists) are good examples, since they believe that they should not judge other people or bring justice to them (government's sole concern is justice). Anarchists will actively fight for anarchy; pacifists, like the above religious "anarchists," will not. So I think the word is misused a lot. The prerequisite to be an anarchist is to actively fight for anarchy. Otherwise, you're just...non-political.

Now, whether anarchists can ever justify their position is another matter altogether...but as long as there are people pushing for no government, then there are anarchists.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Quote: Well as an anarchist myself, I see little problem with everything being voluntary. I just hope that you don't try to take what property I have, and I won't try to take anything from your collectives. If you would desire to trade, fine by me, and if you decide not then that's cool aswell.

Fair deal?
Definatly. But if you try to steal our workers I'm afraid I will have to kill you.

SammyT · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 326 Location: Here.

FinnMacCool wrote: 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

It's anti-ideology is what he's saying..kind of like communism, it is an "idea" of not permitting other ideas. Hence, "Anti-Ideology".

Hope that helped.

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7717 Location: The Great Satan

FinnMacCool wrote: 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.
"Assuming."

It's human nature to resort to violence. And plus, as I said, if they didn't resort to violence, it would topple the whole system because once they impose authority upon an individual, as a collective, they've created a political power structure. I.E., the bigger group of people with a monopoly on violence and those who dissent from that group.

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: Just look over history where millions of poeple have been very happy to hand over control of thier lives to an organisation or leader
Yeah ands lets conveniantly ignore the many examples of when humans have refused a ruler and worked together.

And by the way, there is a fundamental difference between having a ruler and having a leader.

Anarchism is communism also.
Anarchism is not Communism. Anarchism is Anarchism and Communism is Communism. You used "Anarchism" as a mask for Communism, the same way Liberals call themselves Progressives. You are a Communist, plain and simple.

jawsome wrote: Nathyn wrote: 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.

How could corporations exist in the absence of a state? They are, by their very nature, legal constructions. Ergo, the state is a pre-requisite for their existence.

By the way, I agree with most of your post, but I feel that anarchism can exist. If you live alone off the land and claim nothing as yours. :lol:
Because those legal constructions, in the absence of government, would be upheld by the corporations themselves, being that as a result of their legal protection, they have a monopoly on power.

In other words, as I've said before -- in the absence of government, the wealthy become warlords.

FinnMacCool wrote: Robin Hood wrote: Quote: For example, noone is going to vote to exile gays because that infringes on peoples rightsr. Collectives exist soley for economic purposes so the decision making won't go any further then that, I'd imagine.

Except that people have voted to do such things before.

Yeah but without a government, how can they organize a vote to exicle gays? Not to mention the fact that anarchism is going to be ingrained in every person we teach and the revolutionaries who started the movement are highly unlikely to be anti gay
Except in Russia and China.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

FinnMacCool wrote: Quote: Well as an anarchist myself, I see little problem with everything being voluntary. I just hope that you don't try to take what property I have, and I won't try to take anything from your collectives. If you would desire to trade, fine by me, and if you decide not then that's cool aswell.

Fair deal?
Definatly. But if you try to steal our workers I'm afraid I will have to kill you.

When you say steal them, I hope you don't mean pay them more or get them through other consensual means? That would imply your ownership of them, something I'm sure you would never support.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Quote: "Assuming."

It's human nature to resort to violence.
So why don't people just attack each other on the streets all the time?
Quote:
And plus, as I said, if they didn't resort to violence, it would topple the whole system because once they impose authority upon an individual, as a collective, they've created a political power structure. I.E., the bigger group of people with a monopoly on violence and those who dissent from that group.
Okay so if I got into a fight with someone, thats going to topple the whole system?

Quote: Anarchism is not Communism. Anarchism is Anarchism and Communism is Communism. You used "Anarchism" as a mask for Communism, the same way Liberals call themselves Progressives. You are a Communist, plain and simple.
You're just ignorant of both communism and anarchism.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2776

Double Post

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

adleberg wrote: 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

Anarchism in practice is a lot like capitalism in practice. What capital buys in government is no government over capital; and the production for one market by many producers in the face of a logical consequence of over production that will certainly waste material, resources, and manufacturers is one example of inexplicable anarchy.