Political Crossfire Forums

[thehollowman]

an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


Can freedom be a lesser form of anarchy? Or is anarchy in and of itself the purest form of freedom?

The American Revolution is one of the largest anarchist movements in all of history. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of it, English and American. And yet today almost everyone, including me, looks upon it as something as "good" and morally just. Not only did the revolution birth an empire, but it lit the forest with the fires of the word "Freedom" which lead to the eventual downfall of almost all monarchies in the post modern world.

But not every revolution was good, look at the French Revolution, it was a despicable waste of time in the clock of history that thrust the French country into a pit that took it ages to climb out of.

I reference "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding. The boys in the novel lose all forms of authority, and they proceed to be in the ultimate form of freedom, free, completely. The only thing that kept them in check for a while was the Beast, which represented irrational fears.

Why is it that every end of the earth movie shows people panicking and rioting? This is because it is true. During Katrina, what did people do? They panicked. It was horrible without any form of law or authority in the midst of a crisis, and a revolution is a crisis.

So I believe that in order to have freedom, you must have anarchy. You can't have one without the other. And it scares me to think of what will happen if a global catastrophe occurs where all authority is knocked out.

Anarchy

[LostSoul3412]

thehollowman wrote: Can freedom be a lesser form of anarchy? Or is anarchy in and of itself the purest form of freedom?

Anarchy is the means, Freedom is the ends.

thehollowman wrote: The American Revolution is one of the largest anarchist movements in all of history. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of it, English and American. And yet today almost everyone, including me, looks upon it as something as "good" and morally just. Not only did the revolution birth an empire, but it lit the forest with the fires of the word "Freedom" which lead to the eventual downfall of almost all monarchies in the post modern world.

The American Revolution is the only war that can be justified in American history. It is the only American war in which the people themselves fought, instead of the government telling the people to fight.

thehollowman wrote: But not every revolution was good, look at the French Revolution, it was a despicable waste of time in the clock of history that thrust the French country into a pit that took it ages to climb out of.

Regardless of the outcome, the revolution itself can be justified by the people rising up. Even the Russian Revolution can be justified. (This coming from a very strong Anti-Socialist.)

thehollowman wrote: So I believe that in order to have freedom, you must have anarchy. You can't have one without the other. And it scares me to think of what will happen if a global catastrophe occurs where all authority is knocked out.

I disagree. I believe that freedom is something that every individual is born with. We are born into complete freedom. Government only works to limit that freedom. For example, you and I are both free; but that freedom is limited through coercive social contracts. Eliminate the social contracts, and you eliminate oppression.

thehollowman wrote: Anarchy

A state of true liberty beyond the control of society.

[The Voice]

Is there really such a thing as true anarchy? Because when you say the American Revolution was one of the largest anarchist movements, wasnt there a form of government during that movement, which, in turn, would stop it from being anarchy?

And another thing, isnt an anarchy movement a movement to create anarchy? If so, then the American Revolution wasnt an anarchy movement because the cause of the revoulution was to create a fair government.

[Towie]

thehollowman wrote: an·ar·chy
n. pl. an·ar·chies

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


Can freedom be a lesser form of anarchy? Or is anarchy in and of itself the purest form of freedom?

The American Revolution is one of the largest anarchist movements in all of history. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of it, English and American. And yet today almost everyone, including me, looks upon it as something as "good" and morally just. Not only did the revolution birth an empire, but it lit the forest with the fires of the word "Freedom" which lead to the eventual downfall of almost all monarchies in the post modern world.



The american revolution was not anarchy. There were clear political leaders on both sides, and a clear form of military authority. There was a clear common standard and purpose which was to take freedom for America from the British. That defuncts all three provided definitions, so I propose that freedom is the ends, and anarchy is the enemy. You cannot be free without being safe, and anarchy is the absence of all order, which makes you unsafe. You are then a prisoner of all those with more physical power than you, with no order to protect you.

[SeamushMacEoghain]

The dictionary is probably not the best place to get a definition for anarchy (as a political, economic and social movement).

1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

Those last two do not apply to anarchism. Anarchism is absence of any heirarchial political, economic, social or religious authority.

Quote: The American Revolution is one of the largest anarchist movements in all of history.

The American Revolution was in no way or form an anarchist revolution as it was a fight for a new form of the State not a fight for no State.

Quote: But not every revolution was good, look at the French Revolution, it was a despicable waste of time in the clock of history that thrust the French country into a pit that took it ages to climb out of.

The French Revolution was not a waste of time, it will go down through the ages of an example of what happens when reactionaries lead a movement and how easy it is to devolve into the very thing you fight against.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: . Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.


I think that one fits the political ideology of Anarchism perfectly.

There is no common standard in it, or a common purpose, either. It cannot be said there is a cohesive principle either, really, because the principle of the concept is lack of cohesion by it's very nature.

[LetsGetReal]

The true flaws with the Anarchists movement is the thought that people don't want to be grouped and that no one will grab the power vacuum. Anarchy will only lead to another government, another person, and another social contract. People ruin government, people ruin lives, and the only way to be truly free would to be an individual on an island by yourself. Can't be with a woman because then they'll rule you, :lol:. We can take steps to have an even greater sense of freedom, but I don't believe pure freedom will be achieved on this side of life.

[Cyro]

LetsGetReal wrote: The true flaws with the Anarchists movement is the thought that people don't want to be grouped and that no one will grab the power vacuum. Anarchy will only lead to another government, another person, and another social contract. People ruin government, people ruin lives, and the only way to be truly free would to be an individual on an island by yourself. Can't be with a woman because then they'll rule you, :lol:. We can take steps to have an even greater sense of freedom, but I don't believe pure freedom will be achieved on this side of life.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson

I'm more a supporter of Anarcho-capitalism, than pure anarchy to be honest (no this does not mean businesses take the place of the government).

[SeamushMacEoghain]

Quote: There is no common standard in it, or a common purpose, either.

Hey the want to get rid of the State is a common purpose for all anarchists.

Quote: The true flaws with the Anarchists movement is the thought that people don't want to be grouped and that no one will grab the power vacuum.

Anarchy is not the lack of groupings of people and I agree about the power grabbing. IMHO the biggest flaw with anarchism is the thought of instituting it on a national scale. Anarchy is obviously not for everyone and forcing people to be a part of what someone else considers a "better" situation goes against the basic tenet of anarchism which is freedom. Most anarchists suffer the socialist mind disorder of believing that everyone would love it if the were not misinformed or uneducated. Like if we are so damn smart. :roll:

[LetsGetReal]

So your telling me that one of the major tenets of Anarchism isn't freedom from Social Contracts?

[DevilMan]

:-( Not another post about anarchy... I do agree with you on the fact that anarchy would totally be awesome. The fact is that people who promote anarchy are waisting their time. There was a magical time when anarchy ruled the world. That was the dawn of humanity... But people ended up forming tribes and communities, soon cities. I love the idea that I'd be able to do anything I want and not have to deal with uncle Sam. But when their environment changes people get scared. The band together to gain protection from those who'd wish to hurt them, but after a while they become too strong and a government is born or at least a kingdom of sorts. Government is part of human nature. You can't deny it. Anarchy would only last in its purest and best form for a few years. Then it would be back to the grind, and it would probably be worse than we are now. Plus the work it would take to overthrow a government without establishing a new one in the process is just staggering. Too many people would take advantage of anarchy and it would end up a mess... Sad but true. :cry:

[JeffS]

Anarchy is a quaint ideal that has no basis in practice. While we could get dogmatically focused on the denotative definition of anrachy but that serves no purpose in a discussion as it has no current day relevence to a perceived anarchy in practice. The discussion needs to focus on how ararchy could exist in the current world.

It can't.

Anarchy is a concept of the young. Some level of youthful exuberance to think that some disorder is good for the world is what drives this 'concept'. Often the '60's' is referenced as an example of anarchy as a success. Not so. MLK changed things with a solid, organized and peaceful protest. The 60's generation as a whole did nothing. Yes, individual acheivements can be named but overall chaos did nothing. Peace did not follow the peace generation. We still have wars. Free love gave us lots of STD's. The niavete that love, sex and a peace sign could change the world without some specific policy and plan of execution proved to be all but useless.

This is anarchy.

It's said that anarchy shakes things up. Sort of. Iran, post-Shah, was as near anarchy as you could expect to see. With the ouster of the Shah, the plan was for a democratic government free of religious centricity. Yet, chaos of the hostage taking students pushed the otherwise planned democracy to a theocracy of an out of touch Khomeni. Like a pinball, you can hope to aim anarchy but it will go where it wants and the result may not be good...most often it is not.

Opportunism.

With disorder, someone is going to capitalize. Likely not with good motives. Skilled social planners with some level of focus on the betterment of mankind aren't likely to be anarchists. Neither are opportunists. However, the oportunist will take advantage of a situation, ala the Ayatollah. This is not a good thing. For that matter, Iraqi war detractors could claim that the chaos in Iraq hardly qualifies as good. Many of you have. Venzuala, same story. Without a thoughtful plan, the end result is often just not good.

What's the point?

The anarchic concept is a youthful ideal that some kind of disorder is good for society. In reality, it just an easy way to go and pretend that what your doing has some level of benefit for society. Disrupting peoples lives in the relative execution of anarchy suggest only creates problems for what is really an easy way to go. it's the lazy mans idea for social change. Hard change is at the front line. It's Jimmy Carter building houses for Habitat for Humanity. Social change is done one person at a time and with a thoughtful plan.

Anarchy is the easy way out. Freedom takes work, care and planning.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: Anarchy is not the lack of groupings of people and I agree about the power grabbing. IMHO the biggest flaw with anarchism is the thought of instituting it on a national scale. Anarchy is obviously not for everyone and forcing people to be a part of what someone else considers a "better" situation goes against the basic tenet of anarchism which is freedom. Most anarchists suffer the socialist mind disorder of believing that everyone would love it if the were not misinformed or uneducated. Like if we are so damn smart.

I agree that if in America the anarchists were powerful enough to start a revolution here, it wouldn't work because there are many non anarchists. However, don't you think that in significantly under developed and poor countries where all of them have the common goal of bettering their condition, anarchism can work on a more general scale?

[LostSoul3412]

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: IMHO the biggest flaw with anarchism is the thought of instituting it on a national scale.

Then consider it on a global scale.

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: Anarchy is obviously not for everyone and forcing people to be a part of what someone else considers a "better" situation goes against the basic tenet of anarchism which is freedom.

No one would be forced under anything. Personally, I believe that government will become obsolete in the wake of a free global economy.

SeamushMacEoghain wrote: Most anarchists suffer the socialist mind disorder of believing that everyone would love it if the were not misinformed or uneducated. Like if we are so damn smart. :roll:

Humanity is stupid. However, humanity is also greedy. That greed causes society to operate beyond the control of government.

[LostSoul3412]

DevilMan wrote: Government is part of human nature. You can't deny it.

Sure I can. Human nature is to be greedy and self-serving. Government doesn't support either of those tenants.

DevilMan wrote: Anarchy would only last in its purest and best form for a few years. Then it would be back to the grind, and it would probably be worse than we are now.

How so?

DevilMan wrote: Plus the work it would take to overthrow a government without establishing a new one in the process is just staggering.

Isn't necessary. Government will become obsolete eventually. Through not in our lifetimes, global economics will create a dissolving of economic boarders, and with that, political ones as well.

DevilMan wrote: Too many people would take advantage of anarchy and it would end up a mess... Sad but true. :cry:

How can you take advantage of a system that does not exist?

[FinnMacCool]

Quote:
Anarchy is a concept of the young.
Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin,(who sadly just passed away), Howard Zinn, Ursula Le Guin etc. etc. These are young people? Not to forget, all the people in the Spanish Revolution and the Ukrainian Revolution who particated in creating anarchist societys. Especially back in the day when anarchism was more popular in America you had famous anarchists like August Spies and Benjamin Tucker and Buenventura Durruti.
Quote: Some level of youthful exuberance to think that some disorder is good for the world is what drives this 'concept'.
Here comes the problem. You try to criticize an idealogy which you have no clue about. 'Disorder' is not the goal of anarchism.
Quote: Often the '60's' is referenced as an example of anarchy as a success.
Never, ever, ever have I heard the 60's used as an example of anarchism by anarchists, famous or otherwise. ARe you talking out of your ass? Sure sounds like it.
Quote: Not so. MLK changed things with a solid, organized and peaceful protest.
Anarchism doesn't say things have to be unorganized. In fact, anarchism itself is simply a way of ORGANIZING society in a way which allows for more freedom. Even decentralized organizations are inherent in anarchism before anarchy, although I tend to believe decentralized ones work the best.
Quote: The 60's generation as a whole did nothing. Yes, individual acheivements can be named but overall chaos did nothing. Peace did not follow the peace generation. We still have wars. Free love gave us lots of STD's. The niavete that love, sex and a peace sign could change the world without some specific policy and plan of execution proved to be all but useless.
Agreed.

Quote:
It's said that anarchy shakes things up. Sort of. Iran, post-Shah, was as near anarchy as you could expect to see.
Not even close.

Everything else in this post is too illinformed to even bother commenting on.

I hope you enjoyed pretending you were smart for awhile but if your not even going to try to criticize something that is actually related to anarchism, there is no helping you.

I said it once and I'll say it again, those with no understanding of anarchism or anarchist history have no right to complain about it.

A really good warning sign for me to know when someone who is criticizing "anarchism" doesn't know what they are talking about is when they say it can't happen. What they fail to realize is that anarchism has been put into practice several times. My favorite example being the Spanish Revolution:

Here is a propaganda video featuring spanish anarchists, all of who exhibit Jeff's description of the teenage anarchist :roll: :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SsqCOEiH8

Description of Anarchism in Spain:

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

More on Spain: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html

A young, wild example of youthful rebellion and aggression from the spanish anarchists:


Anti-social anarchist punk teenagers, on their way to a concert:


The reason why many "anarchists" in America and other developed countries are young is because they don't know what anarchism. They are about as informed about anarchism as Jeff is. However, in many other countries, anarchism thrives as a movement. Its still a minority in most countries but in Spain, the third largest union the CNT is an anarchist union.

[LostSoul3412]

JeffS wrote: Anarchy is a quaint ideal that has no basis in practice. While we could get dogmatically focused on the denotative definition of anrachy but that serves no purpose in a discussion as it has no current day relevence to a perceived anarchy in practice. The discussion needs to focus on how ararchy could exist in the current world.

It can't.

Why not?

JeffS wrote: Anarchy is a concept of the young. Some level of youthful exuberance to think that some disorder is good for the world is what drives this 'concept'.

Disorder has nothing to do with it. Freedom is the issue.

JeffS wrote: Often the '60's' is referenced as an example of anarchy as a success. Not so. MLK changed things with a solid, organized and peaceful protest. The 60's generation as a whole did nothing. Yes, individual acheivements can be named but overall chaos did nothing. Peace did not follow the peace generation. We still have wars. Free love gave us lots of STD's. The niavete that love, sex and a peace sign could change the world without some specific policy and plan of execution proved to be all but useless.

I have never heard of the 1960's be used as an example of Anarchy.

JeffS wrote: It's said that anarchy shakes things up. Sort of.

Again, I have never heard of the purpose of Anarchy to "shake things up".

JeffS wrote: Iran, post-Shah, was as near anarchy as you could expect to see. With the ouster of the Shah, the plan was for a democratic government free of religious centricity. Yet, chaos of the hostage taking students pushed the otherwise planned democracy to a theocracy of an out of touch Khomeni. Like a pinball, you can hope to aim anarchy but it will go where it wants and the result may not be good...most often it is not.

You're equating Anarchy to chaos. These two things are not equals.

JeffS wrote: With disorder, someone is going to capitalize. Likely not with good motives. Skilled social planners with some level of focus on the betterment of mankind aren't likely to be anarchists. Neither are opportunists. However, the oportunist will take advantage of a situation, ala the Ayatollah. This is not a good thing. For that matter, Iraqi war detractors could claim that the chaos in Iraq hardly qualifies as good. Many of you have. Venzuala, same story. Without a thoughtful plan, the end result is often just not good.

You're not arguing against Anarchy, you're arguing against chaos.

JeffS wrote: What's the point?

Liberty.

JeffS wrote: The anarchic concept is a youthful ideal that some kind of disorder is good for society. In reality, it just an easy way to go and pretend that what your doing has some level of benefit for society.

Hardly. Society isn't the issue, the individual is.

JeffS wrote: Disrupting peoples lives in the relative execution of anarchy suggest only creates problems for what is really an easy way to go.

Nothing is "executed", the change is that government is executed. (Sorry for the ban pun.)

[SeamushMacEoghain]

LetsGetReal Wrote:
Quote: So your telling me that one of the major tenets of Anarchism isn't freedom from Social Contracts?

Freedom from coercion into social contracts and "freedom" from social contracts are two different things.

FinnMacCool Wrote:
Quote: However, don't you think that in significantly under developed and poor countries where all of them have the common goal of bettering their condition, anarchism can work on a more general scale?

Of course, but were are talking here about much worse conditions. A percentage of people in the states will always believe in the current economic and political system, regardless its failings. There is nothing wrong with this.

But yeah, in an area whose government is completely repulsive, anarchist ideals could definately create something new....but how long can you keep it up over large groups of people or areas before it reverts back?

LostSoul3412 Wrote:
Quote: Then consider it on a global scale.

People can hardly agree as it is now, you can not possibly believe that we can get everyone, of ever culture and class, across the world to agree on stuff. Maybe the basics....

Quote: No one would be forced under anything. Personally, I believe that government will become obsolete in the wake of a free global economy.

Lost we are going to have to choose to agree to disagree because once again your "capitalist" inspired free economy is not considered anarchist, the closest thing is a fair market like purposed by Tucker. Usury....a capitalist tendency....runs contrary to anarchist ideals.

So on that note...those who, for example, liked policy now...would be forced to be a part of something that they did not wish to be under "global" or even national anarchy.

Just as I would not like to live under your "anarcho-capitalism" or you under my mutualism.

Quote: Humanity is stupid. However, humanity is also greedy. That greed causes society to operate beyond the control of government.

I wouldn't say humanity is stupid, nor would I say it is in human nature to be greedy. This is something we will philosophically disagree on.

Greed is an insatiable desire to acquire or to possess more than one needs or deserves. I would say this is a form of artificial human nature, a trait acquired from the society one lives in. We live in a material society, where goods and wealth establishes one position in society. If greed was a part of human nature than regardless the society or cultural one grows up in they would still possess those qualities that are greed. This is not the case.


And for JeffS, really, go read up on a subject before you vomit out a post that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: Of course, but were are talking here about much worse conditions. A percentage of people in the states will always believe in the current economic and political system, regardless its failings. There is nothing wrong with this.
I know. I've never ever expressed that anarchism would definatly work in the United States. In fact, I think even in the most remote circumstance that it actually gains enough followers to raise a revolution, it would not get enough support to function.

Quote:
But yeah, in an area whose government is completely repulsive, anarchist ideals could definately create something new....but how long can you keep it up over large groups of people or areas before it reverts back?
I have no idea and neither does anyone else. There is still much experimentation required.

I just wish JEffs would post a rebuttal because he really pissed me of with his patronizing "criticism" of anarchism.

[SeamushMacEoghain]

Quote: I know. I've never ever expressed that anarchism would definatly work in the United States. In fact, I think even in the most remote circumstance that it actually gains enough followers to raise a revolution, it would not get enough support to function.

Finn, I know you never expressed this. I admire your posts on anarchism because they are realistic and not fuels by pipe dreams of some sort of utopian delirium.


Quote: I have no idea and neither does anyone else. There is still much experimentation required.

Tell that to a large portion of american anarchists, most I have met seem to believe they have it all figured out, this goes along with their calls for revolution.

Quote: I just wish JEffs would post a rebuttal because he really pissed me of with his patronizing "criticism" of anarchism.

Don't get to bent out of shape over it, if you get irritated by everyones patronizing comments on here you will spend a lot of time irritated. :)