Anarchism

Welcome, craig hambo! I hope you enjoy this forum as much as I do.

You said: “unfortunately it is the media which has hijacked the name (‘anarchist’) and misrepresented it to help fuel the fear …”

I have a question. Would you still believe that it was the media that “hijacked the name” if you learned that the term “anarchist” (a) surfaced in 1866 to describe the militant wing of the socialist party and (b) for many years thereafter was commonly applied to the revolutionary socialists and communists? (Would you not think, rather, that the philosophical anarchists who arrived on the scene later on did the hijacking and helped fuel the fear?)


Dewey

We must have some system of governement, even if that means with no easily identified leaders or decision makers. I state this beacause we must have protection from people who seek to dominate others, or threats from forgien powers. And those within the orginization who would not live under the same social contract and wish to disrupt other's liberties and secuity. We don't need some kind of leader/king/president, but a way to make sure we all agree on how we want to co-exist, and a way to enforce that decision. Sadly, I must push that you all must read my paper when I display it on the Forum.

We must have some system of governement, even if that means with no easily identified leaders or decision makers. I state this beacause we must have protection from people who seek to dominate others, or threats from forgien powers.\

I would say that an anarchist's dream is to have the entire world in a state of anarchy so that there would be no foreign powers, but if that is not possible, then at least we would ask that other nations do not invade our Utopia, or we would kill them if they tried.

Dreamshift said: “We don't need some kind of leader/king/president, but a way to make sure we all agree on how we want to co-exist,”

The nearest we can come to a “way to make sure we all agree” is majority voting, is it not? If so, we’re talking about democracies, and if we agree that pure democracies (voting every decision and move) are impracticable, we must have representatives to coordinate and direct the operations so as to achieve our chosen objectives, must we not? These representatives deserve to be called leaders, do they not?

After carefully framing the above questions, I got that all-too-familiar feeling of a nitpicker. I generally agree with your ideas in this and the other threads of this forum. Good luck with the paper!

Dreamshift said: “We don't need some kind of leader/king/president, but a way to make sure we all agree on how we want to co-exist,”

The nearest we can come to a “way to make sure we all agree” is majority voting, is it not? If so, we’re talking about democracies, and if we agree that pure democracies (voting every decision and move) are impracticable, we must have representatives to coordinate and direct the operations so as to achieve our chosen objectives, must we not? These representatives deserve to be called leaders, do they not?

After carefully framing the above questions, I got that all-too-familiar feeling of a nitpicker. I generally agree with your ideas in this and the other threads of this forum. Good luck with the paper!

Maybe we shouldn't coexist maybe if we disagree with each other we should just isolate ourselves from the majority and live in blissful loneliness

Its not impossible, since scientists sent a message from one computer to another, we've been able to make a true Democracy work. it wouldn't be always able to be a complete Democaracy in times of war, etc. But networking and the internet have made it possible for large masses of people to make decisions in a matter of minutes. I cite American Idol: although its sad that its likely that more people voted in that competition than in the last election, we can make lightning fast decisions. We just need to use the infrastructure availible to do so. I've imagined this, but I'm still pounding out the kinks.

Because there so many of us on this world, we need away to organize, this is what government is for. The idea that we could just have people leave us alone, not likely to happen. It didn't work for the British Isles after the Romans left, it won't work for us now. People, mostly men (yes I'm one), have a degree of aggression programed into them. Back when we were spearing dead some mastidon to feed us, it was wonderful. Now that we're trying to put on our business ties, we should mold that aggression into output other than a spear. Not all of us decide that's the best thing to do, and so we must defend ourselves effectively against the spear chuckers. A village might defend itself agianst raiders, it takes a Nation to defend agianst an Army. I'd love it that there weren't any standing armies to attack with, but what's to say that its only us in the universe we need worry about? No, we shouldn't be paranoid about the stars, but at least be cautious.

I'll stop my tangent now.

How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?

How would an anarchist, or communist-anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist community deal with theft, extortion, etc. (like, if someone refused to help others, and just took what they wanted)?

Theft - Well, either (a) you could murder who ever stole from you and fear no retribution from the police, or (b) you could just ask for your property back nicely - there is still such a thing as kindness by the way. or (c) you could hold an investigation and find out who did it and psychologically terrorize them through silent treatment and psychological exile until they feel so lonely that they are coerced into giving back the property.

I think the idea of a mass community murder would deter people from theft/extortion/etc.

i think anarchism is a philosophy that must have an innate belief in the power of individuals to do "good" (i don't know if that's an appropriate word or not). it has to be guarded against pessimists and should be an optimistic philosophy even as it must critisize the worst parts of current society.

the person who cited education as the key was more right than anyone i think. education and action with other people is the best way to raise awareness. the internet is good for this, but practical action, going into the streets is sooooooo important, maybe the most important aspect to enacting change. you can talk to people, get critical about it, and hopefully find someone who agrees or receptive. people get scared about saying what they believe in the open, that's siimply ridiculous. it's the only way you can really know what other people think. or you can hunker down on the keyboard, or write books; either way education of people means interaction with people. that person was right.

that may be hard to swallow for younger anarchists. anarchy is the absence of government, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be executive decisions made by officials. the decisions are made by groups of people representing collectives or regions etc... that have decided through more direct forms of democracy.

there are some other, utopian strands of anarchism; also some violent, militant ones (i.e. defined by their militancy) but i agree with the example of catalonia and collectives in spain to a certain extent.
is all of it possible, ??? i mean, we haven't successfully put socialism into use yet, and anarchism to me is more advanced that socialism. i'd say we have a long way to go in ridding ourselves of aggressive capitalism, so i don't plan on seeing something in my lifetime, at least in north america. don't hold your breath but don't lose hope either!

It is not anarchy that causes chaos but burocracy. I have never sent anyone to war, nor used political and economic force to make huge populations conform. I do not make obscure rules and laws engineered to enable a commercial, capatalist style society, nor do I make a profit from poverty or the destruction of the earth. That I leave to the establishment and those who miss judge the ethos and belief of anarchy. I disagree that education will help, based on the academic framework there is their point of view and the view of those that don't count. You would have to reinstill in all of these individuals a new concept of common sense, unfortunatly that is unlikely to happen because if they ever relised that it is them that cause the chaos then being burocratic in nature they will just make it worse.

Or consider, on the other hand, our prospects in the kinder, gentler environment of the anarchy. We rid ourselves of the government miscreants who served us so poorly. We do the job ourselves when and how as we decide, unhampered by restrictive laws and officials. The anarchists expect that, with this new liberty, all individuals will experience improvement in their human nature. Everyone will be less selfish, more respectful of the human rights of others. That, the anarchists conclude, is how we will more efficiently and harmoniously accomplish our common purposes.


Dewey

Bookchin had several interesting ideas relating to this expectation that indeed a lot of anarchists hold. Much of it has to do with Spain and the Anarchists collectives that sprang up during the Civil War and how these were the result of 60 or so years of cultural, intellectual and social changes in these areas. The point being any anarchist that expects a society where in that great majority of people have lived under a capitalistic republic exclusively their entire lives to even know how to organize themselves if freed from the bonds of capitalism or the state. Years organization independent of either force in effect made the functioning of these collectives under conditions of war at all possible.

Yes, I’ve read about those anarchist collectives in Spain. They worked rather well.. It’s too bad they weren’t allowed to operate longer and in more peaceful circumstances. We would be in a better position to judge anarchism now. It has a noble aim; I wish it could work.

But I can’t shed my doubts. They are many. Here’s just one of them. It concerns leadership.

The literal meaning of the word “anarchy” is “without leader”. An anarchy is a leaderless society. Each and every member of that society counts for one. No one is subject to the authority of any other individual or any group of individuals. Freed of leaders and the coercive pressures they inflict, the people work together and advance their common interests. That’s the theory. And it might be the reality. But not today and not tomorrow and not this century.

I have searched through my personal experiences. Surely, I said to myself, I must have been involved in some significant achievement accomplished cooperatively without leadership. At home? At school? At work? At choir practice? At the football game? At the stores and restaurants? On jury duty? Somewhere?

Nope. In all instances, whether we were two or a hundred, we started out with a leader or instantly cast about until we got one. That’s just what we humans do. We will stop doing it only on the day we become equal – the sad day when we become carbon copies. of each other.

This was about my first doubt. Look for the remaining ones in my next fourteen posts.

Just kidding.

How does a society become anarchist? By general consensous .... which negates the concept of Anarchy

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

The argument defeats itself.

I don't believe that it is possible to overthrow every government in the world and establish the freedom of mankind at once. There is just too many obstacles to overcome. How, then can I as anarchist act in line with my vision? I think that the anarchist must see him/herself as a anarchist in every aspect of life. Every anarchist individual is a vanguard. It is how we act in our daily life. The choices of where we place our money, how we use our influence, what we eat, how we vote, et cetera. I think that a immediate revolutionary introduction of anarchy would be almost impossible to implement. An anarchist have to work more subversive than so. Every person has a talent. Use that talent and act against the mainstream. If you are talented in painting, then paint. If you are talented in singing, then sing. And if you are talented in programming, then use that. As long as you use your talent with awareness and as a subversive act with anarchy as your goal.

REALLY GUYS???

Anarchism [Def]: Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose

You can't use anarchy as a guiding principle in life if its philosophy is to not adhere to a principle.

It's really, very simple.

Oh, and what the last poster is talking about, I think, sounds more like Libertarianism.