Anarchism

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Leftist

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by eboyd
 
Your schema is good but I would posit a break between collectivist/individual at the highest level, and put all the non-individualistic strains together, at least as first, as the OP did.


i'm not sure i know what you mean by this. could you elaborate?


It's just that think when you organize all the "sub-anarchisms," the firstmajor division that comes to mind seems to be "individualist" versus "non-individualist." Most forms of anarchism can be ascribed to one of these two categories, so it seems like a good division to start with.


Organise anarchism? Find and deal with the oxymoron that exists within the collective


Organised anarchism is not anarchism at all, it merely replaces government with governance and in the process erects yet another homogenised construct, open to heirarchical memes and the inevitable corruption that follows. Collective constructs can only really survive if all forms of deviancy are subverted (via curriculum?), or removed. Luckily, the construct barely understands that within it's parameters, all forms of individualism are deviancy and without the individual, the collective cannot exist.




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Haven't had the time to read through all of this, but by skimming it, I am very happy this discussion is occurring. I will be going back over it later.

Thanks for making this thread and getting this discussion going. Too many people equate anarchy with chaos and it is unfortunate. Thanks for your effort in shedding light on this topic, I think this is the best way to approach it.

I personally resonate with the Christian anarchism, however, I am not a Christian. I just think there needs to be some sort of spiritual guide or framework if any kind of anarchy would ever be successful. Anarchy to me has a lot to do with personal responsibility and not relying on ideological systems or power structures to define me or my life.

But, I have to go. Again, many many thanks to the OP and the people of the thread who are engaged in this, it warms my heart to see that people are involved in this discussion, hopefully it will not disintegrate into debate and argument, I guess i'll find out later on when I check back in.

A thousand S&f's from me.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Leftist

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by eboyd
 
Your schema is good but I would posit a break between collectivist/individual at the highest level, and put all the non-individualistic strains together, at least as first, as the OP did.


i'm not sure i know what you mean by this. could you elaborate?


It's just that think when you organize all the "sub-anarchisms," the firstmajor division that comes to mind seems to be "individualist" versus "non-individualist." Most forms of anarchism can be ascribed to one of these two categories, so it seems like a good division to start with.


Organise anarchism? Find and deal with the oxymoron that exists within the collective


Organised anarchism is not anarchism at all, it merely replaces government with governance and in the process erects yet another homogenised construct, open to heirarchical memes and the inevitable corruption that follows. Collective constructs can only really survive if all forms of deviancy are subverted (via curriculum?), or removed. Luckily, the construct barely understands that within it's parameters, all forms of individualism are deviancy and without the individual, the collective cannot exist.


wtf are you talking about?? and when did i ever say anything about collectivism?? i'm an individualist anarchist of the socialist variety.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
Organise anarchism? Find and deal with the oxymoron that exists within the collective


People assume so much, but know so little.

Actually anarchism is a highly organized political system. It is not chaos as in 'anarchy'. You are simply not understanding how and why that term was used.

Originally 'Anarchist' was a derogatory term, in early 1800's Europe, used by the state and the press to demean revolutionary socialists. When the left split between supporters of a state system, Marxists, and a none state system, the socialists who apposed the state started calling themselves anarchists. Later other terms were used like, libertarian, libertarian-socialist etc.


Organised anarchism is not anarchism at all, it merely replaces government with governance and in the process erects yet another homogenised construct, open to heirarchical memes and the inevitable corruption that follows. Collective constructs can only really survive if all forms of deviancy are subverted (via curriculum?), or removed. Luckily, the construct barely understands that within it's parameters, all forms of individualism are deviancy and without the individual, the collective cannot exist.


Yes it is, and no it doesn't. Anarchist organization is the only way people can appose the system they wish to change. As individuals we have no power, we have to organize, just like the capitalists do. If we don't organise than we can not stop others from organising against us.

Sorry Eboyd but Anarchist individualism, without collectivism, is an oxymoron. Individualism of the people suits capitalism just fine because it keeps us weak, and more easily controlled and exploited. It's when we organize, like the Spanish revolution, the present state can be apposed. We have to both be individuals and collectivist.
Collectivist in order to control production for our needs, and individuals in our private personal lives (no state control over our personal lives, no capitalist control over our labour).

The difference is anarchism is bottom up organization, as apposed to the hierarchical top down control of the state.

“All Liberty is based on Mutual Trust” — Sam Adams


Anarchists disdain the customary use of 'anarchy' to mean 'chaos' or 'complete disorder': for them it signifies the absence of rulers in a self-managed society, more highly organized than the disorganization and chaos of the present.

www.historyandpolicy.org...


"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." [5]

en.wikibooks.org...


Anarchism is committed to confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making from the bottom up. In anarchist organisations the membership play the decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for themselves and manage their own lives directly. Anarchists insist that people must manage their own affairs (individually and collectively) and have both the right and the ability to do so. Only by organising in this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings and unique individuals.

www.davidsheen.com...

edit on 3/28/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry Eboyd but Anarchist individualism, without collectivism, is an oxymoron. Individualism of the people suits capitalism just fine because it keeps us weak, and more easily controlled and exploited. It's when we organize, like the Spanish revolution, the present state can be apposed. We have to both be individuals and collectivist.
Collectivist in order to control production for our needs, and individuals in our private personal lives (no state control over our personal lives, no capitalist control over our labour).


no need to apologize. i agree completely. i call myself an individualist anarchist but unlike others i do not see collectivism and individualism as mutually exclusive. i mentioned that i was an individualist because i feel there is a common misconception that teapot fell into that you cannot hold a belief in individual liberty while also believing in collective organization.

my ideas are a kind of strange amalgamation of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and even Marx and some capitalist ideologies. while i label myself a mutualist because my main goal is to achieve a society that resembles mutualism, i feel that if a communist-like ideal is possible, we should strive for it. i am also devising ideas on how we can utilize the monetary system to make a seamless transition from a mutualist society to a sort of mixed mutualist/communist society and possibly eventually to an all out communist society. it sounds kind of weird when i describe it like this but when you see the actual logistics of it, i think it makes sense, i just haven't fully formulated it or worked out all the kinks.

i see mutualism, besides some of the extra things Proudhon added on, as only differing from anarchist collectivism in that, in an anarcho-collectivist society all people would labor in a worker cooperative, whereas in mutualism, people would have a choice as to whatever labor arrangement they so choose as long as it is not exploitative (although one would not use force to prevent people from joining into a hierarchical labor relation under their own volition).



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd

Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry Eboyd but Anarchist individualism, without collectivism, is an oxymoron. Individualism of the people suits capitalism just fine because it keeps us weak, and more easily controlled and exploited. It's when we organize, like the Spanish revolution, the present state can be apposed. We have to both be individuals and collectivist.
Collectivist in order to control production for our needs, and individuals in our private personal lives (no state control over our personal lives, no capitalist control over our labour).


no need to apologize. i agree completely. i call myself an individualist anarchist but unlike others i do not see collectivism and individualism as mutually exclusive.


Me neither! Though I do prefer consensus to collectivism. Less submissive.



i mentioned that i was an individualist because i feel there is a common misconception that teapot fell into that you cannot hold a belief in individual liberty while also believing in collective organization.


The thing I do not believe in is incorruptability and that is why I cannot accept the idea of any form of systemic or constructed governance.


while i label myself a mutualist


Dispense with the labels! You are a man, male or female! Why let your politics define you?


because my main goal is to achieve a society that resembles mutualism, i feel that if a communist-like ideal is possible, we should strive for it. i am also devising ideas on how we can utilize the monetary system to make a seamless transition from a mutualist society to a sort of mixed mutualist/communist society and possibly eventually to an all out communist society. it sounds kind of weird when i describe it like this but when you see the actual logistics of it, i think it makes sense, i just haven't fully formulated it or worked out all the kinks.

i see mutualism, besides some of the extra things Proudhon added on, as only differing from anarchist collectivism in that, in an anarcho-collectivist society all people would labor in a worker cooperative, whereas in mutualism, people would have a choice as to whatever labor arrangement they so choose as long as it is not exploitative (although one would not use force to prevent people from joining into a hierarchical labor relation under their own volition).


Wouldn't that need a lot of rules and restrictions and government to oversee it?



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by teapotMe neither! Though I do prefer consensus to collectivism. Less submissive.


consensus in a decision making process is far superior to simple voting, absolutely (i think this is what you are referring to), but when i say "collectivism" i simply mean the idea of a group of people coming together to make a decision, rather than a decision being imposed by a portion of that group on the entire group without the consent of some of the group's members. collectivism can include any or even all of a plethora of decision making processes including consensus, and in fact most collectives that i am aware of using consensus decision making.


The thing I do not believe in is incorruptability and that is why I cannot accept the idea of any form of systemic or constructed governance.


what do you mean by "governance"? i mean, let's be real, Homesteading isn't for everyone. if it was, and everyone was ok with living in complete isolation from one another, the entire world could run without "governance" (at least by my personal definition), but the issue is that this is unrealistic and there are probably thousands of reasons as to why if we did live in complete isolation, our species would have died off in a matter of decades. any time you live in a group, whether that group consists of 10 or 10 million, there needs to be some decision making processes that occur within that group to ensure that things run properly. this is what i think of when one uses the term governance. i do not oppose governance by that meaning as in any society, such is inevitable. you cannot sustain civilization without it. that doesn't mean that we would need to have hierarchy or people making decisions for others who have no say. i propose that we run our societies from the local level outward, giving individuals decision making power to the degree that decision effects them.


Dispense with the labels! You are a man, male or female! Why let your politics define you?


because when i'm in a discussion with an individual or group that understands the terms i use, it is often much easier to say "i'm this" and give them an idea of what i believe than to go into a long, drawn out diatribe to explain my political affiliation. "mutualism" is a term that adequately describes my economic philosophy and draws some vague ideas as to my political philosophy, so therefore i have no reason to rebuke the title, especially when speaking to ANOK who understands generally what that term means.


Wouldn't that need a lot of rules and restrictions and government to oversee it?


not in a decentralized society where everything operates from the local level outward. each community having complete autonomy over itself, individuals can decide on things in general assemblies which are run completely democratically based on the principle that everyone has a say proportional to how much the decision effects them. what rules and restrictions would be necessary for this? (i'd go into detail about how such a system would work, but it would take me a whole book to explain, and believe me, i am planning on writing a book about it, but it isn't going to happen overnight).



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd
no need to apologize. i agree completely. i call myself an individualist anarchist but unlike others i do not see collectivism and individualism as mutually exclusive. i mentioned that i was an individualist because i feel there is a common misconception that teapot fell into that you cannot hold a belief in individual liberty while also believing in collective organization.


OK thanks for clearing that up, you position on it makes more sense to me know.


my ideas are a kind of strange amalgamation of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and even Marx and some capitalist ideologies. while i label myself a mutualist because my main goal is to achieve a society that resembles mutualism, i feel that if a communist-like ideal is possible, we should strive for it. i am also devising ideas on how we can utilize the monetary system to make a seamless transition from a mutualist society to a sort of mixed mutualist/communist society and possibly eventually to an all out communist society. it sounds kind of weird when i describe it like this but when you see the actual logistics of it, i think it makes sense, i just haven't fully formulated it or worked out all the kinks.

i see mutualism, besides some of the extra things Proudhon added on, as only differing from anarchist collectivism in that, in an anarcho-collectivist society all people would labor in a worker cooperative, whereas in mutualism, people would have a choice as to whatever labor arrangement they so choose as long as it is not exploitative (although one would not use force to prevent people from joining into a hierarchical labor relation under their own volition).


That's not a bad term. Funny but lately after all this debate we've had these few weeks I am begging to question where I actually stand. I was at one time a firm anarchist, but I think I am becoming more of a Marxist, as in I believe more now in a transitional period before the ultimate goal of 'mutual association'. Our society isn't ready for radical change, and I don't it well ever be without being eased into it.

Like you though I guess my beliefs are a mix of all left ideologies, I would prefer any kind of socialism to capitalism. I guess it's not good to get stuck in dogma, we should always be prepared to change our minds if something better is presented. One thing capitalism is highly apposed to. I mean the whole idea of the left is changing to a better system. If something better than socialism is found, then hey I'd be for it.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOKThat's not a bad term. Funny but lately after all this debate we've had these few weeks I am begging to question where I actually stand. I was at one time a firm anarchist, but I think I am becoming more of a Marxist, as in I believe more now in a transitional period before the ultimate goal of 'mutual association'. Our society isn't ready for radical change, and I don't it well ever be without being eased into it.

Like you though I guess my beliefs are a mix of all left ideologies, I would prefer any kind of socialism to capitalism. I guess it's not good to get stuck in dogma, we should always be prepared to change our minds if something better is presented. One thing capitalism is highly apposed to. I mean the whole idea of the left is changing to a better system. If something better than socialism is found, then hey I'd be for it.


agreed completely. the idea of Marxism has been making more sense to me lately as well but it all seems to fall apart when you consider the dogmatism with which Marx and his followers seem to shun all criticism of their ideas. try telling a Marxist you agree there needs to be a transition period, but then explain my proposed transition and they talk about how ridiculous it sounds and how it will never work but instead promote Vanguard parties and all sorts of extremely authoritarian ideas that will basically amount to a form of state socialism equivalent to that of the existing "socialism" we've seen throughout the world (often going as far as to support countries like Cuba where domestic atrocities have been committed in the name of Castroism). to be fair though, many anarchists, especially anarcho-communists, can be just as dogmatic. you bring to light an idea like mine and they already have it in their mind that i am dead wrong before even hearing what i have to say and their main excuse often involves some kind of fantasy in which the day we transition to such a society we will immediately produce an abundance of resources and so my proposed transition is "unnecessary" and will somehow lead to the same issues that existing Marxist models had (this was basically what i got from libcom).



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Alright.... disclaimer:

I am not in the business of defining terms in this discussion. Abstractions that we use in discussions like these tend to become the topic of the discussion. It is a waste. Let's keep the abstractions away.

I leave it at that.

_____________________________________________________________

I would argue that all anarchists share the same basic principles of non-aggression and volunteer association (and I will bullet the items for those that are skimming).

- Instigating force and the use of coercion is ethically wrong

- Volunteer association



Within these principles we can see that the ideas of freedom, self-sufficiency, mutual aid, rational self-interest, self-ownership, and many others come to the forefront. While other ideas like exploitation, slavery, taxation, parent-like social control, censorship, regulation, social castes, imprisonment, institutional theft, corruption, and many other things disappear.

If all anarchists can mutually get behind these two things, we may be able to make a difference. All the other prefixes people add to anarchist are distractions.


Instead of being anti-state, and saying we are going to take down the state/capitalism/so-on-so-forth why don't we just hold to our axioms and say stuff like "I want to create a society where people are free to associate with each other without threat and coercion".

As for all the details we like to bicker about in forums like these, we can figure that out when we get there, and if all parties follow these principles it will be done fairly and without violence.

I predict an anarchist society will be a hybrid of all different types of anarchism working together, or not if they so choose



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


I think all the definitions are part of the reason some people just avoid the idea of anarchy all together. It can come across as way too complicated, when really it is probably the most simple political ideology of them all, it is in my mind at least, and that is the beauty of it.

I agree, if such a state were to ever exist, it would be a blend of the many sub groups because it would be whatever we wanted it to be. There is room for more than one fixed ideology....if anything such ideologies would eventually not even be necessary, it would just be whatever worked for the various groups.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mijamija
 


Exactly, well put.

The idea of the left as a whole is change, not being stuck in the same system until it stagnates, and becomes corrupt.

The original definition of 'left-wing' was those who were against the state system, and wanted change, those on the right were state-interventionists, they wanted state intervention in the economy.

Those terms have been twisted to mean the opposite of their original meanings.

You now have right wing libertarians, a complete oxymoron. Even the term 'libertarian' was a left wing term, used in place of the term Anarchism. This is why we have libertarian socialism (anarcho-socialism). You have people who claim the left is for big government. If you want big government you are not left-wing.

This all happened because after WWII destroyed the power of the working class, the world turned sharply to the right. It is the 'right' that has appropriated left wing terms for their own agenda. Government is by definition right wing, there really is no 'left-wing' government (even the Marxist state-socialism was temporary, communism being ultimately anarchist (free association)). The ultimate goal of the left is the same for all it's forms, 'free-association'.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

150 years of Libertarian


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

The left needs to re-appropriate these terms.

edit on 3/30/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
edit on 3/30/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie takeover Harry



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




The left needs to re-appropriate these terms.


I think the terms are what is ailing anarchy as a whole. Reject abstractions like these. We are not going to be slaves to language.

When getting the word out:

-Reject all confusing labels.
-Promote the ideology, not the names and labels.
-The difference between an anarcho-socialists and free market anarchists is as trivial as sexual preference, be friends.
-The greatest philosopher is not an authority
-Do not use anecdotal evidence
-Stand on the moral principles of freedom of association and freedom from aggression.
-Call into question the status quo.
-Work together, mutual aid is in our rational self-interest. (see what I did there?)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


Sorry but if people don't understand the terms, then how can they understand what is wrong, and what needs to be done?

It's because of the misunderstanding of terms we get ideas that would never work, capitalism with small or no government, or rejecting of systems that would work, socialism (in all its forms).

We only have three choices, private (capitalism), government (nationalism), or worker (socialism) ownership of the means of production. They all need to be understood before any change can ever happen, otherwise it will continue to be confusion and chaos.

It's easy to be against something, but you also need to understand what to replace it with.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Sorry its been a while. I was planning a big post but I needed help editing it and my BF was away for work. Anyway, this thread has moved away from the original idea, and I think that is OK because you people have taken it in a more interesting direction. So I think we should just let it flow in the direction it needs to flow in, based on people's interests.

The scheme of subdiving anarchy into all kinds of little categories is obviously imperfect and flawed, as we can see in this thread. It is important to remember that these variations of anarchy all have the same goal – the goal of a self-organizing society without a central government. The major differences between them are in terms of strategy and tactics rather than goals.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by ANOK
 




The left needs to re-appropriate these terms.


I think the terms are what is ailing anarchy as a whole. Reject abstractions like these. We are not going to be slaves to language.

When getting the word out:

-Reject all confusing labels.
-Promote the ideology, not the names and labels.
-The difference between an anarcho-socialists and free market anarchists is as trivial as sexual preference, be friends.
-The greatest philosopher is not an authority
-Do not use anecdotal evidence
-Stand on the moral principles of freedom of association and freedom from aggression.
-Call into question the status quo.
-Work together, mutual aid is in our rational self-interest. (see what I did there?)


i understand this, but i feel it is important to note that capitalism is, by definition, a system of oppression. allegiance between anarchist and "anarcho"-capitalists is futile as they are diametrically opposed.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd
i understand this, but i feel it is important to note that capitalism is, by definition, a system of oppression. allegiance between anarchist and "anarcho"-capitalists is futile as they are diametrically opposed.


Ultimately, I agree completely.

However, what about an "alliance of convenience" ? You know, like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ?



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentThundersGF
 


What would be the point?

The ultimate goal of anarchism, as all left wing ideologies, is 'free association'.

If you support capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production you're not an anarchists in the traditional left wing sense, so there is no commonality to have any shared interests.

There is no shared interest in dissolving the state if you want to maintain private ownership. While there is private ownership we have to have government/state. Without the government private owners would be the state, as they mostly are now, but with no laws to protect the workers.

It would revert all the gains made by the left, that you enjoy, back to the industrial revolution.

While we have capitalist economy government is a necessary evil. The only way we can have no state system is when the workers own the means of production. When the workers can gain the full fruits of their labour.

Government, per se, is not the problem, capitalism is.

Anarcho-capitalists are just confused about what capitalism is, well and anarchism. Anarchism does not simply mean no-government and capitalism is not free-markets. Anarchism was, and is, a form of socialism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" Mikhail Bakunin.

Anarcho-capitalism would be privilege and injustice.



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hmmm. Yes, I see your point. We always need "warm bodies" in marches though. If they want to join in an action, I would not turn them away.

But in the end you are correct because the final goals cannot match.

Another strange variety of anarchism I have trouble processing is the so-called National Anarchism. How can we be both anarchists and nationalists? It makes no sense to me. It's like saying, "black whitness" lol

It seems sometimes people want to "have their cake and eat it too."





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join