Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by StudentType
The anarchists I’ve met and seen in the U.S. have pretty much destroyed everything they touched. Just for grins and giggles it seems.
And their compelling alternatives? They had none. But they insisted that “The Man or TPTB” were keeping them down and had to go. They wanted change, but everyone had a different idea on what should be changed.
Personally, I think that they were keeping themselves down. What’s the phrase…”Useful Idiots”.
edit on 21-4-2013 by TDawgRex because: coffee
Originally posted by TheNHK
Anarchists do, in general support the destruction of the state. However, how that will come about is hotly debated. Anarchists of tradition point to "Propaganda of the Deed" often enough, or, actions by small groups or individuals which will inspire and spur the masses into action for revolution.
The destruction of the state is not anarchism. Anarchism is a hypothetical extreme that everyone should work towards. It is extreme libertarianism. Using violence to create a solution is what statists do.
Destruction = violence = statism.
Anarchists don't want a government, but we also carry a very concentrated and historically traditioned idea of what government means. Anarchists are not opposed to a system of community care-taking and living, but just simply the authority of another on having a final say about one's life without their consent. It is fully possible to have a traditional-esque government which operates on a very transparent and validated consent system from the populace which offers valid alternatives for those who do not wish to partake.
Also false. Anarchists don't want rulers and centralized power. A "government"(an extremely libertarian representitive non-violent decentralized government of the people) without rulers(a non-representitive centralized violent coercive government of people) is still libertarian(not anarchism but very close to it).
Anarchists, not necessarily in their theory but in those who I've met (a decent amount) seem to lack a conception of really how to achieve this state and what happens immediately after the revolution.
more statism is the opposite of what we want
Lenin seems better suited for this.
Lenin is a authoritarian statist so no.
Because of this lack of practical solutions to carrying out the revolution, many anarchists take to a more isolated and individualized lifestyle which is in congruence with their values. The only problem being of course, is that their isolation can lead to bitterness and to classist positions of "If everyone else just made the same changes I did, we'd be better off".
We are not coersive like statists are. We don't force people to "change" like statists do
In short, Bakunin warned about states. But Marx rightfully highlighted collective action.
Marx was a statist so no
Originally posted by freedomwv
reply to post by TheNHK
I am a Marxist yet I have not been the biggest supporter of total Anarchism due to the current level of awareness of human society. I would say that society is not ready for Anarchy. I have been pushing for revolutionary state socialism as a stepping stone toward Communism/Anarchy. Anarchist can be very helpful in helping to educate people on how to live and work together without depending on elements outside of their community or group. The best teachers are anarchist because they are more inclined to provide students with an education which will help them to function in a group yet still retain their individual ideas.