Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Anarchism (Left Wing)

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 1:14 a.m. EST by wbhyatt (73)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Okay, i've noticed that sooooo many people don't know what Anarchy means and what it doesn't. This article looks to define Anarchy as a GENERAL movement, specifics can be saved for later through individual research, etc.

The common misunderstanding given by the media is that Anarchism means "chaos" or "no rules." This is not true. Anarchists envision a stateless, classless society where individuals rule themselves and work together on a community-wide basis for a better life for all. Free from rule.

Anarchism is NOT a right wing principle. All of the major Anarchist thinkers (Proudhoun, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman) HATED capitalism. Therefore, right-wing libertarianism has NO connection to Anarchy, which is contrary to popular belief. Most Anarchists are indeed SOCIALISTS. Now you may be wondering how? Okay lets look deeper.

Socialism is defined as the cooperative ownership of property and the means of production. True socialism is moneyless and classless, and the workers work together to produce their goods. This means they do NOT have a boss in the workforce commanding them what to do. The USSR and Chinese governments were never socialist, they only called themselves socialist. The reason "socialism" has become such a bad word to use is due to anti-propaganda (especially FOX news), as well as misinterpretations on a general basis. Remember, socialism is an economic theory, it says NOTHING of how to structure the size of a government, just how to create and distribute goods.

Now, since most of the readers here are indeed left-wing, don't be turned off to Anarchism, since its ON YOUR SIDE. The thing people need to realize is that Anarchism means "no rulers" NOT just "no government."

Based on this definition --> anarchists HATE capitalism because it is a system of hierarchies and rule. There is a hierarchy between worker and employee and there is a hierarchy between the different class systems. They also hate "the state" since it infringes upon freedom, and the people should rule themselves, not get people to rule for them.

Anarchists envision a Utopian society free from money, coercion, and rulers. Direct democracy is their preferred decision maker. Representative democracy does not fly in an Anarchist society. People work together along a horizontal axis where no one person has power over another.

In summation: Anarchy is like socialism WITHOUT government; therefore, it opposes big business, and capitalism altogether (which is a form of power). Anarchy means "without rulers" not chaos. The power is in the people and no one person is ruled by another. The society is extremely egalitarian and friendly. Anarchism is LEFT WING.

Sources: (any knowledgeable anarchist) -Peter Kropotkin -Emma Goldman -Mikhail Bakunin -Noam Chomsky -Murray Bookchin -Errico Malatesta

All these people were Anarchists, which is synonymous to "Libertarian Socialist"

I must admit, however, that the Anarchist movement is vast and covers a wide range of beliefs. The ones I am focusing on (and the ones that are by far the most popular and successful throughout history) are as followed:

Anarcho-communism, Libertarian Socialism, Social Anarchy, Anarcho-Syndicalism

They can be viewed as somewhat synonymous, as much of their principles are interwoven. Pages to each are given below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Other types of subgenres of Anarchy include Green Anarchism, which focuses on the environmental movement and Anarcha-Feminism, which focuses on feminism and the fight against patriarchy. This only touches the surface and much of the Anarchist reading and thought must be done through individual reading.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

142 Comments

142 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i wish more people knew about this. it would clear up a LOT of confusion haha

[-] 2 points by sato (148) 8 years ago

sadly people talk without getting educated first

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

rofl

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Actually, while they sometimes converge on tactics and strategy and generally share a common economic analysis, most anarchists would most strenuously deny that they are socialists. Libertarian socialism holds a position somewhere between revolutionary democratic socialism to its right and anarcho-syndicalism to its left. Anarcho-communism is to the left of anarcho-syndicalism. I wouldn't say they are interwoven, they are distinct political tendencies, though to the pro-capitalist I expect they appear indistinguishable.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yeah, i see you. i've always viewed libertarian socialism as encompassing all the leftist views of Anarchism. that's just how i view it, though

[-] 2 points by robanite (5) from Jersey City, NJ 8 years ago

Self-described anarchist killed President McKinley in Buffalo in 1901.

[-] 2 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

Ah, I get it now, the Sex Pistols.

[-] 2 points by bentshot (1) 8 years ago

great article. people really need to read this one. when i try to explain Anarchism to people i usually lose them when they hear the world "socialism" because they don't know what it means. It's very frustrating. Kropotkin and Bakunin were the guys. Hell of a read

[-] 2 points by jugalpatel803 (1) 8 years ago

Finally.. someone who knows what they're talking about.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

Thank you, more people need to be taught what all these terms mean. Not the propaganda or media versions

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Nice post.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Most of the world was anarchist until Europeans and Asians screwed it up.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

agreed. the Native Americans knew what they were doing

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Evidence of that accusation please?

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

"True socialism is moneyless and classless, and the workers work together to produce their goods."

I think Socialism is working toward the common good of the culture, where as Anarchism is freedom to make your own decisions.

Thus; Anarchy is a right-wing philosophy. Small Government, free market.

[-] 0 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

this isn't true. anarchism originated as a socialist doctrine. they see capitalism as a negative force since it creates a hierarchy or "rulership" between the boss (the capital lender) and the employee (the one who needs capital)

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Yes, on a voluntary direction. Having a social "common good" would require a chain of command as well. It's the inevitable result of human-structure.

An open capitalist society gives people the ability to walk away from their employers, start their own business, or create a product or brand around their individual abilities. You don't require a boss, but some people are not well adapted to leadership or self direction. They will follow.

[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

actually capitalism's premise is centered around boss/worker relations. one lends capital and one receives capital for a living. you can say that the contract between a boss and employer is "voluntary" but there will always be those that need capital to survive, thus an indirect source of coercion

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Capitalism is a poorly defined system. It's premise centres around investment and healthy competition to keep prices low. You can divide the shares of a company among the employees based on tenure, or purely equally. You can also have a democratically elected figurehead.

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

"There is no consensus on the precise definition nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets and wage labor."

Just because you want a boss, doesn't mean everyone in the world is going to run a business following the classical formula. It's an anarchy, there are no definitions.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

"include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit, the accumulation of capital, competitive markets and wage labor." ~ every single one of those attributes is either a power structure or means of coercion, and can lead to gross exploitation. the point of anarchy is to get rid of the structures that allow people to rule

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Private ownership can be divided amongst those who work there, again, the company decides how it functions, and if people are free to do the job they want. That being said, people aren't born equally. Some will excel in some areas, and other's will not. Creating goods or services is something that people do anyway. Profit is a form of trade, and a result of productivity. Accumulation of capital will related to investment, abundance of supplies, the ability to provide loans in materials or alternate capital and obtaining material possessions. Competitive markets mean anyone has the right to compete. Wage labour is a form of trade; where you can assist someone rather than act alone.

Being born into a family is a hierarchy. That's like saying we should eliminate family business because it's a hierarchy. Children are born free and should be separated from their parents at birth.

You can't eliminate hierarchies. It's engraved into our genetics. A socialist-based anarchy will lead to the same issues, but on a larger scale. The society will be ruled by fear of violence, and those with the means of enforcement will rule. You cannot compete with "The Social Good", because once defined, the defend of this idea will remain in power. Macro management.

Open capitalism will lead to micromanagement, and a lot more freedom to travel or leave at will. Business can provide on-site healthcare, education, day care. Whatever people want. Hoarding capital won't be of as much importance to anyone, because political stability and fluctuation in taxes are not issues.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

one could argue that everyone IS born equally, but differently at the same time. no one human is worth more, more human than another. just because we are different does not make us unequal. see the difference? you cant actually say "so and so will create a better society" since we don't havea full grasp of human nature. with the right education, anything is possible in the human species. anarchy, as a social phenomenon, is anti hierarchy, which is why so many anarchists discredit anarcho capitalism

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Yeah, but education is a hierarchy. Implementing capitalism into anarchy is going to happen either way. Capitalists won't stop being capitalists because they exist in an anarchic society, just as socialists won't stop being socialists because they live in an anarchic society.

Anything is not possible. We are limited to being human. We can't think beyond the physical limits of our mind, just as we can't travel faster than the limits of our body, or live longer than the limits of our genetics.

We have existed for at least 50,000 years in the current form. Politics play no role in our advancement. The question is, is Government playing a beneficial role to our society, or is it just holding people back and creating conflict?

Dreaming of Utopia won't make it so. I believe in something that's possible, and potentially in our future if Governments continue to mismanage societies.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OWS4President (32) 8 years ago

Right from the get go you sound like me circa 15 yrs ago. How adorable.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i like how you're talking down to me. too bad you lost that youthful imagination :/

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 8 years ago

Anarchism would be fine if people weren't self centered, greedy etc etc.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i agree. it would be the absolute Utopian society: egalitarian, stateless, and ruler-less

[-] 1 points by maybenot (5) 8 years ago

what is the difference between utopia and autocracy?

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 8 years ago

except thats not possible because by the laws of nature, there are leaders and followers. families have hierarchy, animals have hierarchy, everything does. humans are the worst. at the core we are greedy wasteful creatures. without a state to govern the people then there would in fact be chaos. in anarchy, if i wanted your car, i would take it. because 1: whose going to stop me, and 2: i have an SKS and im willing to bet that you don't. utopia is flawed as a concept

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Anarchists don't believe in private property.

Cars come and go.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 8 years ago

well whatever you have i can take. utopia is impossible.

[-] 1 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

I would agree that Emma Goldman is an anarchist, but Chomsky is a status-quo ELITIST. An anarchist doesn't feed at the fucking DOD Pig Trough. Emma Goldman spent most her life in prison for sedition, because she advocated for the poor. She hated all forms of Government. Chomsky is only a ideological voice for the Zionist Left.

He worked for DARPA in the 1950's and led the computational linguistic team and developed what would later be what we call 'computer languages'. He's tenured MIT professor on a DARPA pension.

He's part of the oligarchy, but he keeps them honest, I love to read him too.

Anybody here know about Carrol Quigley? Now that was the man who knew everything, and he put Bill Clinton into power at Georgetown where Quigley ran the history department for future CIA.

Anybody that wants to learn REAL USA HISTORY, get Carrol Quigleys books, all of them if you can.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yeah i have some frustrations about Chomsky as well, but he's one hell of an intellectual, although sometimes he's "meh" haha

[-] 1 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

Agree to disagree,

I hate Socialism, and you hate Anarchism, but they're NOT same-same

My anarchism hates GOVERNMENT, and your socialism love government

Some fuck-heads early on said that OWS was anarchism, but in fact OWS is 100% national-socialism.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

this is not true. socialism and anarchy can encompass the same doctrine. most anarchists are indeed socialists, but they believe in socialism without a government ya know? and i love anarchism. i'm an anarchist. but i'm also a socialist. and Emma Goldman was also a socialist... and an Anarchist. socialism is merely an economic theory

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

Your socialism is OWS socialism which is NAZISM,

My anarchism is living in the jungle in a commune with no more than 100 people 100% self-sufficient.

fuck your government and we don't need your pigs or your welfare checks or your teachers, or your prison guards or any of your new world order socialist shit,

Anarchists for Uptopia !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by thepistolet (28) 8 years ago

Have you ever tried living collectively? I have, and it was not utopia.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i agree.. when have i not agreed with this? every single thing i've said has supported this.....

[-] 1 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

Nope I completely disagree, not so much that you have discredited 'socialism' but that your discrediting anarchism, and I am an anarchist.

National Socialism is NAZISM, which left&right hold vile, but brought to power by the right, but embraced to power by the left, they only went right after taking power but prior to taking power HITLER was loved by the kids of 1920's Germany. The Swastika was taken from China where it means "Lay in Peace", its a Peace, funny how its been transformed.

The government of IRAQ setup by the CIA, and having put Saddam Hussein in power was socialist.

Virtually EVERY fascism government is socialism, controlled by the corporation ran by the GOVERNMENT

Anarchism means NO FUCKING GOVERNMENT.

Liberalism meant liberty, Conservatism meant to conserve freedoms, all have been co-opted to mean EVIL. Long ago 'anarchism' was co-opted to mean chaos without the fine rule of the Sodomists we today call US law enforcement.

My idea of an UPTOPIA is pure anarchism, in which there is no spy state, no police state, and no fucking government or corporate socialism.

[-] 3 points by OWS4President (32) 8 years ago

Your about as historically literate as the average Tea Party whack job. I don't like to involve myself in flaming piss matches but this is outrageous BS!!! the Swastika, as a geometric symbol, has been used on all continents including ancient Europe. Hitler, who was at least as ignorant of other cultures as you are, chose the swastika because it was an ancient tribal Germanic symbol it has zero, zip, nada, to do with the Chinese, by which I assume you mean Buddhist, symbol.

Next: Democratic socialist states are the most economically, culturally, advanced states in the world as evidenced by their high standards of living and tolerant pluralist cultures. Every one of the nations with the top 5 highest standard of living are democratic socialist nations, and all are exceptionally tolerant relative to the US and other pseudo-democracies as far as attitudes towards sex, sexual orientation, and religion. Any so called "anarchist" who uses failed totalitarian states like the USSR or Iraq as an example of "Socialism" has been duped by decades of corporate propaganda and really has no clue what socialism actually is, even if they are a so called "anarchist" (and most anarchists are libertarian socialists so I'm not sure what "anarchists" you are talking to). Even the nations I used as examples are merely semi-socialist as socialism requires that the means of production be transferred directly to the hands of the workers, not indirectly through the state, even if the state is run democratically.

Needless to say, the idea that socialism is in anyway inherently fascist is absurd BS and a sad reminder of just how much a century of right wing corporate propaganda has twisted our collective reality.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

you are one enlightened cat. keep it up :)

[-] 1 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

All over china you can find cemetery's with the swaztika, I speak chinese, and it literally means 'rest in peace'

Yes all of Asia has long used the symbol,

Hitler was really quite crazy about Asian Symbolism in this sense the First Indiana Jones Movie about Hitlers obsession with occult was quite true.

National-Socialism "NAZISM" just stating the facts.

Hitler embraced the Swastika to appeal to German youth because it was cool.

Get off your ass and go travel in the world, and you'll see the Swaztika all over the place, it was NEVER an evil symbol until Hitler.

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

Yes we have buddhism in all of Asia, and almost all cemetery's have a swastika on tombstones, it means 'rest in peace', its a peace symbol, its cool,

Get over it, ... Hitler turned into something ugly, but in the 1920's europe it was cool.

[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

but the NAZIS were a right wing movement, they distanced themselves quite a lot from the socialists before finally consolidating power, even though the name still says it, doesn't make it true

[-] -1 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

The nazis were a 1920's HIPPY MOVEMENT just like OWS is now, ... please study history, HITLER was brought to power by the youth movement, he didn't go wacko right until way late, .. but secretly from day-one he was funded by RIGHT-WING ameriKKKan tycoons, .. Bush, Ford, and Hearst.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

More like the "Young Republicans", than hippies.

[-] 1 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

Nobody wants to study, everybody likes to think the 1960's USA invented that shit, nobody understands that 1920's Germany was all about hippy shit and symbols and eastern religion, that Herman Hesse was the NUMBER one author of that era, ... he wrote books still popular to hippys in the 1960's, but he wrote in the 1910's. He wrote all about Indian mysticism and sufism and all kinds of hippy shit, and HITLER ate that shit as well, cuz it was cool.

Here is the essential reminder ALL dictators come to power by first mind fucking the kids, OWS is such a movement, This is why every nut-job is trying co-opt OWS

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

One difference; Hippies were anti-war.

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

1920's German hippy's came out of WWI, they pledge NO WAR FOREVER ...

1960's American Hippy's were terrified of the draft, they feared their scrawny white ass be harmed

Both hippys in both generations were anti-war

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

how were they a hippie movement? NAZIS didnt believe in peace, egalitarianism, or freedom for all... you're losing your ethos...

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

Why do you do this? Read the fucking book "rise and fall of 3rd reich' by shirer on amazon.com, What the fuck do you think the swastika meant?

Hitler was a fucking eastern-religious hippy in youth the 1920's germany was a hippy movement the swastika was a peace sign, to this day go anywhere in China at old cemeterys and you'll see it everywhere its a fucking peace sign.

Why do you have to piss me off and explain everything?

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

youre mixing up what the roots were and what became of the movement. stop taking it so offensively. just because they started off that way doesn't mean they ended up that way. we're debating two different things

[-] -1 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

You really don't know shit about German history, ever read Herman Hesse it was a hippy movement and he wrote dozens of great books loved by hippy's. The majority of post WWI german youth went sex&love, just like USA kids did during the vietnam war, It was in this anti-war mood that HITLER with the money from BUSH/HEARST/FORD came to power. You can play all these fucking games, but you really need to go back and read some books and learn something about history.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i feel like this argument is silly now. what's your point?

[-] 1 points by thepistolet (28) 8 years ago

To me, the point is that in the U.S., we think of education as something that comes from the outside. A teacher gives information and a student receives (or is a receptacle). In fact, this relationship is usually one of the first hierarchies a child experiences after the original hierarchal structure of the family. There is a formal structure (school with its complex power dynamics) and learning comes by way of assignments, which a student is obligated to complete. At a certain age, though, we learn (hopefully!) that we can also educate ourselves, and eventually we will need to do so (because we will leave the formal structure at some point, even if that is only after graduate school). We do this through reading, research, conversation, experience, trial and error. We do it by finding people who know what we'd like to know and asking them questions. (That's what I'm doing here anyway.)

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by maybenot (5) 8 years ago

there's a difference between community and the idealistic spectre of "public good". freedom and responsibility are intrinsically connected.

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

When I hear neo-con I think Nazi.

When I hear neo-lib I don't know what to think.

But its irrelevant, because both the DEM&PUG are owned by same partys, and there is ONLY one goldman-sachs, and they hire libs&cons, it don't matter as long as you can help steal.

LEFT&RIGHT don't mean shit

In my mind the NEO- ... is just code word for Imperialism and rule the world, for a long time the USA debate was about 'america first' or turning inside, and protecting our border, then with globalism came the desire to rule the world.

But there is no left or right, or top or bottom, there is ONLY corruption.

Lastly I say FUCK YOU to you people who don't know what LIBERTY means, or liberalism, ... or libertarian.

I know what liberty means and I know what freedom means.

People like to put neo- on something to destroy it, and gingrich and crowd like to co-opt liberals with their 'progressive' crap, so they have neo- for progressive conservative,...

It's all the same both DEM&PUG partys just want to rob an enslave everybody.

This whole debate about neo- is just to divide and conquer people.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

well good fucking luck,

today there are two kinds of US people the ignorant and smart,

the smart have fled offshore, only remaining now are the ignorant, that is why the USA now will collapse and rather quickly

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yes i agree that all the "socialist" governments have been fascists. you're missing my point. Socialism doesn't have to be fascist. and all the great anarchists said this exact thing. they advocated "libertarian socialism"

[-] 1 points by OWS4President (32) 8 years ago

irsfaggot and wbhyatt, WTF!?!?!

"The nazis were a 1920's HIPPY MOVEMENT" Yeah, because everybody knows how much the brown shirts loved their ganja and how much the hippies loved to club pacifists in the head. What planet are you from???

"yes i agree that all the "socialist" governments have been fascists." Yeah, that's why there are so many refugees fleeing the fascist tyrannies of Scandinavia. Oh the humanity!

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i meant fascist in the sense of "authoritarian" here not necessarily the blend of government and corporatism, which is what it truly means. but yes, you are correct. i meant USSR and China when i said "socialist". and the NAZIS were the furthest thing from a hippie movement i can even imagine haha

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

and crocodiles don't have to eat people, but they always do ...

a long time ago 'libertarian' meant freedom and for me it still does, and I think it does for R o n P a u l, but the OWS-NAZI movement hates libertarians and has destroyed the word, OWS is a front for z i o n i s m

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

a long time ago libertarian meant "social anarchist." i hope you realize that capitalist libertarians stole it from socialist anarchists like 70 years ago haha. this is actually a fact. its on the internet if one feels compelled to not believe me

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

Anarchy in the UK!!!

(j/k)

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 7 years ago

There are many different types of anarchism, most of which imply violent behaviour. Individualist Anarchism is my favourite as it puts the needs of individuals ahead of the community as a single entity.

A good 'anarchist' would oppose socialism with as much vigour as they would capitalism.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 8 years ago

Watch this 7 minute primer on the political spectrum.

If you don't know this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ ...then you don't even know what you're talking about.

[-] 0 points by ImaDreamer (82) 8 years ago

Do a google search for the definition of "anarchy" and this is what you'll find.

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/ Noun:

  1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
  2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Socialism is just about as far from anarchy as one can get, as it requires EVERYONE to cooperate by adhering to rules, and anarchy means having no rules.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

you don't know what socialism is. you just think it's what the media says it is. socialism doesn't NEED government. Anarchism grew out of socialist thinkers... I'm an Anarchist. don't tell us what we don't/ do believe, since it's clear thaty you have no clue. Look up socialism and Anarchism on wikipedia and tell me what you see

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Sheep with no shepherds better watch out for the wolves.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

And there it is. Well said.

[-] 0 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

What about Anarcho-capitalism?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

they're generally hated and disregarded in the anarchist community haha. i just didn't include them because most other anarchists hate them and don't call them anarchists haha

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Haha poor, poor anarcho-capitalists, and also aren't china and the old USSR following the communist guidelines toward utopia in being big government socialism? Isn't socialism, in Marxist terms, the transition period between capitalism and communism where things that would later become obsolete, like money, the military, and the state are kept until perfect communism is acheived?

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yes, Marx regarded socialism as kinda like the transitional state between capitalism and communism. but i mean these are only in Marx's terms. anarchists disagree in that they believe a transition phase is detrimental and not necessary

[-] 2 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Ah I see, thank you for clearing that up for me:)

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

I agree with that philosophy, and argue that I would fit in there. The "anarchist community" may disagree with it, but I don't really think a "community of anarchists" has less to do with anarchism, and more to do with communism.

[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

do you know what anarcho-capitalism entails? or do you just think it sounds good?

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Yes, eliminate the Government (which we don't really need) and allow business to control the context and direction of society. So rather than police; the major corporations in specific cities would essential be paying for security.

It's more or less what I foresee in the future. The end of the State and the open internationally single currency market.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

"The end of the State and the open internationally single currency market."

That's the scariest thing I've read so far o_o

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Corporate wars for resources, corporate defined borders. Yes, it will be scary, but so is the cold war.

Think of it this way. Instead of paying taxes or voting, you buy shares in the political party of your choice, let's say Republican. Owning the shares has certain perks, such as using their healthcare facilities, or driving on their roads.

If you disagree with the way the Republicans are spending your money, such as an illegal war or bailing out other companies, you simply log onto your bank account and transfer your money into another party. If the one particular party get's enough income, they just buy out the current Governments remaining shares and take control.

You wouldn't have to put up with Governments for long if they start breaking any rules. It would take 5 minutes before major investors start pulling out and the Government has been completely replaced. If they make good decisions and the value of your shares goes up, than you will have no reason to dissolve them.

Think about it.

Problem being, those with the most capital will have the most say, as always.

[-] 2 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

that's basically just "rule-by-bussiness" then, i'd rather have no state, and no corporations ruling me haha. the problem with capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned, so the one with the property can do what he or she wants, especially if he/she has a LOT of it, which can be quite destructive. why not have people work together for something instead of sell yourself for money in order to work for a boss to achieve a profit?

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Rule by business will happen regardless. You can't kill currency or trade, it exists and will never be eliminated.

Yes, you can certainly destroy huge plots of land. But there are no courts, no laws, no police, no military. If you are committing a genocide or destroying acres of land, or dumping industrial waste; people aren't going to sit outside your fence and hold hands.

There are no patents, no oil companies control solar. Communities will define their borders.

This is anarchy, not internationally community. If you want to control everything, that's not anarchy. People will solve their own problems.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

if youre really saying this, then you have no idea what anarchy is. in left anarchy people voluntaryily associate along moral principles. since it isn't capitalism, the risk of over exploitation is nullified. you can easily kill currency, trade would be harder, but currency can be killed as easily as i can swat a fly

[-] 2 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

You can kill currency, but you can't kill trade. Currency is just a paper-receipt for something.

If I build a massive secure building, and you bring me famous paintings, I'll give you a receipt for the value of those paintings in Gold. So you can bring that back and get gold, or the paintings.

People will have material possessions. They want cell phones, faster computers and video games. Capitalism, currency and trade have existed since mankind first started agriculture.

People -won't- volunteer for moral principles. If the Government can't afford to pay anyone and dissolves tomorrow, the first thing that will happen, is a few strong militias that are heavily armed will do a resource grab. They will control the area, defend the families inside of it and trade with other groups.

People aren't inherently "good". If you eliminate Governments, taxes and weapon contracts, the world will be a lot safer. Too assume people will not exploit a code of honesty is just foolish. Look at the Black Bloc.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

Black Bloc doesn't advocate private property. They think it is theft that somebody even has it for themselves. That is why they destroy property

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

"Too assume people will not exploit a code of honesty is just foolish. Look at the Black Bloc."

That was my point, and they won't take advantage of your version of communism?

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

they will because they're anarcho-communist...

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 8 years ago

Read the BOOK

"Native American Anarchism"

It's on amazon.com

[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

This author is half correct. The political spectrum is a left/right grid. The further right you go, the less government a society requires. He is correct that Anarchism is a phenomenon on the left. However, the word "anarchy" is also used to describe a far right society void of any governing body. This includes a police force. It goes on the principle that moral code will govern a society.

It's a moot point. Either version will not work in the United States, and has zero chance of ever being enacted. It's an interesting tactic trying to get the liberals to side with the anarchists.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 8 years ago

Misanthropy and idealism don't couple well.

[-] 0 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

anarchists are generally liberal. they're definitely not conservatives haha

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

Exactly. Conservatism is an ideology that is about an inch to the left of anarchy. It has room for a government, police, a military, education etc. It just wants limits.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

throughout history, conservatives have given out the most socially constraining legislation known. however, the left hasn't (minus the USSR) because it values social freedoms and left-wing economics, which, in a capitalist society, requires government regulation

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

no, thats in terms of the modern left/right political paradigm. left and right is merely economic stance NOT size of government. anarchists are generally socialists, so they are grouped with the left

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

This statement doesn't make any sense. Economics drive and fund govt.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

it does make sense, you have to look up the true definitions of capitalism and socialism to see. you can still have an economic system without a government

[-] 2 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

No one works for free, and not everyone will play by the rules. OWS is learning that a "governmentless" society doesn't work. Eventually there must be a governing body. Someone must be appointed to oversea the exchange of currency when revenue is involved. Someone must be appointed to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There are so many societal flaws attached to anarchism.

Our founding fathers understood this. That is why Thomas Jefferson put us an inch left of anarchy(complete lack of govt) The left has been pulling us towards them ever since.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Notice how anarchism is within left wing politics?

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

why do you think OWS is called left wing if its leaderless? this is what i'm saying, you're only viewing left and right as a matter of government size, when its defined by economic style. you can have zero government (theoretically) with either style. every major anarchist except say Murray Rothbard, was a Socialist. They didnt believe in the state and they didnt believe in the power structure of capitalism. and thats what made them left wing

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

And I am not disagreeing with your original post about Anarchism being on the left. I was just saying that the term was also used to describe a far right society. I then commented on trying to get the liberals on board with it seeing how they adore big govt. That's all I was saying. I went on a rant after that. Carry on. :)

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

okay, yeah i agree with you on some aspects. like people think the left/right paradigm means government when either side can have small government ya know? like its possible for either side to have big government. i just wanted to clear that up :)

[-] 1 points by Brandon37 (372) 8 years ago

The problem with all models is that humans are far from perfect. We are hardly the first generation of our species in search of the perfect model for society. :)

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

agreed, although i feel like this is a repeat of the rise of the New Left in the 60s and 70s

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Like.

[-] 0 points by D7ame2Uv (116) 8 years ago

I think there may be some confusion about the left/right paradigm. I was taught that the farthest on left you have the most government control and the least freedom, whereas the farthest on the right you have the least government control and the most freedom. Now I think in reality it probably makes no difference which end is called what, but what is important is to recognize that such a continuum exists, and to consider where within it various societal models might fall. Let's see if we can place them. I'll start. Since the post is about anarchy, I would place that on the on the far end of the least government control and most freedom side. Who would care to place another one?

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

left and right, to me, and to wikipedia, simply means style of economic system. socialism on the left end, capitalism on the right end. Size of government doesn't fall in this paradigm, you are correct. but since anarchists are generally socialists, it can be viewed as a left wing movement, yeah, the left/right paradigm is simply "too old" now

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 8 years ago

Conservatives have always impeded upon freedoms more than liberals or socialists. They are the ones trying to make same-sex marriage illegal for example.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

Incorrect. Anarchy only means the absence of government; i.e. the absence of hierarchy. It means everybody is equal in the sense that there are no leaders. No one is above anyone else. It does not imply socialism, nor does it imply anything else than the lack of hierarchy.

There are different types of anarchies. Some of them like anarcho-communism promote the solving of problems through a community effort. However, there are some types that don't. Individualist-anarchism promotes an anarchy were everyone is equal but minds their own business. In this anarchic framework, people care about themselves before they care about other people and their society.

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

OWS is a specific type of anarchy; anarcho-communism.

"Based on this definition --> anarchists HATE capitalism because it is a system of hierarchies and rule. "

Incorrect. Capitalism is not based on hierarchy. It is an economic system, not a political one. Our political system, a republic, is the framework within which our economic system, capitalism, works in. However, capitalism can work in other political systems.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yes a republic, is indeed a hierarchy. Don't get CAPITALISM mixed up with MARKETS or TRADE. MUTUALISM is a type of socialism that uses FREE MARKETS. but in this type of market, there is no hierarchy

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

There is need to use capped words. I am able to read just fine. Your article was a valiant and much needed effort, unfortunately, in its attempt to clarify certain terms, it only confuses them even more because your definitions are not correct.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

how so? i'd like examples. sorry for the capped words btw. i just got into a habit of doing it haha

[-] 1 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

"Anarchists envision a stateless, classless society where individuals rule themselves and work together on a community-wide basis for a better life for all. Free from rule."

This is not a correct definition of anarchists. Anarchists only envision a system without leaders. Period. Anarcho-communists envision the creation of a leaderless system through community work, while anarcho-individualist envision the creation of a leaderless system through individualism. Both anarcho-communists and anarcho-individualists are anarchists.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i meant that in a general perspective^ but i see your point

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

its an ECONOMIC SYSTEM that is based on HIERARCHIES. Read into economics. Capitalism doesn't exist without hierarchy. I'm not lying to you. This isn't something i'm making up

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

and it literally means "without rulers." the point of the article is to correct the thought that its a right wing principle/ about chaos when history and even contemporary anarchists say it clearly is not. And Capitalism is a type of "hierarchy" which is why generally all types of Anarchism oppose Capitalism since there's a hierarchy between boss and worker, and those with high income and those with little. I linked the same exact wikipedia page you linked. Even most of the individualist anarchists are indeed socialists, or at least anti-capitalist

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

I understand the point of your article. However, by trying to correct the false definition that anarchy = chaos and violence, you create another false definition. If you wish to properly define these terms, you will need to write in a stricter way. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't correct a bad definition with another bad one.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

i haven't made any wrong. Yes, i did generalize in some areas. But almost all anarchists are anti-capitalists and pro-socialists, except a few strands. The BULK of the movement however, is centered around anti-state class struggle. Most Anarchists would also identify with what i have written above

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

Again, the bulk or trend doesn't matter. This is exactly why the true definition of anarchy was corrupted in the first place. The idea that anarchy = chaos came about in places and times when the trend of anarchists was to be violent.

For example, the front de libération du Québec was a violent anarchic group which spread violence throughout the province of Québec in the 1960's. It is the only practical example of an anarchy that Québecquers have ever seen. For them, this represents the bulk of what anarchies are, hence the bad definition.

I salute your effort in clearing up these terms, but I feel you have failed miserably. It would have been much better to stick to solid definitions by first defining anarchy as a lack of hierarchy and then talking about the different types of anarchies like anarcho-communism and individualist-anarchism. Actually, you could have simply linked to a good article which already does it. There are a few.

[-] 1 points by thepistolet (28) 8 years ago

Could you provide links to these good articles?

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

Search the anarchist library, or read the articles on Wikipedia which are quite rigorous in the explanation of anarchy. Google is your friend.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

okay i see your point, and it is valid. but i mean, saying i failed miserably is a pretty poor tag in my opinion. most anarchists would completely agree with what i'm saying here. but yes, i do understand with what you're saying, and i admit i could have done a better job. but socialism and anarchism have always been linked and anarchism has mostly been anti-capitalist. so i mean, i could have mentioned individualist anarchism, but i feel like i would have begun to grow redundant

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

I shouldn't have said you failed miserably. I'm sorry about that. I'll leave your post alone now. Iv'e said my piece/peace. I simply think you should have been clear and precise if your goal was to determine what anarchy is and isn't.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yeah i understand, i'm happy you contributed though for you are right in many respects. thank you.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

yes, but most anarchists are Left Wing or "Libertarian Socialists." I'm being general here.

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

It doesn't matter if most anarchies are Left Wing and based around socialist ideas, your definition is still wrong. Anarchy only means without hierarchy, it doesn't imply socialism in its definition.

"Anarchists envision a stateless, classless society where individuals rule themselves and work together on a community-wide basis for a better life for all. Free from rule."

This statement is not correct. Anarchy alone doesn't mean all this. If you want to write a serious article to help users understand the political terms you bring up, you should stick with the correct definitions. You are simply confusing these terms even more.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

okay i updated it and edited it a little. what do you think? i tried to be a little more clear what i mean

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

and yes, it does mean without hierarchy, which is why it opposes capitalism. if you don't agree that capitalism is a system of hierarchy, you don't know eocnomics. The capitalist (employer) lends out his money to the workers in a business to earn a profit in competitive markets. The fact that he has more money than the worker makes it a hierarchy and the fact that he has POWER over the worker makes it a hierarchy

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

I think there is a bit of confusion here. Anarchism does not oppose capitalism by definition. What's more there are several "flavors" of anarchism, from communal to individual, from violent to peaceful, from capitalist to communist, and even libertarian.

I consider myself to be an anarchist, but I use the definition the Catholic Worker formulated in the 1930s: "An anarchist is one who is compelled to serve the dictates of his own conscience."

From that flows community involvement, helping the poor, political action, etc. But I am also a capitalist, though one who believes in a form that is greatly regulated and supplemented with socialism as well: in other words, a mixed economy. I also am a supporter of representative democracy when it is truly representative (unlike what we have today.)

Other people use the term exclusively in terms of politics, or labor relations, or a dozen other things.

The problem with the word, frankly, is that it has so many meanings one is never quite sure what one is being accused of!

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

this is true

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

This is generally the principles lined out by the greatest Anarchists in history. Yes, one could argue i didn't include this or that, or whatever. Anarchy is such a big school of thought anyway. However, what i DID do, was outline how MOST Anarchists feel and what MOST Anarchists believe. I do agree, I could have done a better job here and there, but this was merely meant as an introduction to get people in to Anarchism. And the legit correct definition of Anarchy is "without rulers" - look up the latin origin of the word. An = without. Archo = rulers. Its not JUST anti-state, but its anti-authority in all aspects of life INCLUDING work

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 8 years ago

Just a few minutes ago you were telling us that CHOMSKY is an anarchist, one of the greatest. Then after I pointed out to you that his retirement check comes from MIT/DOD you took him off the list.

Do your homework.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

he's still on the list. jesus, get some eyes

[-] 0 points by Cephalus (146) 8 years ago

"Anarchy is such a big school of thought anyway."

Exactly my point. (There are many types of anarchists, not all believe in socialism.)

"And the legit correct definition of Anarchy is "without rulers" - look up the latin origin of the word. An = without. Archo = rulers"

Exactly my point. (Community work is not part of that definition.)

"However, what i DID do, was outline how MOST Anarchists feel and what MOST Anarchists believe."

"this was merely meant as an introduction to get people in to Anarchism. "

My mistake. Your titled fooled me. I thought you wanted us to know what anarchy was and what it wasn't. I believed your article was meant to clear up the definition of anarchy by posting the correct one. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I'll leave your post alone now.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

you're right. i just retitled it

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 8 years ago

Within 5 minutes of Anarchy being "established", armed groups would gather together, kill you, and take your stuff. Soon after they would establish their own totalitarian government.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

nice hypothetical situation

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 8 years ago

Happens all of the time. You can learn more by watching and/or reading the "news".

news (nūz, nyūz) Noun:

1.Newly received or noteworthy information, esp. about recent or important events.

2.A broadcast or published report of news.

[-] 1 points by wbhyatt (73) 8 years ago

do note that human beings are an evolutionary species and are subject to change