Forum Post: Why Do Anarchists Keep Trying To Force Their Leader On US?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 12:36 a.m. EST by GypsyKing
(8708)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Am I the only one who sees a ludicrous contradiction here? (Anachists, Liberatarians . . . I don't really see any difference there.)
Libertarianism is an anti-social disease forced on society by the evil minions of the diminutive troll king luaPnoR. What he lacks in stature he over-compensates for with an excess of toxic theories spewed endlessly and aimlessly by his Chucky like followers.
AMEN! This movement does not recognize a liberatarian faction! You are unwanted here SO GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!
Funny thing is, the first person to call himself a libertarian was an ardent extreme leftist. In other words, he was a libertarian leftist. Don't confuse these types of libertarians for the right wing libertarians, because they are diametrically opposed to each other. The right-wing libertarians hijacked the term to use it for themselves, in a way.
The thing that really gets me right now, almost to the point of outright hysterical laughter, is that the anarchists have a leader, and the progressives, or whatever you want to call the dwindling number of the sane, who are mearly holding out for justice and a renweal of our democtatic institutions, are leaderless!
The fundamentalists, you mean. Calling them anarchist is not always accurate. I agree that the left is very fragmented in America.
I'm afraid they practically own the whole franchize at this point.
WTF are you talking about 'GK' ?! Are you "the only one" ... ? YES (probably!)
Given the coming New Year ; here is a Tune for 2012 (see & hear 1:29 - 1:55 et al!) ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A102xE-Wnfk !!
Merry Xmas and a 2012 of Peace, Prosperity and Potential to you and yours ;-)
pax, amor et lux ...
Who is our leader supposed to be now? Chomsky?
I think you're confused...
And you are right, there is no difference between "libertarians" and "anarchists"
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1#seca13
I'm reffering to the ever touted and execrable RP.
"And you are right, there is no difference between "libertarians" and "anarchists" !!! Eh ?!! George Orwell would be spinning in his grave if he could hear you now !
"I think you're confused ..."
Now please go figure ...
iViva Los 99%!
You didn't bother to read the link...
George Orwell fought along side anarchist militias in the spanish civil war, I'd bet he'd support our position on this.
Ironically, it is so-called "libertarians" who have co-opted the word and used it in a very Orwellian fashion. Libertarianism is still used synonymously with anarchism throughout most of the world.
<<<However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.
As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]
Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.>>>
Today we look to Russia for inspiration
That's where corruption leads a nation. There was nothing wrong with the system created by the founders of this country. It was a model that the rest of the world looked up to and emmulated. It has just been transformed into an entity that doesn't even remotely resemble what it once was. We need democratic reform, and as far as I'm concerned the first place to start is to reform the Democratic Party. As I have said before, I don't see any compelling reason that we can't demonstrate, engage in civil disobediance, occoup public space, cultivate leadership and work to reform the system. In fect, in order to succeed against the enormous power of the entrnced forces that have corrupted our system, I think we must do all of those things.
Fancy names are always used by people with different ideas. It shows us the importance of words and their meanings. These capitalist who want liberization of economics meaning they want to be able to do as they please with the world's economy. They use the word "Libertarian", it sounds like they are fighting for liberty of the people. I'm sure some people believe that economic freedom means political, moral and legal freedom. However that is not the case in my opinion, we live in a deregulized economy across the globe and look at the way we live. We are not more free than anyone has been in the past. The internet will soon be controlled and we will lose our privacy.
Liberatarianism, as it apprears to be defined by most of the people I encounter on this forum, equals deregulation of corporate entities, the very problem we are fighting against, and their leader RP is perhaps even to the right of Bush and Cheney. They point to this as a solution. Don't buy it. RP has nothing to do with this movement - he represents the antithisis of this movement's goals - don't be fooled.
The people are going to realize that Obama is a liar and that fake republicans like Newt Romney hold no water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2fRcFPzu4
If upholding the constitution and thinking Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are unalienable rights means that you're an anarchist... sign me up.
But this is not an anarchist belief. It's a libertarian belief and the belief of the founding fathers of this country and a common belief of people who love freedom.
Obama is a fraud!!!
Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. "The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/barack-obama-out-of-the-c_b_813027.html
He's bombed more countries than Bush. Countries like Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... etc
He extended the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html
He never actually closed guantanamo bay.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html
He lied about ending the wars in Iraq and the current withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. And there is a billion dollar military base in Iraq and I guarantee you that it aint empty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUTYL8HfCGo
He supported the bailouts of banking institutions that are extracting wealth from our country and stealing people's pensions and homes. The bailout money was used by the federal reserve to create 7.7 trillion dollars out of thin air, and Obama has yet to do anything about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BXPINPwp4w
He also supported the patriot act, which essentially deletes the 4th amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqXmQYHV-1I
He's started unconstitutional acts of war against Libya, which he spoke out against when Bush did that to Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqo
Obama signed for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial into law under provisions of the NDAA and "designates the world as the battlefield and that includes the homeland." -quote senator Lindsey Graham who supported the bill and argued in it's favor.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/
"The killing of al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the threats posed by al Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States. The Conference Report ensures the United States will have the ability to meet this threat and neutralize terrorists from these groups and conduct effective interrogations."
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=23d194d7-78c9-4c57-b2d9-31bc3bb7daeb
List of terrorist organizations our country could start war with and the countries they're in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations
"This [the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011] designates the WORLD as the battlefield... and that includes the homeland."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34
Next stop Africa and Yemen!!! Maybe Iran or Syria next? Fulfill that cold war with some Operation Northwoods and go to war with Russia? Who knows? It's the government. It's a threat to national security to tell you the truth all the time.Maybe China a few years from now?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/obama-heads-to-asia-with-sharp-focus-on-chinas-growing-power/2011/11/10/gIQAOsQkBN_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/obama-us-to-send-250-marines-to-australia-in-2012/2011/11/16/gIQAO4AQQN_blog.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk
“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” -Cass R Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.
Oh and don't forget about this Hour long presentation in congress about Al Qaeda members being the Libyan rebels, as well as extremists, rapists, and murderers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G0pUEU603Q&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=42&feature=plpp_video
In case any of you don't like the first video because it's a republican here is super Liberal Dennis Kucinich railing against Al Qaeda in the rebels as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSUnluGSOdM&list=FLEwSllwonAZBCc7W3e27_dQ&index=43&feature=plpp_video
And here is an article on the Libyan rebel leader admitting to having a bunch of Al Qaeda members in his "rebellion" which is actually just terrorism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
And to all the remaining Obama fans, please don't try and accuse me of being in favor of Newt Gingrich or tell me some bullshit about McCain Palin. My criticism for Obama is simply based around facts and in no way means I support a GOP agenda. Obama is a fraud and so is Newt Gingrich.
Awesome post Trevor!
"Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state."
do you understand the difference between the state and the government - anarchists are not against government
Libertarianism is usually only anarchy on one level: the economic level. Many libertarians (excluding the ANCAPS) are not true anarchists in the sense that they still believe in the necessity of the state to instill social regulations. This is why the U.S. Libertarian party puts more emphasis on the abolishment of economic, rather than social, regulations.
In the case of these 'half-anarchists', the better pejorative term would be 'market fundamentalist' instead of 'anarchist'. Market fundamentalism is the misguided belief that everything that happens as a result of the free market is inherently ethical and just, and that economic intervention is the highest form of taboo because it is picking winners and losers, i.e. 'cheating'. It is easy to see why this doctrine is silly, but many right-wingers are adopting it anyway.
The pejorative 'market fundamentalist' is better than 'anarchist' for multiple reasons:
'Market fundamentalist' is more descriptive and accurate
The use of the term 'fundamentalist' is harsher than 'anarchist' (anarchism is actually a legitimate ideology, while fundamentalism is not)
In the protests, there exist many left-anarchists (advocates of a non-hierarchial, egalitarian, stateless society)
It is likely that these left-anarchists would be offended by the use of the term 'anarchist' as a pejorative label for the reactionaries that they are diametrically opposed to in the first place
So I would suggest not to use the term 'anarchist' for them, no matter how much they are labeling the protestors as anarchists. It is generally offensive to the anarchists that are actually protesting. Instead, call out the libertarians on their bullshit generalizations, and then whip out the fundamentalism pejorative. That will surely win the argument. :)
It is the anarchist dilemma. What if a majority voted through direct democracy not to use direct democracy anymore? What would happen if the majority voted to get a different leader?
Its fairly obvious what would happen. Whatever confederation/syndicate/commune network that made such a decision would be dissolved and split up into new entities---- those comprised of people who wished to remain autonomous and those who wished to submit to some new hierarchical structure.
I don't see where the profound dilemma is.
Its kinda like asking "but what if a whole bunch of people wanted to follow a king?" Well then they'd be become his subjects. Nothing really unclear about this.
You seem to suggest this is is some kind of glaring flaw or deep obstacle to a functioning anarchist society.
Some people think that domination and control are an inevitable consequence of "human nature" and that people are to "stupid and greedy" to run their own lives.
Anarchists disagree.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Anarchists, following a king? And so we come full circle. Anarchy arose in response to the despotism of monarchies. I certainly do see a contradiction in a leader of anarchists. It renders the whole concept of anarchy invalid as a mechanism for governing a society. To say otherwise is simply an absolute contradiction. The whole red herring is raised on this forum merely to be confusing. Or else it is just the outcome of seriously juvenile thinking. To advocate anarchism one would need at least a situation where nature was still dominate, and not mankind, a wold with say 1/100th of our current population. This is simply obvious. Under current conditions anarchy would amount to nothing but a bloody free-for-all. Ah- unless there were leaders, a complete contradiction. I'm sorry but that's logic.
<<<Anarchists, following a king? >>>
No. The question, as posed above, was "what would happen if people chose not to be anarchists?" Then they wouldn't be anarchists. This doesn't seem a difficult question. What would happen if someone wanted to eat paste? ---- Well...then...he'd probably eat paste. My response was to pose a counter example: What would happen if people living under a republic or a parliamentary system suddenly decided to crown someone High King and start obeying his laws and edicts? The answer is trivially obvious---They would become monarchists and would be subjects to the king.
<<<And so we come full circle. Anarchy arose in response to the despotism of monarchies.>>>
Anarchism, as a political philosophy, arose out of the 19th century socialist movements and was influenced by the enlightenment. It had more to do with the industrial revolution than it did with the concept of monarchy, although you are right that there certainly was some influence there as well.
<<<I certainly do see a contradiction in a leader of anarchists. It renders the whole concept of anarchy invalid as a mechanism for governing a society. To say otherwise is simply an absolute contradiction.>>>
That's right. Anarchists reject hierarchical authority. The title of this thread is contradictory.
<<<The whole red herring is raised on this forum merely to be confusing. Or else it is just the outcome of seriously juvenile thinking.>>>
Neither would surprise me. There are an awful lot of trolls on here.
<<<To advocate anarchism one would need at least a situation where nature was still dominate, and not mankind, a wold with say 1/100th of our current population. This is simply obvious. Under current conditions anarchy would amount to nothing but a bloody free-for-all. Ah- unless there were leaders, a complete contradiction. I'm sorry but that's logic.>>>
You seem to be supposing that anarchists seek to abolish organized society. Given this supposition, you're right to say that such an arrangement would require a return to nature and a drastically reduced population. There actually are a few people who advocate this (primitivists).
However, the great and overwhelming majority of people who are arguing for "anarchism" are not referring to such an arrangement. The idea is not to abolish civil society and do away with the administration of public services and the production of goods. Rather it is simply to live in (and operate all of the various functions of) society without systems of domination and hierarchy.
Some quick articles that may help clarify the actual position of anarchists:
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci53
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI2#seci22
The conception of a system without domination and hierarchy is, unfortunately, a utopian dream. There has never been such a system, no matter how people have tried to create one. That was the essential problem with marxism, a faith in the egaitarianism of human nature that was not warrented based on historical expierence. That was one of the great insights of this nations founders when they bent over backwards to create a system of checks and balances to prevent any one individual, or group, from excercizing a disproportionate influence. The testament to the essential soundness of their idea is this nation itself, which is the longest standing democracy in the world. Unfortunately, through relentless pressure, vested interest has finally managed to circumvent that system of checks and balances to form an oligarchy. The most straightforward tactic for this movement therefore, and the one capable of achieveing the broadest support, in my opinion, seems to be to restore the original intent of the founders of this democracy. It also has the very straightforward appeal of preventing the necessity of reinventing the wheel. The Ideas of Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson were radical in their advocation of liberty, and the system they created was probably as farsighted as any ever proven to work in the real world. Let's demand it's restituation.
I was the one who raised this problem more than a month ago. (I posted it under Glaucon, which is my other character on this forum.) Here's the original post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/
I was the one who raised this problem more than a month ago. (I posted it under Glaucon, which is my other character on this forum.) Here's the original post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/
This "dilemma" has been suggested many times in various ways over the years, it didn't originate with any post here.
I wasn't aware of that. I guess it must be a real problem if people have brought it up. I'm new to anarchism and I haven't read all the works concerning this political theory, so I'm not surprised if I repeated some things that have already been said.
Do you have links to articles which discuss this very issue? I'd like to further my knowledge. Perhaps there are good counter-arguments to my statements and good answers to my questions that have already been published somewhere. Perhaps these articles deal with some angles I have missed.
the last 4 answers - 5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.
My feeling, based in part on personal experience in this case, is that a decent education should seek to provide a thread along which a person will travel in his or her own way; good teaching is more a matter of providing water for a plant, to enable it to grow under its own powers, than of filling a vessel with water (highly unoriginal thoughts I should add, paraphrased from writings of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism). These are general principles, which I think are generally valid. How they apply in particular circumstances has to be evaluated case by case, with due humility, and recognition of how little we really understand.
I wouldn't dream of trying to do this. These are matters about which we have to learn, by struggle and experiment.
Prospects for freedom and justice are limitless. The steps we should take depend on what we are trying to achieve. There are, and can be, no general answers. The questions are wrongly put. I am reminded of a nice slogan of the rural workers' movement in Brazil (from which I have just returned): they say that they must expand the floor of the cage, until the point when they can break the bars. At times, that even requires defense of the cage against even worse predators outside: defense of illegitimate state power against predatory private tyranny in the United States today, for example, a point that should be obvious to any person committed to justice and freedom -- anyone, for example, who thinks that children should have food to eat -- but that seems difficult for many people who regard themselves as libertarians and anarchists to comprehend. That is one of the self-destructive and irrational impulses of decent people who consider themselves to be on the left, in my opinion, separating them in practice from the lives and legitimate aspirations of suffering people.
So it seems to me. I'm happy to discuss the point, and listen to counter-argument, but only in a context that allows us to go beyond shouting of slogans -- which, I'm afraid, excludes a good deal of what passes for debate on the left, more's the pity.
Noam
In another letter, Chomsky offered this expansion on his thoughts regarding a future society:
About a future society, I...may be repeating, but it's something I've been concerned with every since I was a kid. I recall, about 1940, reading Diego Abad de Santillan's interesting book After the Revolution, criticizing his anarchist comrades and sketching in some detail how an anarchosyndicalist Spain would work (these are 50 year old memories, so don't take it too literally). My feeling then was that it looked good, but do we understand enough to answer questions about a society in such detail? Over the years, naturally I've learned more, but it has only deepened my skepticism about whether we understand enough. In recent years, I've discussed this a good deal with Mike Albert, who has been encouraging me to spell out in detail how I think society should work, or at least react to his "participatory democracy" conception. I've backed off, in both cases, for the same reasons. It seems to me that answers to most such questions have to be learned by experiment. Take markets (to the extent that they could function in any viable society -- limited, if the historical record is any guide, not to speak of logic). I understand well enough what's wrong with them, but that's not sufficient to demonstrate that a system that eliminates market operations is preferable; simply a point of logic, and I don't think we know the answer. Same with everything else.
noam is the best i have read - here is some q and a - Answers from Chomsky to eight questions on anarchism
General comment on all the questions:
No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high.
Personally, I have no confidence in my own views about the "right way," and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others, including good friends. I feel that far too little is understood to be able to say very much with any confidence. We can try to formulate our long-term visions, our goals, our ideals; and we can (and should) dedicate ourselves to working on issues of human significance. But the gap between the two is often considerable, and I rarely see any way to bridge it except at a very vague and general level. These qualities of mine (perhaps defects, perhaps not) will show up in the (very brief) responses I will make to your questions.
The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions -- all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did; a sign of its significance, in my opinion.
I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.
Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.
In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.
As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.
Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.
Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.
What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.
Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly.
Thank you for these posts. Very interesting.
he has written much about anarchy and is very thoughtful - you can find plenty more if you are interested. orwells "homage to catalonia" is the true story of how he tried to fight with the communists in spain but was sent to an anarchist group - he tells of his first hand experiences - his best work in my opinion - the movie "land and freedom" presents the same story - as usual not as good as the book!
I love this question :P
Thanks!
Happy Holidays richard!
same same. many smiles.
It's nice to see you agree with me richard. Usually, you just write that I'm a troll for pretty much each and every one of my comments. I guess that means you're a troll too? Are you also a paid "agent saboteur" like myself? Welcome to trolldom and happy Christmas!
I was the one who raised this problem more than a month ago. (I posted it under Glaucon, which is my other character on this forum.) Here's the original post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/
And how many other "characters" dost thee have and hide behind ! Pray do tell and share with the rest of us, this fine Christmas morn !! Et Caveat ; anguis in herba !!!
I use Glaucon and Thrasymaque and have been honest about this all along. There's no hiding. If I wanted to hide, I wouldn't be telling you.
'Tis the morn of Christmas and thou dost yearn to confess and clear what little thou hast left of thine "Conscience" ! Go Now !! And Sin Ye, No More !!!
I'm not confessing to anything because there's nothing to confess about. Iv'e been honest and transparent since the beginning that I use Glaucon and Thrasymaque. On top of that, both are characters from Plato's Republic making it even more obvious. If I wanted to hide something, I would not have said anything, and I would certainly not have used two characters from the same book. Your conspiracy theory type thinking is boring and quite tiring. No one's hiding, no one's an "agent". Get over it, you're not some kind of little MatLock.
Thou hast made a 'total balls up' of this, thine last opportunity for redemption !
The Honourable Plato himself would rather have swallowed Socrates' poison than see Adeimantus' errant sibling, guilty of such perfidy !!
Gnothi Seauton !!!
It's Adeimantus, not Adiemantus.
If you're going to show off using fancy English, you should first learn to spell.
Weirdo !!!~{:-p)
I don't disagree with you on a lot of things. I have told you as much. I don't agree with the way you present it or your decorum. It is your fixed and unmovable form of logic that says to me, you have ulterior motives. Seems scripted or rehearsed. Also, trashing my threads pisses me off. I have yet to trash anyones thread. If I don't agree, I don't participate. Maybe you refuse to understand support or the concept of stimulation but I do not. Most people understand the concepts I have shared with you, so you should understand why you continue to get the reactions you do. You are responsible for the way others view you.
Fair enough. I have no problem thrashing threads that are just about spamming or conspiracy theories.
Sure. There are as many people who have thanked me for thrashing threads as there are who get pissed off such as yourself. You should understand this. Most people call you a troll because you simply use this forum to spam your links. 90% of the people who are unhappy with my defacing posts are the posters of these posts. This is entirely normal. I'm attacking their comments after all.
lol. No, I get called troll by three people under their various user names. You because you have ulterior motives, John because I offered to help him early on but he sided with a back stabber and got burnt, and nucleus because he's an inflexible socialist and I have ads on the projects. I know by now you understand I am not your fool. Those not interested, don't post on my threads. Because that is how adults use the web.
If I sometimes call you a troll (which is very rare), I only do it because you spam the boards with your links. I don't have ulterior motives. As much as I would like to be paid to post here, I'm not. If you do know people who are willing to pay someone with ideas like mine, I would be glad to get their contacts. If I can get paid to post what I post, then it's a double win for me. Thanks.
Then start a blog, place ads, join some blogging communities to gain SEO and exposure. That is what I have been offering this entire time. Some of our writers are only on to get their views heard, some want to make some side money while exercising their freedom of speech. A rather constructive idea for how to protest rather than the violence you seem to be so concerned about. So no, I would say you aren't interested in a violent or constructive approach, nor are you interested in "finding" a way to get paid for your text, you fight all of these ideas.
I already get paid for writing Richard. I usually write in French which is my mother tongue. I'm just here to discuss politics and to practice my English writing skills. English is my second language and I'm far from being ready to publish in that language. I'm not interested in your blogging idea. I publish my work in print form.
That explains a lot. Well please try and keep your ignorance of how the web works to yourself. If I decide to outsource my work to low quality scabs at the bottom dollar rate, I'll let you know.
I get paid very well for writing, thank you.