Any Anarchists Here?

[angrysoba]

Now, what of the above do you dispute?

I dispute your definition.

It's clear we are talking about two different things.

You define anarchy as being simple chaos in which men club each over the head to take away whatever the other person he has and drag their women around by the hair.

I refer to that state of affairs as chaos or barbarism.

I accept that there is a generic school of thought known as "anarchism" and that they define their theories as being a way of living without rulers.

I also happen to think that their theories are ill-thought out for reasons that you have given (What happens when people disagree? Anarchists tell me it won't happen because everyone will be happy or perhaps they will play rock, paper, scissors, etc...).

If you can't accept Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldman, Malatesta as anarchists then, to my mind, you don't know what anarchism is and you are defining it incorrectly.

 

[angrysoba]

Killer idea.

I'll move to the anarcho-capitalist bit. Within a decade this region will have a much bigger economy and a matching army then the leftist areas.

We can then move into the anarchist areas and enslave the population.
we will use the leftist women for breeding purposes (after shaving their armpits, of course).

In short: This is Spartaaaaaaaaaa!

Essentially, I think all human beings lived in something approximating anarchism. We were subsistence hunter-gatherers and then subsistence farmers until intensive agriculture came along.

Without commerce from extra grain and food we as humans may never have invented writing which was practiced originally by the Sumerians as a form of accounting.

I think that any anarchist who reads Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel would find the books implications for anarchism very dire.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Essentially, I think all human beings lived in something approximating anarchism. We were subsistence hunter-gatherers and then subsistence farmers until intensive agriculture came along.

Without commerce from extra grain and food we as humans may never have invented writing which was practiced originally by the Sumerians as a form of accounting.

I think that any anarchist who reads Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel would find the books implications for anarchism very dire.

That book was actually the inspiration for my post.

Especially the fact that as soon as a society was successful enough, they'd use their food surplus to free up specialists for metal working and military affairs.
As soon as they ran into a less developed tribe, they'd basically attack and enslave.

An anarchist society would soon be dominated by the first nation state that got their hands on them.

(plus, as you pointed out, anarchism is fine for hunter gatherers who move about in small groups)

 

[Galteeth]

I am an anarchist.

 

[angrysoba]

I am an anarchist.

Jolly good.

 

[angrysoba]

That book was actually the inspiration for my post.

Especially the fact that as soon as a society was successful enough, they'd use their food surplus to free up specialists for metal working and military affairs.
As soon as they ran into a less developed tribe, they'd basically attack and enslave.

An anarchist society would soon be dominated by the first nation state that got their hands on them.

(plus, as you pointed out, anarchism is fine for hunter gatherers who move about in small groups)

I think that there are some societies which had developed to the point where they can permit anarchist societies within them. But these are really so artificial that they probably can't be considered true anarchist communities.

I've heard some people argue that certain hill tribes in Southeast Asia are effectively anarchist and that some people who live in parts of Morroco or maybe desert-dwelling nomads have some kind of anarchist mode of living but I honestly don't see the appeal myself and I highly doubt that many of the teenagers, twenty-somethings and ageing hippies who like to call themselves anarchists would like to live in such communities.

 

[Eddie Dane]

If I remember correctly Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho Syndicalist.

Can't look it up now, but the system would basically have commissions run towns, factories, schools etc.

I suppose this was the idea behind the original Soviets.

Theoretically this should allow a complex society to exist.

I was reminded of this theory when during the financial crisis in Argentina, factories were closed and the management didn't bother to show up any more. The workers opened the factory (abattoir and meat packing) on their own accord and started producing again.

Don't know how it ended, it was in a documentary at the time.
It seemed to work on that scale, kinda, for a while.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I dispute your definition.

So, nothing then? I've reasoned out the definition in prior posts, so if you can't tackle that, then simply asserting my definition is false does you no good.

It's clear we are talking about two different things.

Yes, it is. You believe having communities qualifies as anarchy. I don't think it does (for the reasons I've previously explained).

You define anarchy as being simple chaos in which men club each over the head to take away whatever the other person he has and drag their women around by the hair.

Or, alternatively, living alone in the woods and trading with/murdering and stealing from those whom you meet.

I refer to that state of affairs as chaos or barbarism.

Distinction without a difference. You're playing word games.

I accept that there is a generic school of thought known as "anarchism" and that they define their theories as being a way of living without rulers

No. It is the state where every individual is their own ruler. It is impossible to have, for any significant period of time, a society of 100 where all 100 are rulers. And no, direct democracy doesn't count (for obvious reasons). Communities involve power sharing, which anarchy doesn't allow.

If you can't accept Kropotkin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldman, Malatesta as anarchists then, to my mind, you don't know what anarchism is and you are defining it incorrectly.

I would be willing to bet that I've read more than you on the subject of anarchy. That aside, just because someone claims to be an anarchist, doesn't make them an anarchist.

 

[IchabodPlain]

If I remember correctly Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho Syndicalist.

Can't look it up now, but the system would basically have commissions run towns, factories, schools etc.

Now commissions aren't government?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does any serious person advocate anarchy?
Can any serious person advocate anarchy?
Devil's advocates welcome too.

Food for thought:
What do anarchists want from us?

You could also have asked, "Any bored trust kiddies here?". It's pretty much the same group.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Now commissions aren't government?

Apparently.

I had a hard time imagining how this would work.

 

[GreyArea]

Any anarchists here?

Apparently not.

I've read many passages on "anarchist" communities in Russia and other Eastern European communities around the turn of the century (Lev Aleshker is a good example)...

He seems like a rather minor figure. Google didn't turn up much at all. What other sources have you read?

Getting wiped out by the anarcho-Mormonist mob would be embarrassing.

But being part of an anarcho-Mormonist mob would be even more embarrassing!

 

[dudalb]

Is says something that most Arnachitst nowdays are college students.....you know,where they can preach anarchism without actually having to put it to the test.

 

[IchabodPlain]

He seems like a rather minor figure. Google didn't turn up much at all. What other sources have you read?

Possibly, I learned of Aleshker in AP European History in high school - had a sub-chapter on him and other Eastern European anarchists (Bakunin, The Zurich Brotherhood, Kropotkin, and others) around the turn of the century. After graduating, I had a fascination with anarchy (similar to how some develop fascination with conspiracy theories or the KKK) - I wanted to know how and why people thought the way they did. On it's face, anarchy seemed ridiculous, but what makes it so interesting.

Most of what I know comes from Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State, For a New Liberty, and The Ethics of Liberty, etc), Proudon (What is Property?, General Idea of Revolution), Spooner, Kropotkin, Tucker, a variety of CrimethInc. collections (Days of War, Nights of Love, Expect Resistance, etc), and more I that I can't remember anymore.

It's Aleshker who stays in my mind, because of his quote before his execution:

"Slavery, poverty, weakness, and ignorance -- the eternal fetters of man -- will be broken. Man will be at the center of nature. The earth and its products will serve everyone dutifully. Weapons will cease to be a measure of strength and gold a measure of wealth; the strong will be those who are bold and daring in the conquest of nature, and riches will be the things that are useful. Such a world is called "Anarchy." It will have no castles, no place for masters and slaves. Life will be open to all. Everyone will take what he needs -- this is the anarchist ideal. And when it comes about, men will live wisely and well. The masses must take part in the construction of this paradise on earth."

I found it quite eloquent, and wrote it on the inside cover of my notebook that year in high school. My teacher (who I've gone on to know pretty well) was puzzled, but it was an intriguing idea to me at the time, and sort of my catalyst for learning more about it.

 

[gumboot]

Many anarchists would think you are beginning from Hobbesian principles that life in a "state of nature is nasty, brutish and short" and in which individuals sacrifice some of their liberty for security through a social contract arbitrated by rulers. But if I understand correctly, Kropotkin believed that Darwinism had shown humans (or possibly all animals) to be basically co-operative animals whose co-operative behaviour was a product of evolution. Thus, some anarchists like him thought that a state of nature was encouraged altruism for the purpose of self-preservation.

Anyone who thinks that nature is cooperative and peaceful and some sort of delightful utopia has clearly never, ever watched a wildlife documentary. Not to mention that all social animals are incredibly hierachial.

Anarchist might have a delightful sounding idea, but it's in direct conflict with the blatantly obvious realities of life and earth, and that's why it will never, ever work.

 

[Virus]

It would be wrong to make a case either for or against anarchism based on an appeal to nature.

 

[angrysoba]

Anyone who thinks that nature is cooperative and peaceful and some sort of delightful utopia has clearly never, ever watched a wildlife documentary. Not to mention that all social animals are incredibly hierachial.

I completely agree but this is still what I understand Kropotkin believed with his theory of mutual aid.

I did say later that it was a pseudo-Darwinian theory.

I think Kropotkin, on the other hand, extrapolated too much from Darwin and came up with a kind of pseudo-Darwinist explanation for how communities could exist without enforcement.

According to Wikipedia:

Written partly in response to Social Darwinism and in particular to Thomas H. Huxley's Nineteenth Century essay, "The Struggle for Existence", Kropotkin's book drew on his experiences in scientific expeditions in Siberia to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation. After examining the evidence of cooperation in nonhuman animals, pre-feudal societies, in medieval cities, and in modern times, he concludes that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of the species and the ability to survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution

 

[angrysoba]

So, nothing then? I've reasoned out the definition in prior posts, so if you can't tackle that, then simply asserting my definition is false does you no good.

I am not arguing about whether a particular theory is a good one or not and it is not about "reasoning".

I am arguing that the theory as expounded by anarchists is different to yours. All of the major theorists of anarchism that I have quoted talk about some kind of order and co-operation.

It is YOU who is making the bare assertion that that is an incorrect definition.

 

[angrysoba]

It probably would have been helpful if the OP had laid down the definition from the beginning. Fortunately, he did link to an article on anarchism:

Instead of a formal state with police and laws, anarchists envision a society in which small groups govern themselves by consensus. The functions that we now associate with the government, like mail, defense, and education, would be handled on a cooperative basis. The anarchist paradise would look very much like a set of independently run communes.

Small personal possessions would be OK in an anarchist state, [Anarchist state???? ] but there would be no private land, and no one would privately own businesses or manufacturing equipment. Those are tools for accumulating wealth, which contradicts the movement's egalitarian values. Some anarchist philosophers reject the idea of money completely, imagining warehouses from which goods would be distributed on the basis of need. Others begrudgingly accept the usefulness of hard currency. Josiah Warren, the first American anarchist thinker, was slightly more imaginative: He proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange the notes at local time stores for goods that took the same amount of time to produce.

 

[Travis]

I don't think that a sane person could be a real anarchist. Think about it, anarchy is the absence of all order. Not some order but all order. Once a person has established behavioral patterns and customs they have contravened living in a state of true anarchy. The only person that could really live their entire lives with no established customary behaviors would be very unwell person.

As such any group advocating any political position that has any order whatsoever is not a real anarchist group no matter what the bunch of spoiled ignoramuses want to call themselves.