• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Anarchists Here?

angrysoba said:
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:
Click to expand...

Helpful.

The word anarchist is much abused, making people think that anarchists want chaos.

They want an egalitarian utopia.

And the above description: wow!
That would make the Soviet Union look like a paradise in comparison.
 
angrysoba said:
I am not arguing about whether a particular theory is a good one or not and it is not about "reasoning".
Click to expand...

You'll find I haven't spoken extensively on the subject of whether or not it's a good theory. Rather, I have argued that the definition is false, and have done so by reasoning out why the definition you have provided is false and why the definition I've used is correct.

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.
Click to expand...

They rely on an equivocation of the word 'government'. This is vitally important - more important than enforcement. When anarchists talk of setting up communities/communes which govern amongst themselves by consensus, they are creating government - you haven't even tried to explain how this is not the case. Instead, you're just cut and pasting passages without applying any critical thought to the words your posting.

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

Liar. I have shown, in post after post, why the definition you're providing is false, and you've done little to nothing to challenge it.
 
My security, health, education and just my general wellbeing with things like electricity, clean water, food and stuff like that depends on the state, the government and its violent punishments and control of society. I have a hard time believing that these things would continue to exist and help me in this way if the central administration of this country would cease to exist.

I'm willing to tolerate the immoral and stupid behavior that plagues the government and state I'm currently living under because a little displeasure and tyranny is better than living a life without luxuries like the modern health care system, extremely complex consumer products like computer processors and etc.

I'm sure a small to medium anarchist community is feasible if there is enough food, clean water and etc to go around but when we start living in bigger, much more organized and complex societies there needs to be some form of mechanism that plans and coordinates society in my own interest and the interest of and my fellow citizens, though if that mechanism is a government or something else is unimportant.
 
angrysoba said:
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:
Click to expand...

More cut and paste - do you not even see the word govern in that passage? Are you asserting that:

small groups govern themselves by consensus.
Click to expand...

does not constitute as government? :confused:
 
IchabodPlain said:
More cut and paste - do you not even see the word govern in that passage? Are you asserting that:



does not constitute as government? :confused:
Click to expand...
Anarchists aren't very good at seeing the big picture, or thinking long-term.

See window of bank, break window, run home to mama's basement. That's pretty much all there is as far as anarchist thinking goes.
 
In the words of Bobby's mom in Waterboy: "Anarchy is of the devil!"


It's 2011 and the fact that some people still believe in anarchy as a legitimate means to operate a society scares the poo out of me.

All that would happen is tribal warfare and death. If people can't live in a structured society (which some apparently can't) how the heck they gonna live in one with no supposed structure. It would be hell on earth and we don't need that.
 
angrysoba said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most subsistence hunter-gatherers that anthropologists have studied have a very well-developed system of governance. Hell, the notion of "Indian chief" and "medicine man" and such are cliche's.
 
Travis said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You're confusing the colloquial and political definitions of anarchy.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Helpful.

The word anarchist is much abused, making people think that anarchists want chaos.

They want an egalitarian utopia.

And the above description: wow!
That would make the Soviet Union look like a paradise in comparison.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about the Anarcho Captialists...they are not exactly big fans of Egalitarianism.
 
drkitten said:
The problem is that most subsistence hunter-gatherers that anthropologists have studied have a very well-developed system of governance. Hell, the notion of "Indian chief" and "medicine man" and such are cliche's.
Click to expand...

So do supposedly anarchist communities.

Here we have a squatter culture (punks and lefties occupying a building that isn't their property).

In the eighties some sociologist looked into their social structure and found it to have strong hyrarchy (sp?)

Or at least they had strong personalities that were seen as leadership figures.

I'll ask my brother in law. He's a social worker and wrote his thesis on squatter communities in Berlin.

Funny anecdote: When working on his thesis, he once forgot his leather folder with papers, notes and pen.
The next day, when he asked for his stuff, punk leader in residence told him that the folder had become part of the communal inventory and now belonged to the group living in the squat.
My bro-in-law told him that that was a very cute communist theory and all, but if he didn't get his notes back, he was going to beat the crap out of him.

The folder was promptly returned.
 
Last edited:
IchabodPlain said:
Liar. I have shown, in post after post, why the definition you're providing is false, and you've done little to nothing to challenge it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I expect that if I told you that alchemy is the "art of turning base metals into gold" you would argue that such a feat is impossible.

You haven't shown me why the definition is false all you have attempted to show me is how anarchism as I defined it couldn't work. You say that such a system is impossible but that is missing the point. Those I have quoted have said it is.

Now you could argue that those I have quoted are not true anarchists but I fail to see how. After you boasted the following:

I would be willing to bet that I've read more than you on the subject of anarchy.
Click to expand...

- Doubtless true and time well wasted it appears - you went on to list those that you have read:

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.
Click to expand...

Yet Kropotkin clearly did believe in co-operative communities without co-ercion. And in fact seems to define anarchism as literally "without rulers" (you said that "rules over" is loaded terminology, yet the very terminology used by anarchists).

So, which is it? Is Kropotkin an anarchist or not? You have clearly suggested he is by saying that he is one of the people through whom you know about anarchism and yet his vision of anarchist society is for you anti-thetical to anarchism.

You've fallen foul of the law of excluded middle:

Kropotkin is an anarchist and it is not the case that Kropotkin is an anarchist. This is a contradiction meaning, you lose!:p

But if I were to play the game you are playing I could re-quote that tosh that you quoted earlier as being the impetus for your anarchist studies:

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
Click to expand...

I could ask, just how is this "anarchism"? If Kropotkin is not an anarchist then how is Aleksher one? Who or what is going to prevent the building of castles and who or what is going to ensure there is no masters and slaves? Who is going to make men live wisely and well and what is this nonsense about the masses building a paradise on Earth?
 
angrysoba said:
Yes, and I expect that if I told you that alchemy is the "art of turning base metals into gold" you would argue that such a feat is impossible.
Click to expand...

Does not follow.

You haven't shown me why the definition is false all you have attempted to show me is how anarchism as I defined it couldn't work. You say that such a system is impossible but that is missing the point. Those I have quoted have said it is.
Click to expand...

I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incorrectly surmising my argument deliberately. I will repeat it again because maybe I haven't made myself perfectly clear in the 20 some posts I've made now:

Me said:
You'll find I haven't spoken extensively on the subject of whether or not it's a good theory.
Click to expand...

What I have said is that, by their own definition of what anarchy is (a society without rulers), their vision/utopia/paradise is not anarchy. If you'd like to go into various forms of anarchy, we'd have a more interesting discussion point.

Now you could argue that those I have quoted are not true anarchists but I fail to see how. After you boasted the following:



- Doubtless true and time well wasted it appears - you went on to list those that you have read:
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious that Kropotkin is considered an anarchist. I believe I have shown why what he advocates is not anarchy, and does involve being governed by rulers (besides oneself).

Yet Kropotkin clearly did believe in co-operative communities without co-ercion. And in fact seems to define anarchism as literally "without rulers"
Click to expand...

Correct, but in every instance where Kropotkin uses an example, he inadvertently shows government and hierarchy. For instance:

After leaving port, the captain would gather the crew and passengers on deck, telling them they were all in this together, and that the success of the voyage was dependent upon all of them working as one. Everyone on board would then elect a "governor" and "enforcers," who would gather "taxes" from those who broke the rules. At the end of the voyage the levies would be given to the poor in the port city.
Click to expand...

So there we find government, laws, and police.

wolves and lions gather to hunt
Click to expand...

And both have hierarchies.

It's also important, since you choose to focus of Kropotkin, to note that he separates state from government. And, in his mind, governments are ok! He was perfectly fine with setting up governments which rule over communities (or rather, communities which govern themselves).

So, which is it? Is Kropotkin an anarchist or not? You have clearly suggested he is by saying that he is one of the people through whom you know about anarchism and yet his vision of anarchist society is for you anti-thetical to anarchism.

You've fallen foul of the law of excluded middle:

Kropotkin is an anarchist and it is not the case that Kropotkin is an anarchist. This is a contradiction meaning, you lose!:p
Click to expand...

Ahh, the sweet smell of desperation :) You're playing word games and grasping at straws all while not disputing anything about my interpretation or reasoning regarding anarchy. Again, apply critical thought to what you're reading: communities governed by consensus is government. Tribal communities, and others living in man's "natural state", have government.

I could ask, just how is this "anarchism"? If Kropotkin is not an anarchist then how is Aleksher one?
Click to expand...

I don't think he is judging by his volume of work.

Who or what is going to prevent the building of castles and who or what is going to ensure there is no masters and slaves?
Click to expand...

This is really the poorest part of the quote to highlight. You could have picked "Weapons will cease to be a measure of strength and gold a measure of wealth" or "Everyone will take what he needs".

As far as castles: Context for $100, Alex. How were castles built?

As far as masters/slaves: Owning slaves is government - you are "ruling over" them.

Who is going to make men live wisely and well
Click to expand...

He didn't say make, he said will - that is his supposition of the consequences of anarchy.

and what is this nonsense about the masses building a paradise on Earth?
Click to expand...

I really don't see why I have to dissect this bit by bit for you. However, it's obvious from the quote that Aleshker sees anarchy as a paradise, and that it will take more than one person to take down (or rather, change) current power structures.
 
Last edited:
IchabodPlain said:
Does not follow.



I


Ahh, the sweet smell of desperation :) You're playing word games and grasping at straws all while not disputing anything about my interpretation or reasoning regarding anarchy. Again, apply critical thought to what you're reading: communities governed by consensus is government. Tribal communities, and others living in man's "natural state", have government.
Click to expand...

That is why I define government as violence. I tend to think the left-anarchist position against all hierarchy is not particularly coherent.
Thus consensual communities do not have government.
 
IchabodPlain said:
Does not follow.



I'm coming to the conclusion that you are incorrectly surmising my argument deliberately. I will repeat it again because maybe I haven't made myself perfectly clear in the 20 some posts I've made now:



What I have said is that, by their own definition of what anarchy is (a society without rulers), their vision/utopia/paradise is not anarchy. If you'd like to go into various forms of anarchy, we'd have a more interesting discussion point.



It's quite obvious that Kropotkin is considered an anarchist. I believe I have shown why what he advocates is not anarchy, and does involve being governed by rulers (besides oneself).
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like we shall just have to agree to disagree on this. I take Kropotkin to be an anarchist and base my understanding of anarchism on ideas of his or those who think similarly to him.

You do not and think that his ideas and those of people who think similarly to him is simply not anarchism.

Our disagreement really seems to be as simple as that.

I expect that there are anarchist conventions where the accusation that someone has deviated from the True Path is treated with fatwa or takfiri-like seriousness (and perhaps the presence or absence of beards is too) but I'm not particularly interested in having that discussion so while you say, "If you'd like to go into various forms of anarchy, we'd have a more interesting discussion point" I tend to think the opposite would be true. The more we engage in and indulge in the narcissism of small differences the duller and more abject the discussion will become.:rolleyes:

But that's fine with me. I'll bow out now and let you carry on with this discussion. Have a nice day y'all!
 
If anarchists wanted Chaos, then they would be worshipping the Chaos gods. I'd say they'd worship Tzeentch.
 
angrysoba said:
I expect that there are anarchist conventions where the accusation that someone has deviated from the True Path is treated with fatwa or takfiri-like seriousness (and perhaps the presence or absence of beards is too) but I'm not particularly interested in having that discussion so while you say, "If you'd like to go into various forms of anarchy, we'd have a more interesting discussion point" I tend to think the opposite would be true. The more we engage in and indulge in the narcissism of small differences the duller and more abject the discussion will become.:rolleyes:

But that's fine with me. I'll bow out now and let you carry on with this discussion. Have a nice day y'all!
Click to expand...


Yes to this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom