(VERY General) What is your idea of anarchy?

[CanoeTramp]

Anarchy has way to many adjectives, From now on I'm just a Libertarian. W/ libertarianism you're either right or left, and the lefties are a small minority.

 

[JungleBoots]

That's an interesting link, and in my opinion, that is an example of anarcho-communism. It should be known as tribalism, in my opinion.

well thats definately my anarcho- hopes. primitivist anarcho communism.

 

[Odal]

Glad I'm not alone on this site then .

Just kind of got worried at that first post, mentioning how it scares him haha.

 

[madewithpaint]

i honestly wish i could say anarchy is a good idea (cause it is), but it would never work because humans are selfish, greedy, and full of hate.

that's all really..

 

[JungleBoots]

i agree made, but what anti-civ, tribalism, and anarcho communism backs its theory on is that humans aren't inately greedy violent and selfish. it is the class struggles, the forms of oppression devised by upper classes, and the aspiration of the lower classes to catch up with the uppers that corrupts humanity's intrests. i think given the chance to be equal, and nonviolent humans can live nonviolent and greedless without such corruption.

My evidence for this is in the link i posted in the above post with the malasian indiginous people of the Semai.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

I don't think humans are all these things by nature. It's really quite pointless to say what human nature is or isn't considering we ever tested our limits. If I can think it, I am pretty sure it is possible. At the very very very least, it is possible for the nice people to kill the oppressive people so we have that to fall back on haha.

 

[st1tch]

I don't think humans are all these things by nature. It's really quite pointless to say what human nature is or isn't considering we ever tested our limits. If I can think it, I am pretty sure it is possible. At the very very very least, it is possible for the nice people to kill the oppressive people so we have that to fall back on haha.

If the nice people kill the oppressive people... isn't that oppression? Or was that the joke?

 

[christianarchy]

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

this.

devoid of all commodity, the people can live hand in hand, with gifts, and nothing but love.

do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.

 

[JungleBoots]

do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.

as far as i know and as far as most indiginous tribes go, they are very very very suspicious of outsiders. not to mention no matter how much you absolutely love their way of life, i would be hard pressed to think an outsider could ever completely fit in there from out of the blue. I never read the actual reports of anthropologists studying the Semai so i dont know anything of the intricacies and traditions they uphold. but of course all of that can be learned, all of that can be adjusted to, and i would think eventually the people there could warm up to an outsider given they come to live entirely by their ways.

but in reality we as westerners have the ability to build a society like that as well, given it wont be easy and certainly wont be looked kindly upon by 'normal people' one might be able to create a commune type community living in a very similar way. Its kind of a personal dream of mine to do so. though, as a few people that know about the ideas i have say its still in the "napkin stage."

 

[Odal]

do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.

If only, and so true. That's what some people think Jim Morrison of the Doors did. (Well at least some conspiracy nuts.) Ran away and joined a tribe. 'Wild Child.'

 

[lobotomy3yes]

If the nice people kill the oppressive people... isn't that oppression? Or was that the joke?

Killing isn't oppression by definition. Of course it certainly can be.



Think about it this way. There are rapists, abusers, nazis, presidents, and all around scummy people out there. These people's whole lives are built upon and around oppression and exploitation. Do you really think they will just give it up?

That's kinda the thing with authority, it isn't voluntary.


So yes, eventually we are going to have to kill some of these people. Probably boatloads of them. And don't even tell me about equality. These people are the sole reason there is no equality.


I guess we could always go back to writing letters?

 

[st1tch]

Killing isn't oppression by definition. Of course it certainly can be.



Think about it this way. There are rapists, abusers, nazis, presidents, and all around scummy people out there. These people's whole lives are built upon and around oppression and exploitation. Do you really think they will just give it up?

That's kinda the thing with authority, it isn't voluntary.


So yes, eventually we are going to have to kill some of these people. Probably boatloads of them. And don't even tell me about equality. These people are the sole reason there is no equality.


I guess we could always go back to writing letters?

Okay, I'm just going to take the devils advocate here. Although I agree that it would be convenient (and perhaps essential) to kill all of the people who would fuck up an anarchist society, it would contradict everything we stand for. You can't say that you have the right to choose who lives and who dies (except for the nazis.. there's a very interesting book- the name escapes me- written by a bunch of pyschologists explaining how the nazis were actually evil in every sense of the word, very few other groups of people have been able to pull that off). I think that individual people might kill rapists and other such scum when they fucked with them, but making a community decision to start a mass-killing is wrong and against everything anarchy stands for. If we don't stick to our morals (equality for ALL), then I'm not so sure an anarchist society would be ideal.

 

[Delerious]

Whoa, nice thread dude.

For me I've always thought of anarchy as a methodology or I guess as you put it a tool. In a not anarchist state one can be an anarchist. That doesn't mean advocating change or even wishing for a state that is considered anarchist.

Being an anarchist in our current(western rich) society means that your actions are governed by yourself, not the laws or norms. The reason you don't kill is do to your morality and ethics. The reason you break certain laws such as those inhibiting you from dumpstering is because you don't see them as reasonable.

Essentially for me, modern day anarchism without the advocation of an anarchist state is when your actions are governed by your reason and morality as opposed to paper, assault, fear of assault, or social stigma.

As for an anarchist state,

I envision a community of any size where the citizens are working for themselves and by themselves. This doesn't mean they can't work together, but when they do, it would be because of a mutual interest, not because of legislation.

So how can a bunch of people with self-centered interests form a functional society?

It is my belief that human interest and curiosity would be the fuel of most peoples jobs / time consuming activities. It is also my belief that there are people interested in a myriad of different occupations or activities which all are needed to form a society.

Let's consider for a second a very small and simple example.

We have 5 people,
1, 2, 3, 4, and five.

1 likes carpentry(there are people who like carpentry and do so without the provocative of money).

2 likes helping other people and is very interested in medicine.

3 enjoys being a protector and a physical enforcer

4 enjoys music and art, and wishes to play and paint.

5 is infatuated with baking and cooking.

1 needs things to build and construct since he likes building. 2,3,4, and 5 need homes. 1 now has a very large amount of work that enjoys doing which in turn benefits the rest of the population.

2 needs people to help. He likes helping people of course. 1 hurts himself while building houses and 2 now has something to do. 5 also cuts himself while cooking. and 3 injured his leg practicing martial arts. 2 is stocked full of things to do.

3 Notices that while 5 was being stitched up by 2, some dogs started trying to eat the meat 5 was cooking. 3, now recovered from his leg injury roundhouse kicks the dogs and they leave...sorry guys I thought it was funny.

4 just wrote this beautiful new song on violin and finished her latest painting. She plays music for everyone as they go about their daily activities and decorates their houses with her artwork.

5 recovers and with a catchy tune in his head finishes dinner.

A lot of people consider this communism. People all working together. The key difference is where the incentive lies(I can't spell the correct lie, anyway). In communism people work together with the idea of working together. In my anarchist state people work together as a by-product of working for themselves. It's an accidental harmony. To put it in music terms, everyone wants to play a note, and they act selfishly and play their notes, they notes sounded at the same time or in a proper sequence or order form chords and songs. That is the way I envision society.

The reason I like this so much is because there is noone saying what should be done, there is no one forcing anyone to do something they don't wish to do, and anyone can pursue their passions(which in our society, very LITTLE people get to do so).

Clearly I'm not a politics major and don't have the care or motivation to formulate a framework for the larger societies. I also didn't incorporate wankers.

If anyone IS interested in this ideology on the mass scale there are a couple speakers and theorists who have VERY reasonable ideas which include health care, millitary, police, art, construction, and almost everything we have now. I'll try and find some links, I lost them a couple years ago when my old harddrive died and haven't been able to find them since.

I hope you guys catch my drift on this idea.

Also, there are already societies which function similarily to what I've mentioned. If you consider a swamps ecosystem for instance it functions quite similar. Everything in it wishes to survive on it's own, nothing goes out it's way to ensure the survival of other living things but do to it's own nature, placement, and function, a harmonious society is formed.

Power to the people. We're not stupid, we're not incapable, and we're free.

 

[FilXeno]

This idea is connected to a term anyone of you who have done any reading will also know. "Class Struggle." Basically, due to the nature of Capitalism, the ruling class will make their own enemies, the working class, who over time will revolt due to their majority, and over throw the capitalist system, in favor of a socialist system where the needs of the many are met, as they gain control over capital and product.

In theory, this would in time collapse to form a Pure Communist state, assuming people remembered the lessons they learned.

Not necessarily. He never says that it would fall into a PURE communist state, just like the state we are in now is neither a Pure Democracy or Pure Capitalist state.
Also, to assume people remember the lessons they learn is a giant assumption. Statistically, they probably won't.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

Okay, I'm just going to take the devils advocate here. Although I agree that it would be convenient (and perhaps essential) to kill all of the people who would fuck up an anarchist society, it would contradict everything we stand for. You can't say that you have the right to choose who lives and who dies (except for the nazis.. there's a very interesting book- the name escapes me- written by a bunch of pyschologists explaining how the nazis were actually evil in every sense of the word, very few other groups of people have been able to pull that off). I think that individual people might kill rapists and other such scum when they fucked with them, but making a community decision to start a mass-killing is wrong and against everything anarchy stands for. If we don't stick to our morals (equality for ALL), then I'm not so sure an anarchist society would be ideal.

I come from the position that there are lives not worth living, IE those that oppress others to an extreme. As for what anarchy stands for, it stands for don't fuck us over. Only recently was it ever pacifist movement.

 

[derailed]

Only recently was it ever pacifist movement.

This is news to me. Anarchy is only a pacifist movement in this country, and that's because the vast majority of anarchists in the United States are non-committed middle class kids. Most of the anarchist groups outside of the US are still very much militant movements.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

Look up anarchists in the US during the 1800s and early 1900s. I should have said, "only recently has there ever been a sizable pacifist anarchist movement."


Seriously though check out the Galleanists and shit like the Haymarket affair, which is the origin of May Day. Yup, May Day dates back to anarchists hucking a bomb at cops and blowing 8 of em to bits.

 

[adragonfly]

Anarchism should be a pacifist movement in my opinion. I see Militant anarchists as hypocrites. Creating an ideology around creating tension within society will create more tension. I don't participate in riots or demonstrations for this reason, since it is just going to create more divided-ness and friction. Anarchism from the idea of peace, love, and community will move towards peace, love, and community.

 

[st1tch]

I would like to point out that there is a difference between militant anarchism and mass-slaughter as lobotomy3yes was suggesting. I'm all for taking it to the streets in the right situation, but it doesn't always solve everything and often just gives the cause a bad name.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

Mass slaughter? Nah. I'm not talking about organized execution. Shit. Just be prepared to have to kill a motherfucker who is going to kill your or die trying before he lets you be free.