(VERY General) What is your idea of anarchy?

[st1tch]

Oh, well then there's no disagreement.

 

[User Name]

My idea, without rule.

Anarchy is governance through formal consensus.

I am still working out the kinks on my ideals tho, like consequences to murder, rape, assault, and theft in an anarchist society.

Anarchy≠governance. Also, consensus is oppression of the individual under the bloated mass of the majority.

The consequence is death.

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.

Pacifism is inept. But I'll take the bait here. If you should not revolt or promote insurrection, what are your ideas for destroying a centralized state with an economy and all that goes with that?

 

[JungleBoots]

im a pacifist anarchist on one ground so far, the current psychological climate is not ready yet for a revolution (the proper climate being when people are aware of their status, the evils of the system, and collectively desire to do something about it). anarchism is far to radical for people very comfortable in their current lifestyles to sacrifice such comforts to get in line to throw bricks at police men.

if anyone thinks that inciting riots, bombing mother fuckers, and throwing bricks at police men will lead to anything other than getting themselves in a shit ton of trouble they have something comming.

thats something a lot of communists tell me. while anarchists and communists essentially have the same goal, eliminating a hierarchial system of governance so as to create a system of equality and establish the "workers"/individual self governance. Communists tend to still think that anarchists are too impatient with the revolution, especially violent anarchists, whom attempt to incite riots and are willing to commit terrorist acts. Any action towards the revolution before the psycological climate is in the right place to host a revolution will only be met with reactionaries. Reactionaries whom can very easily detriment the the coming of time when a revolution is a possibility.


I have to agree with the communists. and untill i think the psychologiacal climate is in proper form im going to work towards awareness through passive means. But you had better bet ill be throwing the molotovs with the best of them when the time for revolution does come.

 

[tallhorseman]

The reason I don't consider myself an Anarchist is made clear by this thread, a lack of clear definition of its meaning. The word Anarchy conjures up images from a Mad Max movie. I'm an idealist, and a Utopianist(my word).

And before I step on any toes I will admit that I a am as clueless as a Bassett Hound as to the proper recipe to bring about said Utopia, if there is one. But I agree that equality is an essential ingredient, a complete eradication of all forms of slavery, hard or soft. But a forced Utopian state is just as oppressive to some as our current state is to others. This IS a rather Utopian state to racist old rich people...successful capitalists.

I don't believe peace, Utopia, etc., can be forced. It has to be a unified desire. Everyone would have to want unity for it to be successful.

All I can do is be what I want my world to be. When I feel like I want to pull the trigger on someone I remind myself that that would lower me to their level. I would be taking from them as they are taking from me. I don't participate in racism, or greed, or manipulation, and I hope that others will follow suit.

I like Guerin's definition of anarchism as "the abolition of exploitation of man by man," which according to him is a goal that can only be realized in the absence of government. That's a fancy way of saying equality. I think that's really central to anarchism. I think most anarchists dislike the state because it brings about injustice and inequality. If somehow a government created equality between everyone (which I don't think is possible in the first place), I don't think anarchists would continue to be discontent with the state just because it's the state. The thing is, gov't can't exist without some people being better than others - which is why anarchism and equality go hand in hand, I do believe.

 

[User Name]

the current psychological climate is not ready yet for a revolution (the proper climate being when people are aware of their status, the evils of the system, and collectively desire to do something about it).

if anyone thinks that inciting riots, bombing mother fuckers, and throwing bricks at police men will lead to anything other than getting themselves in a shit ton of trouble they have something comming.

while anarchists and communists essentially have the same goal, eliminating a hierarchial system of governance so as to create a system of equality and establish the "workers"/individual self governance.

So how does one measure societies "readiness". That kind of "wait and see" attitude seems strangely similar to a lot of Christian principles and I've encountered a lot of both.

Those things in and of themselves are mostly useless in a long term time line. I don't know how efficient passing out literature and speaking down to people about how they should live is any better. Anarchism has been around for hundreds of years and hasn't swayed many people yet.

I don't want any system of governance.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

I can wait very patiently for that perfect, end-all-be-all anarchy to happen (ha). Seriously though, the "end goal" of anarchy isn't something that can be brought about by a simple revolution. We have to create a culture of anarchy for that. The insurrectionists who think it is just going to happen are just really pissed off and hyped up. I can't hold it against them.

I am an insurrectionist, and I would be one anarchist or not. Any society that suppresses and marginalizes people because they are different, by violent means among others, deserves revolution. When you're deemed a piece of shit by society, things become little bit more drastic. Actually, a fucking lot more drastic.

I don't want to see anyone hurt, I especially don't want to have to hurt anyone, but most of all I don't want to be hurt for being different. Even though that shit, is THEIR fault, I'm not gonna sit around waiting for them to change all the while being victimized. I thought up a saying for myself on this matter, "If violence is their game, let violence be our name." So as long as you, or any other "innocents" aren't threatening me with violence, you don't have to worry about whether I am violent, hence insurrectionary or nor.

But as long as there are piece of shit redneck bigot motherfuckers out there killing queers, I do have to worry about THEM being violent. It's pretty simple. We can't afford to wait for hate crime laws to be passed, or marriage bills to be voted in. If the fuckers want to use force against us then damn right I'm going to be violent.

That's why I believe in insurrection. Because we aren't truly free until no group is oppressed. And don't even say that I'm oppressing bigots. They don't want ME to exist among many others. When you (not directed at anyone particular) become a target, there is a good chance you will feel the same way, though obviously I can't speak on behalf of any marginalized group as a whole.


Oh and when I say redneck, I mean the ignorant/bigot usage of the word which is most used. If you consider yourself a redneck by some other standards and aren't these things, I don't mean you. The whole thing with that word is odd, but whatevs.

 

[christianarchy]

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."

i havent put ideas it on a napkin yet but i feel ya there!

 

[JungleBoots]

So how does one measure societies "readiness". That kind of "wait and see" attitude seems strangely similar to a lot of Christian principles and I've encountered a lot of both.

Those things in and of themselves are mostly useless in a long term time line. I don't know how efficient passing out literature and speaking down to people about how they should live is any better. Anarchism has been around for hundreds of years and hasn't swayed many people yet.

I don't want any system of governance.

well whatever you want to do, thats your perogative. if you honestly think you can strike up a riot whenever and a revolution will follow you are more than welcome to try, but im pretty sure you know that wont happen today, tomarrow or five years from now.

how you measure readyness depends on the populations awareness of alternatives to the current system. also it depends upon the frustration of the people in said current system and their awareness of such frustrations. and it depends on the people's willingness to support radical alternative groups.

i would say inorder for a revolution to be successful you only need about 10 percent of the population to back the idea of violent revolution. thats about the percent of population in all of russia that backed the Bolsheviks, and it was successful. however about 70 percent of the population of St. Petersburg (the capitol of the Russian Provisional government) backed the Bolsheviks which had a great deal of influence in actually deposing the provisional government and establishing the St. Petersburg soviet in power.

im not suggesting handing pamphlets out, and "talking down" to people. education, and awareness is hardly talking down to people. what i suggest even more than activism is creating a lifestyle for yourself, which we talk about on this site, and in doing that showing people that there are alternatives to the way they live that are completely viable, self-sustaining, and liberating. thus really helping to raise the level of awareness of alternatives to the current system, raising the level of awareness of individual frustration with the current system.

and your reply to my use of the term Governance is simply an issue of symantics.

 

[BrainWreck]

the anarchist movement and community during the spanish civil is a very interesting example of a working anarchistic community.

 

[adragonfly]

Pacifism is inept. But I'll take the bait here. If you should not revolt or promote insurrection, what are your ideas for destroying a centralized state with an economy and all that goes with that?

The idea is to promote decentralization of the state until it seizes to exists. What if you convinced everybody in your neighborhood to live communally with each other, live closer together to one another (physically and with relationships), stop relying on electricity and gas bills, and became autonomous? That is a whole neighborhood that is not giving money to utility companies, and since the utility companies are taxed by the government, that is less money to the government as well. See how autonomy can be applied in all aspects of life. If enough people lived like this, the government would die like a monster dieing from starvation. promoting peace, love, community, and autonomy is, i believe, the best way.

good and evil are both parts of the same coin. good cannot exist with out evil, and evil cannot exist with out good. By fighting off evil you actually reinforce the notion of war between good and evil. By accepting evil as it is we reinforce peace.

 

[adragonfly]

BTW, I am very happy this topic exists. It is very good to discuss and share our own versions of an idealistic way of life.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

I'm glad it exists too.


I've thought a lot about what you said dragon, like what if millions of people maxed their credit cards, cleared their banks, took out loans, went into tons of debt, and then just stayed in their foreclosed homes. What would the government do?


Well first of all I think it would be really REALLY hard to get that coordinated without government intervention in the first place. They don't WANT us to all unite, so they will keep us divided. I agree that we should build strong communities. I think that is the first step to this all, BUT I don't see how that would bring anything down. The cops will come for us. If we beat the cops (something actually quite doable), then they will send the military. If there is simply too much for the military to handle or we are too hard to pin down, then what? They will send in the private armies, the repo men, the collectors, and then they will pay even more people to oppose us. In a capitalist society, incentives are a pretty powerful tool...People eat that shit up. There is no way we can outlast their violence with pacifism. Derrick Jensen has it right. This culture is built on widespread violence, and maintained by widespread violence. How the fuck are we supposed to win a battle against not just an army, but an entire civilization based upon violence!

We need strong communities, and we need to be able to say "no more" and then back it up. It doesn't have to be an insta-fix. At first, the government will just watch us and frustrate us, but they can't out and out slaughter communities feeding, clothing, and helping each other. They will try to pass new laws. We must be willing to break those laws. Maybe we are discreet about it even. But when we finally go to far and the cops roll into our neighborhoods with guns, what then? Either we hide and wait for them to divide & conquer, or we shoot back. Maybe we even shoot them first. When the soldiers come, we unleash all hell like never seen before. Take out the power, take out radio towers, burn the bridges. We turn things so upside down that soldiers will start to wonder if this is even worth winning for. We have to make it dangerous at this point, no choice. Guerilla tactics, and no fucking mercy. If anyone wants to lay down their guns, sure we will let them, but shit has to be made clear.

Then we wait for the bomb. If it comes, we tried. If it doesn't, hopefully that means others around the country started doing the same thing.


Obviously this isn't a game plan. Just an anecdote to show what we are up against and how they operate. Either we have to make things so BIG and so chaotic that there is nothing left for them to salvage, or we have to make a destructive force BIG with a small amount of people. The second is more realistic considering the state of the anarchist movement today. It's all so divided and aimless that frankly I'm leaning more and more to just waiting til there are no more punks, crimethInc agents, and postlefts in the movement. It's a fad right now, and I am no longer excited by this popularity. Nothing gets done. Once it dies out, then anarchism will once again be a movement of libertarian socialists, anarchocommunists, anarchocollectivists, anarchosyndicalists, etc. just like the rest of the world is today. We will have learned some valuable lessons, and we will take advantage of the good things that the modern movement offered. Until then I'll just focus on issues that actually affect me, as opposed to busting my ass for the newest, hippest convergence or whatever the fuck.

 

[User Name]

well whatever you want to do, thats your perogative. if you honestly think you can strike up a riot whenever and a revolution will follow you are more than welcome to try, but im pretty sure you know that wont happen today, tomarrow or five years from now.

how you measure readyness depends on the populations awareness of alternatives to the current system. also it depends upon the frustration of the people in said current system and their awareness of such frustrations. and it depends on the people's willingness to support radical alternative groups.

i would say inorder for a revolution to be successful you only need about 10 percent of the population to back the idea of violent revolution. thats about the percent of population in all of russia that backed the Bolsheviks, and it was successful. however about 70 percent of the population of St. Petersburg (the capitol of the Russian Provisional government) backed the Bolsheviks which had a great deal of influence in actually deposing the provisional government and establishing the St. Petersburg soviet in power.

im not suggesting handing pamphlets out, and "talking down" to people. education, and awareness is hardly talking down to people. what i suggest even more than activism is creating a lifestyle for yourself, which we talk about on this site, and in doing that showing people that there are alternatives to the way they live that are completely viable, self-sustaining, and liberating. thus really helping to raise the level of awareness of alternatives to the current system, raising the level of awareness of individual frustration with the current system.

and your reply to my use of the term Governance is simply an issue of symantics.

I never said I'd want to nor did I mentioned "revolution".

Minus a few extremely short lived examples that doesn't seem to be realistic in civilized society.

Not only were the Bolshevik ideals different (in that they had organized and hierarchical armies and centralized command) but the difference between Russian society of 1917 and any modern Western post Industrial society are stark. There were a lot of internal and external stresses on a low tech decaying Russian empire. A similar force in say, the US could easily be crushed because of it's centralized structure and visibility. You pulled that 10 percent essentially out of thin air.

People will feel it's talking down. That's also another Christianesque feature of most strains of Anarchy, this evangelical fervor.

No, I literally want no governance. It's not that we both want "the people" to run a free mass society and we call it different things. I don't want a mass society.

 

[User Name]

The idea is to promote decentralization of the state until it seizes to exists. What if you convinced everybody in your neighborhood to live communally with each other, live closer together to one another (physically and with relationships), stop relying on electricity and gas bills, and became autonomous? That is a whole neighborhood that is not giving money to utility companies, and since the utility companies are taxed by the government, that is less money to the government as well. See how autonomy can be applied in all aspects of life. If enough people lived like this, the government would die like a monster dieing from starvation. promoting peace, love, community, and autonomy is, i believe, the best way.

good and evil are both parts of the same coin. good cannot exist with out evil, and evil cannot exist with out good. By fighting off evil you actually reinforce the notion of war between good and evil. By accepting evil as it is we reinforce peace.

Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite some examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.

I don't know where good and evil part came from, sounds kind of moralistic.

 

[User Name]

How the fuck are we supposed to win a battle against not just an army, but an entire civilization based upon violence!

Once it dies out, then anarchism will once again be a movement of libertarian socialists, anarchocommunists, anarchocollectivists, anarchosyndicalists, etc. just like the rest of the world is today. We will have learned some valuable lessons, and we will take advantage of the good things that the modern movement offered.

I'll just focus on issues that actually affect me.

Then make sure you don't stop at battling Capitalist centralized states, because that violence seems to be inherit in civilization.

Oh you mean the outdated dogmas that have resulted in nothing since their inception? The same ones based on outdated models of capitalist societies? It seems at least a lot of the newer schools of thought at least challenge or seek to challenge the root and move past the shortcomings of well, the past and the dichotomy of the supposed Left and Right because really Anarchy has no relation to Liberalism. There are definitely valuable lessons to move on with. Tons of shit to ditch from the newer schools as well.

That's one of the best things you could do.

 

[lobotomy3yes]

Then make sure you don't stop at battling Capitalist centralized states, because that violence seems to be inherit in civilization.

Oh you mean the outdated dogmas that have resulted in nothing since their inception? The same ones based on outdated models of capitalist societies? It seems at least a lot of the newer schools of thought at least challenge or seek to challenge the root and move past the shortcomings of well, the past and the dichotomy of the supposed Left and Right because really Anarchy has no relation to Liberalism. There are definitely valuable lessons to move on with. Tons of shit to ditch from the newer schools as well.

That's one of the best things you could do.

No. I mean the schools of anarchism practiced everywhere in the world but here. The ones that have caused revolutons in the past, the ones that have taken over cities, the ones that have ACTUALLY CREATED ANARCHIST SOCIETIES (Spanish Catalonia lasted for 2 years til the Communists took power and took it over. Another example was Ukraine), the ones the assassinated the FUCKING PRESIDENT (McKinley), the ones that killed cops when they demonstrated (including Haymarket, where 30 cops were taken out with one bomb. May Day comes from that), the ones that were out of control around the world and still are in places.

The reason the movement died in the US is because most of the anarchists were deported during the Espionage Act. Many of them went to Soviet Russia and hated it there too.

Look at all the modern movements that actually accomplish anything. Do you think the Zapatistas want anything to do with Crimethinc and other post-leftists? Nope. The Zapatistas are libertarian socialists, and they violently resist the state. They take towns and combat THE MILLITARY. American anarchists can't even handle cops with water guns. You put the Zapatistas, or the Galleanists, or any other actual revolutionary anarchists in the protests against G20 and see what happens (or would have happened). Bits of riot cops would be strewn about for miles.

All you people who think that anarchy hasn't happened because we haven't obtained that higher truth yet, check out our history. It will really encourage you to know that most of the time it isn't a lost cause. Very real progress was and is being made around the world. Used to here as well. We've had our ups and downs. You win some, you lose some. But we have many a success. The ARA would be shamed, watching the Spanish anarchists utterly humiliate the fascists in an important battle of the Spanish Civil War. Just because the world isn't yet in a permanent state of anarchy doesn't mean we have to come up with a new ideology every 3 years...The thing about libertarian socialists..THEY'RE PATIENT. They are willing to die for the cause in order for their comrades to see it in the future. Of course times change and we need to adjust according, and we have.


Not to sound like a dick or anything. I'm just surprised that no one talks about this stuff. I never hear the Zapatistas mentioned. Fucking Leftover Crack mentions them, and no word from CrimethInc?


Oh and by the way, I am anti-civ. That is the most important addition to the anarchist movement yet, though I don't think it is really new. A lot of the original anarchists were fighting in non-industrialized places, so it just wouldn't have occurred to Bakunin to write an anti-civ piece. Anyway, I am totally with you there. I think Derrick Jensen is one of the most important writers of this decade.

 

[st1tch]

I don't want to see anyone hurt, I especially don't want to have to hurt anyone, but most of all I don't want to be hurt for being different. Even though that shit, is THEIR fault, I'm not gonna sit around waiting for them to change all the while being victimized. I thought up a saying for myself on this matter, "If violence is their game, let violence be our name." So as long as you, or any other "innocents" aren't threatening me with violence, you don't have to worry about whether I am violent, hence insurrectionary or nor.
.

Amen brother.

 

[JungleBoots]

Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite some examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.

a good example, the Paris Commune. a complete direct democracy, a true worker's state, again only lasted three or so months, but it would have held strong against the Royalists if the anarchists and the socialists could get along, and organize proper guerilla skermishes in the streets.

 

[JungleBoots]

I never said I'd want to nor did I mentioned "revolution".

Minus a few extremely short lived examples that doesn't seem to be realistic in civilized society.

Not only were the Bolshevik ideals different (in that they had organized and hierarchical armies and centralized command) but the difference between Russian society of 1917 and any modern Western post Industrial society are stark. There were a lot of internal and external stresses on a low tech decaying Russian empire. A similar force in say, the US could easily be crushed because of it's centralized structure and visibility. You pulled that 10 percent essentially out of thin air.

People will feel it's talking down. That's also another Christianesque feature of most strains of Anarchy, this evangelical fervor.

No, I literally want no governance. It's not that we both want "the people" to run a free mass society and we call it different things. I don't want a mass society.

without revoltion how do you suppose we dissolve a government?

the bolshies didnt organize the armies, they had the armies already, aside from organizing a red guard of workers. the majority of soldiers on the frontlines against germany were on their side. either way thats irrellevant to your reply. but what i want to know is, other than not having a revolution which i still dont understand, how do you suppose you fight a government without a structured military? ive seen citation of Zapatistas, and guerilla fighters. however, i do not equate the ability or the power of the Mexican Federales to that to the US military. Especially if you are going to fight your war against the government of a post industrial nation, you definately need strategy, finely organized attacks, and the dicipline in your soldeirs to fight the way they need to inorder to not only win, but at least to put a decent dent in the enemy.

and that statistic of 10 percent is straight from the book Ten Days That Shook The World by john reed. (John Reeds own first hand accounts of the bolshevik revolution) only ten percent of the farmer peasantry of russia backed the october revolution, the farmer peasantry made up at least 90% of russia's total population.

but yes, in a modern post industrial nation, its going to need to be a much higher percent of the population, especially one such as US's of whom hold a great deal of personal arms. You cant win them over with out having them understand what the current system is doing to them. and they wont just fall on their knees finally understanding your mission agianst government when they read about the spanish civil war, or even the paris commune.

Awareness within the population, (as i implied) involves a great deal more than just knowing that anarchism can exist, its knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government. and knowing that requires reverting the programming of all the intricacies that bind the people into capitalism and government.

without doing that you have NO chance in hell of getting them on your side. and then whats your alternative? the upper class can burn for all i care, but eliminating the middle class all together the majority of a post industrial nation? the middle class will never give up the security in the lives they live without either death, or slow, reasonable convincing.

i dont see whats evangelical about passive activism.


and lastly? no governance? none at all? in no form what so ever? not even your own self saying "no i probably shouldnt do that"? that sounds to me alot like if while driving you come across red lights at busy intersections and due to your unfliching ideals ran them every time, eventually you are going to get into a very bad accident.

you cant escape governance completely, its called causality. somewhere along the line you have to realize your actions effect things and that can be detrimental to your livlihood.

 

[adragonfly]

Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite some examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.

I don't know where good and evil part came from, sounds kind of moralistic.

pure communism is anarchism, since both are stateless. I believe the best path to a stateless society is one where grassroots community action is happening. I think history has shown that a state controlled communistic path is not the way to go at all, since there will be power struggle at the state level. this sort of path eventually stops progressing when the government is affected by greed and capitalistic virtues.

The whole thing about good and evil is not moralistic. I dont believe in morality, but thats another story. with The whole good evil thing, i meant to say that war begets war and peace begets peace. a lot of anarchists are inclined to a militant view, "your with us or against us," "class war", "riots", but by doing all that it looses focus on what anarchism is. instead of focusin on what is wanted (freedom, peace, love, community), these anarchists focus on what is not wanted (hatred, war, anger, seperation (seperation between us and the current government, for example)). By focusing on what is not wanted, even tho we are fighting against what is not wanted, we fuel what is not wanted in the first place. the government fights back. the word "anarchism" has a social stigma because of this. war begets war.

so instead of being angry at what ever is wrong, lets dream of the best way to live. What do you want society to be live? how do you want your family, neighbors, community, countrymen, and fellow humans to live like? Id like everybody to be fed, be happy, be loved by one another, and be treated like humans and family. Now that i know what i want, I take steps to towards this direction without ever loosing heart, and if i do lose heart, i just focus again on what i want.