Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Palomar · 2002-07-03 15:47:11

*I've become curious as to how the persons here who identify themselves as anarchists, or use the word "anarchy," define those words. Just wondering, thanks...

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-03 15:50:41

anarchy = no rules... which is funny, since a rule stating that there are no rules is in effect a rule...

Anarchy is meaningless and useless, it invariably fails due to the inherent limitations of a system that is predicated on no order.

JGM · 2002-07-03 15:59:32

anarchy = no rules

I've tended to think of it as emphasizing no hierarchy of power. This makes it attractive to me since it would implicitly recognize that all sentient beings have equal value. I would have no problem with a rule that enforced this basic principle and countered the development of systems which fostered effective disparities in the way individuals were valued. In other words, I don't want to be a part of a system in which I am under anyone's overt control nor do I wish to control anyone else.

Palomar · 2002-07-03 16:14:38

anarchy = no rules...

*Yes.

I should have elaborated in my initial post.

A few years ago, I read the posts of a man [at a private mailing list], who defined "anarchism" as the belief that humans will get along better the less rules and regulations there are. He felt that each rule or regulation added a degree to distrust in humans and provoked mutual envy, hostility, covetousness, etc. However, he then proceeded to contradict [so it seemed to me] himself by stating that American citizens who don't agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be deported. ::shrug::

Anywho...how do anarchists themselves define this term they apply to themselves? What is the ideal political scenario to you? The ideal society? Do you believe there is such a thing as society, or are there simply groups of humans living together and "society" is a falsehood of unthinking rules, regulations, expectations, conformity issues, etc., superimposed upon groups of people? Or is society a natural outgrowth of groups of people living together, with resultant mores, values, standards, etc.? What about human predators? Where do they fit in, how do you deal with them? Also, would the term "utopian" be synonymous, in your view, with "anarchist?"

Again...just wondering.

--Cindy

Byron · 2002-07-03 16:24:55

I've tended to think of it as emphasizing no hierarchy of power. This makes it attractive to me since it would implicitly recognize that all sentient beings have equal value. I would have no problem with a rule that enforced this basic principle and countered the development of systems which fostered effective disparities in the way individuals were valued. In other words, I don't want to be a part of a system in which I am under anyone's overt control nor do I wish to control anyone else.

I go along with what JGM has said..that anarchy is a system of belief that no person has power over another...although this is not possilbe in "real life," as some governmental control is necessary for society to function. But on the personal level, I do find anarchy to be appealing, as I hate being under other people's thumbs, so to speak..this includes bosses, politicians, religious leaders, etc...which is why I work for myself, don't belong to a church, I support the Libertarian Party, and so on and so forth.

In summary, "anarchy" is just a frame of mind from my personal standpoint; not a "political" system, which goes against the very idea of anarchy to begin with. I just don't enjoy being controlled by others, which is why I like the "idea" of it, although I don't consider myself as a true-blue anarchist like the anti-capitalist protesters that you see at the world trade summits...

B

Phobos · 2002-07-03 17:37:47

*I've become curious as to how the persons here who identify themselves as anarchists, or use the word "anarchy," define those words. Just wondering, thanks...
--Cindy

Break down the word "anarchy." "an"=no/negate "archy"=authority.
Look at words like "Hiearchy", which basically translates into "levels" of authority. Anarchy isn't necessarily so much about not having rules, but rather about not having unnecessary authority interfering with your life. To an anarchist, there are legitimate forms of authority, but those forms of authority are those a person seeks out because they recognize the value of such authority. For example if I need my car repaired, I'll seek the authority of someone who I believe possesses the skill and allow them them the freedom to tinker with my car. But I don't need some idiot who thinks they know it all putting his or herself into power over me because they think they know what's best for me or because they think they have some right to sacrifice me for some abstract good. So as you can see, I'm an anarchist, even though I totter over to the Libertarian side every now and then. I believe here on Earth we're too far gone to entertain anything like anarchism, but I think anarchism could take root in small space colonies. Anyways, if you want to read about an actual anarchist movement on Earth read about the Spanish Anarchists in WWII. People often berate them as being failures, but the fact of the matter is, their rankless militias successfully held off the forces of both Franco and Hitler for two years! And during that time they successfully fed and clothed themselves. I think we're overly conditioned to accept blind authority in our lives. We believe we need the state to hold our hands and take baby steps with us wherever we go.

Pat Galea · 2002-07-04 12:02:06

*I've become curious as to how the persons here who identify themselves as anarchists, or use the word "anarchy," define those words. Just wondering, thanks...
--Cindy

Anarchy is one of those slippery words whose meaning can not be gleaned simply from the literal definition of its component parts. It's been used by too many people to mean different things, and it has way too much connotation.

I can speak about the anarcho-capitalist usage of the word. In fact, I really can only speak about my usage of it, as I know for a fact that I disagree with some other anarcho-capitalists.

To me, anarchy is simply the rejection of the legitimacy of government. That is, I do not recognise that any government has any morally legitimate authority over me.

That does not mean that I want to 'bring down the system'. There are things that are currently done by government that I think should be provided outside the state. But right now they're all we've got, and I have to put up with that. If the police intervene to stop a murder, rape or theft, then they have my full support. If the military launch an offensive to get rid of some nasty little bastards who are threatening my country, then they too get my full support.

To be an anarchist does not mean that you have all the answers for how to build an 'anarchic' society. As much as I think we could get on fine without a government, it's possible that we will never eliminate it entirely. This doesn't trouble me, any more than the fact that there will continue to be murders and rapes, even though I would dearly love to see them eliminated.

Anarchy is a personal philosophy.

Pat Galea · 2002-07-04 12:12:08

Perhaps I might clarify a little more...

Imagine a law is passed that both Anna and Derrick disagree with.

Derrick is a democrat (i.e. he believes that democracy provides the government with the moral legitimacy to pass laws). If he is to be consistent with his political philosophy, he must obey the law even though he disagrees with it.

Anna is an anarchist. She doesn't recognise that the government has any moral legitimacy to pass laws. She can disobey the law and still be behaving in a manner consistent with her philosophy.

If Derrick says "Yes, but this law is just too bad" and he disobeys it anyway, then he is not a democrat. If he thinks he has the right to disobey a law that he doesn't like, then he may in fact be an anarchist, even if he doesn't recognise this.

(I say 'may' because he may favor other types of government. But if he holds the principle that he can disobey a law passed by any type of government, then he is an anarchist, whatever he says.)

Phobos · 2002-07-04 19:20:16

Anarchy is one of those slippery words whose meaning can not be gleaned simply from the literal definition of its component parts. It's been used by too many people to mean different things, and it has way too much connotation.

I think for the vast majority of people out there, the conception of anarchism is that of some bohemian party that is always existing in a state of chaos (I prefer more precise terms like libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism.) Anyone who believes this and also believes we need the oppressive boot of government to keep order should read about the Spanish anarchists. These people controlled nearly half of Spain and were on the verge of smashing Franco with their 100% volunteer army that had no ranks whatsoever! The only reason they didn't was because the Nazi's came to Franco's rescue. And those people who like to make wild conjectures that no technological or advanced industrial activity could take place in an anarchic society will be surprised to learn that the Spanish anarchists built a number of massive industrial facilities that ranged from iron smelting plants to advanced optical factories. They were also quick to repair the damage to their buildings and transit systems with no governmental or managerial oversight whatsoever! The people who knew how to repair such things just got together and did it!
For this reason I believe a libertarian socialist society would easily achieve spaceflight. I can go into this further in a later post.

Another objection to anarchism (I'm writing more about the libertarian socialist viewpoint here) that often arises is that it will lead to a society of lazy people who will let the grass grow to tall. Well, not only have I covered this somewhat in my paragraph above, but the millions of people who lived in a system of anarchy in Spain were anything but lazy! They continued to till the fields, bake the bread, build the machinery, and fight the war with no bosses or government control. We seem to have this idea that everyone is an irresponsible idiot who wants to do nothing all day. Most of the people I come into contact with are responsible people who are perfectly willing to do their part, not only at work, but for charities and other things. I think most people would want to get out and be productive rather than sit around all day, especially if they were more free to do as they wanted. And if there were people who wanted to sit around all day, so what! It's their right! Society doesn't necessarily need every single person working anyway to be functional.

So to wrap this thing up, I agree with Noam Chomsky that anarchism is really the only moral form of "government" as it doesn't impose an external set of laws (which are often obviously silly, idiotic, and oppressive) that are thrusted upon people through the use of coercion and force. And anarchy doesn't lead to a caste of elitists who think they have some innate right to sacrifice people for their pet projects and wars they deem to be for the "societal good."

To be an anarchist does not mean that you have all the answers for how to build an 'anarchic' society. As much as I think we could get on fine without a government, it's possible that we will never eliminate it entirely. This doesn't trouble me, any more than the fact that there will continue to be murders and rapes, even though I would dearly love to see them eliminated.
Anarchy is a personal philosophy.

Very true. There are a lot of people who aren't strictly anarchists but have something an anarchist ethic. It's best to be wary of those those who want to increase the power of government over the citizenry in the name of good causes. As that old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

scottgbeach · 2002-07-06 03:02:20

Cindy:

My Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines anarchy as "a utopian society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy complete freedom." I doubt that such a society has ever existed or ever will exist, but it would sure be cool.

Scott

Aetius · 2002-07-06 06:53:08

Good thing Mars is a big planet. That is definitely not for me. Anarchy, by whatever label, seems doomed for the same reasons communism was. Societies under pressure from a major external threat, as in the case of Spain, can pull together and accomplish the things you mentioned. Howard Bloom mentions this kind of behavior in his excellent book, "The Lucifer Principle". Had they won, however, normal human behavior would simply have reasserted itself. It is still a political idea best suited for a perfect world.

I never liked Chomsky. He is quick to point out the shortcomings of the global capitalist system, but often seems to turn a blind eye to the failings of anti-Western rulers. His "solutions" are just attempts to whitewash and rehabilitate Communism under a different guise. I saw a television documentary about his ideas ("Manufacturing Consent") on Free Speech TV, an American TV channel devoted to promoting Leftist politics. No wonder he is the favorite of the aging hippies who control America's Leftist re-education youth camps...er, institutions of higher learning.

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-06 12:59:15

Chomsky isn't about defining which system is ?better? or ?worse.? He just points out factual problems in our current societies. It's not his fault everything leads back to socialism. I honestly don't think anyone can profess to know what human nature is, and so any argument (the selfish gene, etc) attempting to do so is pretty much null to me.

Theoretically, anarchy and communism are indistinguishable at the highest level. In that government ceases to exist in both systems.

Most scientists actually work in anarchist type environments, in that discovery is done in a collective, everyone is equal, manner.

Aetius · 2002-07-06 13:46:52

Actually, I would beg to differ about Chomsky. He just lacks the directness to just say it. Scientists may work very well in an 'anarchist' environment...but the skewing effects caused by the type of people attracted to performing scientific research has a major impact on the success or failure of the system.

I would not deign to argue for or against the existence of the 'selfish gene'. However, someone is arguing that human nature is so malleable that a society which rejects large-scale hierarchy can exist long-term. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence...other than the brief existence of the wartime anti-Franco resistance regime in Spain.

All successful societies have elements of socialism...even the supposedly 'capitalist' United States of America. I just don't personally believe that an 'anarchist' society (by any label) like the one so outlined can survive in the long run. If it can...more power to you.

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-06 14:51:45

Would you care to provide some examples about Chomsky? I think the most interesting thing about him is that he doesn't say anything that's really controversial at all. Everything he says is literally in your local newspaper, on the back page, in the tiny paragraph no one reads. But I won't make this a Chomsky screaming match. I'm just saying.

And about scientists, I was just suggesting that anarchy would require a scientific mindset, in the very least.

I don't think the claim that a society can exist without hierarchy is extraordinary at all. There are current systems which already do work without hierarchy, like the internet, for example. Decentralization is the key for multicellular organisms.

Palomar · 2002-07-06 23:49:39

*I've read some of Chomsky's works, including "9-11" and a few essays. I feel I'm not -yet- acquainted enough with him to give a personal opinion of the man, but I read the following at a newsgroup months ago, and made a note of it; the man I'm quoting has a PhD in political science and is well acquainted with Noam Chomsky:

"Chomsky and [Michael] Parenti doubtless have websites of
their own, but I don't know the URLs offhand.

C&P generally have their ducks in line about tawdry
aspects of U.S. domestic/foreign policy. My major
reservation about both of them is that they tend to
assign all blame for the screwed-up world to the USA
and none to other countries - many of whom have
worked at least as hard to get themselves into
whatever cesspool they're currently in."

--Cindy

P.S.: I'm not interested in starting a shouting match, either; I just thought I'd share this.

Phobos · 2002-07-07 01:49:17

Here's the interview where Noam Chomsky defends anarchism. I'll post it an excerpt below but here's the url where I found it:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html
noam chomsky url

"CHOMSKY: I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes since. I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way."

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-07 06:48:36

Yeah, that's a good read. Heck, I like anything of Chomsky, really.

But a lot of ?real? anarchists don't like Chomsky because he dicusses foreign issues more than he goes to Black Bloc's, but I think he's making a good example of himself.

The last three Chomsky discussions I've seen revolve around him criticizing US foreign policy. I agree that he does fixate on our policies a bit, but I think he does it in an honest, thought provoking way. The kind of way that suggests that if there is going to be peaceful change in the world, it must start here. And I think he argues the case effectively.

Palomar · 2002-07-07 10:51:26

Yeah, that's a good read. Heck, I like anything of Chomsky, really.
But a lot of ?real? anarchists don't like Chomsky because he discusses foreign issues more than he goes to Black Bloc's, but I think he's making a good example of himself.

*What is "Black Bloc's" - ?

And as for "real"...I just love it when any group of somewhat like-minded people begin that high-horse rhetoric: "WE are THE REAL [fill in the blank]." Funny thing is, you get two, three, maybe even more major group[lets] who insist THEY are THE REAL [fill in the blank]. It can be amusing at times.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-07 18:49:32

Black Bloc's are where anarchists gather and protest peacefully, wearing all black.

I think it's important it find a distinction between real and unreal anarchists. There are quite a few factors for one to be one, and these factors are universal...

Pat Galea · 2002-07-08 02:40:21

And as for "real"...I just love it when any group of somewhat like-minded people begin that high-horse rhetoric: "WE are THE REAL [fill in the blank]." Funny thing is, you get two, three, maybe even more major group[lets] who insist THEY are THE REAL [fill in the blank]. It can be amusing at times.
--Cindy

Y'all act like you never seen anarchism before
Jaws all on the floor like Proudhon, like Chomsky just walked in the door
And started whoopin' statist ass worse than before
They argued "no force", and wrote it in their literature
It's the Return of the Marx... "Oh wait, no way, you're kidding,
He didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"
And Lysander Spooner said... Nothing, you idiots
Spooner is dead, he's locked in my basement!

...

I'm Capitalist, the REAL anarchist
All you other Anarchists are just imitating
So won't the REAL anarchists please stand up
Please stand up
Please stand up?

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-08 03:29:07

Hahaha

Ryjaz · 2002-07-09 11:53:14

One of the things that most impressed me with anarchy in my youth was anarchistic philosopher Pierre Proudhon's book "What is Property, property is Theft".

In it he holds the view that no one can own anything he/she does not use. To put this in context, he was writing specifically against the ideas of a landlord being able to own property and rent it out. He considered this relationship parasitic (my own phrasing) in that the landlord has no claim to the property as they were not using it.

To my knowledge there is only one society which has ever existed for some time with an anarchistic government, the Inuits of Alaska. In their society nothing was "owned" and there was no codified laws. If someone did something that harmed another, the two people would make their case in front of their peers (anyone who cared to show up) and any retribution to be had was decided there.

Pat Galea · 2002-07-15 02:32:11

One of the things that most impressed me with anarchy in my youth was anarchistic philosopher Pierre Proudhon's book "What is Property, property is Theft".
In it he holds the view that no one can own anything he/she does not use. To put this in context, he was writing specifically against the ideas of a landlord being able to own property and rent it out. He considered this relationship parasitic (my own phrasing) in that the landlord has no claim to the property as they were not using it.

I have some respect for Proudhon's view. Obviously, being a capitalist, I disagree with him; but at least his concept is internally consistent.

In many capitalist texts that I've read, there is a degree of sloppiness in this area. A simple claim is made that you have ownership of your body (not too controversial); then a jump is made with very little intervening argument to the idea that you can therefore claim as property things that you have homesteaded and thus dispose of them as you please.

The conclusion is (I think) sound, but the intervening logic is far from convincing.

I believe this is a weakness in the current expositions of the theory, rather than a weakness in the theory itself. But it is, nevertheless, a weakness.

Phobos · 2002-12-31 22:15:41

Cindy and anyone else who might be interested you can read some of the ideas of how an anarchist society might work by going http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/theor … o.htm]here. I think this type of gov't would do well on Mars because of the small population it would likely have. At least it wouldn't be a totalitarian nightmare.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-31 22:42:25

OMG! Phobos actually advocating anarchism!?!? WTF???

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-03 15:47:11

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#2 2002-07-03 15:50:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#3 2002-07-03 15:59:32

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#4 2002-07-03 16:14:38

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#5 2002-07-03 16:24:55

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#6 2002-07-03 17:37:47

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#7 2002-07-04 12:02:06

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#8 2002-07-04 12:12:08

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#9 2002-07-04 19:20:16

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#10 2002-07-06 03:02:20

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#11 2002-07-06 06:53:08

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#12 2002-07-06 12:59:15

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#13 2002-07-06 13:46:52

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#14 2002-07-06 14:51:45

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#15 2002-07-06 23:49:39

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#16 2002-07-07 01:49:17

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#17 2002-07-07 06:48:36

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#18 2002-07-07 10:51:26

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#19 2002-07-07 18:49:32

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#20 2002-07-08 02:40:21

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#21 2002-07-08 03:29:07

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#22 2002-07-09 11:53:14

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#23 2002-07-15 02:32:11

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#24 2002-12-31 22:15:41

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

#25 2002-12-31 22:42:25

Re: Calling All Anarchists - Definition, please?

Board footer