Anarchyland!

[muir]

Of anarchism I've read LOTS, possibly the complete canon, and a lot of it is highly, highly intellectual and highly, highly rational but its supporters I've met are often highly emotive, reckless, chaotic individuals who're liable to seize upon a few lines here or there to serve as a rationalisation for behaviour they've choosen for reasons which arent even clear to themselves.

Can you please state what lines these individuals have seized upon?

 

[La Sagna]

Can you provide examples please?

Also can you explain what you perceive anarchism to be

thanks

You will be happy to know that since you I discussed with you your idea of anarchy I have looked it up and realized that it has many different meanings. I took it previously as just meaning no government and no laws but 'anarchy' seems to be in a similar situation as 'feminism' where it means different things to different people. Your previous description of anarchy sounded to me more like communism, but apparently that might be anarcho-communism.

My observation was based on two sons of friends and their entourage who strongly identify as anarchists. I have two friends who don't know each other but each has a son that strongly identifies as an anarchists (they're also both rappers which I thought was weird). These two young men in their twenties don't know each other but I have found them both to be very intelligent but almost impossible to have a rational discussion with. Although they both seem to have good hearts and good intentions, their arguments for their specific ideas were never clearly defined or well-backed by evidence or any realistic plan of action. Their ideas seemed to change according to whatever suited them at that moment.

One is slightly older and married now and living in the US so I think he might have tempered a bit. I haven't heard about him in a few years. I did admire that he strongly believed in fair-trade products and did something about that.

The other one who is now 23 I think, is another story. At one point he wanted to renounce his Canadian health card, which is good that he didn't because he got into a drunken fight and ended up with a very damaged shoulder which required months of health-care. I don't know what he would have done without his universal health-care. After that he decided that he wanted to live by just going around and exchanging work for food and board because he didn't want a regular job. That didn't work out. He thought the world markets were going to collapse last Fall so he put all his money on filling a barn with supplies and buying a generator. He also bought gold bars. When the market didn't collapse he moved to a different town and left all that stuff behind. His mom found the gold bars just dumped on the floor underneath a pile of dirty clothes and garbage, and has supplies for a while as well as a generator if she needs it. He now sleeps on a friend's couch and has a job cleaning toilets to survive. I admire that he is willing to clean toilets to support himself(I'm serious), so many people think they are above that and I don't think anybody should be.

I realize these are just two young men, but they're the ones that I have known and they were surrounded by similar-minded friends. The impression that they gave me about anarchy is that it was a phase for restless ideological young men who were rebellious, disorganized and unrealistic.

That's my personal experience with it. I don't tend to hang around too many people who are anarchists.

 

[muir]

You will be happy to know that since you I discussed with you your idea of anarchy I have looked it up and realized that it has many different meanings. I took it previously as just meaning no government and no laws but 'anarchy' seems to be in a similar situation as 'feminism' where it means different things to different people. Your previous description of anarchy sounded to me more like communism, but apparently that might be anarcho-communism.

Your thread here seems to be fallling into the pre-laid pitfall (laid by the corporate media) of equating anarchy with chaos or a world without rules which is not true

It is in spirit about creating a world free from coercion which is why i linked it to feminism before arguing that if we want a world free from coercion then that should apply for both men and women

Have a think for a moment about that and the implications of it....it would require a different mindset to the one that we have been culturally engrained with...a shift in how we perceived things culturally

But essentially what you seemed to be arguing for in the feminism thread is for people to be free from coercion and what i'm saying is that is essentially anarchism

My observation was based on two sons of friends and their entourage who strongly identify as anarchists. I have two friends who don't know each other but each has a son that strongly identifies as an anarchists (they're also both rappers which I thought was weird).

Rap is used for social commentary so its not really that weird. Also if you think about what the point of the forum we are on is it is to look at and try to clarify certain patterns in human behaviour that Jung discearned

So both those guys obviously don;t feel they fit into the current system....both are looking for modes of thought that might make sense of their feelings of disconnection and alienation (and have looked into anarchism....i don't know to what extent they understood it) and are looking for ways to express their dissatisfaction (rap)

You and me have discussed elsewhere how the younger generation are feeling adrift nowadays. They have a number of options: dive into this messed up system and try and swim, express their dissatisfaction and maybe try alternative ways of living, shut down and zone out through drugs, computer games, TV and other media and gadgetry

These two young men in their twenties don't know each other but I have found them both to be very intelligent but almost impossible to have a rational discussion with. Although they both seem to have good hearts and good intentions, their arguments for their specific ideas were never clearly defined or well-backed by evidence or any realistic plan of action. Their ideas seemed to change according to whatever suited them at that moment.

I think its fair to say that it is not possible for an individual to clearly outline what an anrchist society would look like because they do not get to solely decide; they have to join with others and vote on it...so people can theorise but not specify

Also trying to live within the current system which is very much in a spirit of coercive, dog eat dog competition by another spirit of non coercive cooperation is difficult and each situation is going to need to be assessed moment to moment....kind of like translating into a different language in your head before then speaking it

One is slightly older and married now and living in the US so I think he might have tempered a bit.

What do you mean 'tempered a bit'? That makes it sound like his way is wrong and the current system is right...maybe its people adhering tio the current paradigm that need to 'temper a bit'

I haven't heard about him in a few years. I did admire that he strongly believed in fair-trade products and did something about that.

So some right action was coming from right thought

The other one who is now 23 I think, is another story. At one point he wanted to renounce his Canadian health card, which is good that he didn't because he got into a drunken fight and ended up with a very damaged shoulder which required months of health-care. I don't know what he would have done without his universal health-care.

under the current system people aren't left with many options

After that he decided that he wanted to live by just going around and exchanging work for food and board because he didn't want a regular job. That didn't work out. He thought the world markets were going to collapse last Fall so he put all his money on filling a barn with supplies and buying a generator. He also bought gold bars. When the market didn't collapse he moved to a different town and left all that stuff behind. His mom found the gold bars just dumped on the floor underneath a pile of dirty clothes and garbage, and has supplies for a while as well as a generator if she needs it. He now sleeps on a friend's couch and has a job cleaning toilets to survive. I admire that he is willing to clean toilets to support himself(I'm serious), so many people think they are above that and I don't think anybody should be.

Yeah i'm not a job snob...i've cleaned dishes, toilets and peoples arses for a living; they didn't pay well but i wasn't fucking anyone over to do them and that has always been a guiding principle in my job selections

Some people are multi millionaires but are screwing over many people to achieve that which means they are actually of less use to the planet and society than a humble toilet cleaner who doesn't hurt anyone but actually helps to keep the environment clean and disease free

I realize these are just two young men, but they're the ones that I have known and they were surrounded by similar-minded friends. The impression that they gave me about anarchy is that it was a phase for restless ideological young men who were rebellious, disorganized and unrealistic.

That's my personal experience with it. I don't tend to hang around too many people who are anarchists.

I think its unfair to tar anarchism with the brush of two men but even those two men don't sound like they are hurting anyone (except the guy in a fistfight...perhaps it was started by a rabid capitalist? lol)

I wish them both well and hope they can find a path through this current sick and dehumanising system

The one with the gold bars is in a good position for when the dollar does collapse and people revert to a gold standard.

China and russia are definately stockpiling gold but the IMF might try and push forward their currency called 'special drawing rights'. This might be collateralised by the world bank against the land the UN owns as 'conservation parks' around the world as part of a world conservation bank

 

[Lark]

That has been my experience with the self-proclaimed anarchists that I have met.

They're jokers.

I tried hard for a long time to try and break down whatever barriers there were among them and between them and others in the ninties when there were more people interested in topics like this and it was pretty hopeless, I began to think that if you couldnt get a few individuals who were self-proclaimed representatives of the creedo to get together and treat each other right then whatever could be said for it in literary terms it was practically failed.

I remember one guy who had come up with the idea that anarchism could be and should be nothing other than attack on the idea of authority, any sort but specifically institutional and by which he meant any sort of organised authority, yup, no obligations or responsibility or anything, sort of hard to get anyone like that to keep their word or honour any promises, when you cant get something as simple as that from someone they arent going to be able to deliver any alternative, let alone a perferable one, to the status quo.

Now that was a very, very learned individual, they were able to draw on serious philosophy, post-modernism and other complex texts but, like their repeated "significantly more radical than you" insistence that rough sleeping or couch surfing or other indications or real honest to God maladjustment made them more of a "true revolutionary" than everyone else, it was all practically a strategy, a poor one at that, aiming at controlling others or pursuing dominance, buried real deep in their consciousness and seriously denied.

That individual was one of the last I met before I decided that anarchism was a dead end, I've met lots of other people who resemble that in left wing circles before and since, the brand of ideology changes but the character of people professing it doesnt change that much. The right wing has its own variety, not suggesting that this is exclusive to the left or anything.

 

[Lark]

Can you please state what lines these individuals have seized upon?

It depends on the circumstances, if someone likes to throw bricks they can tell you 101 reasons why any other strategy is a bad idea or why they simply have no choice but to throw bricks, this is all usually after the fact.

You know how psychological rationalisation and justification works, its not complicated and anarchism is a very broad and deep literary school of thought, more diverse and disparate than any other political movement I'd say.

 

[muir]

It depends on the circumstances, if someone likes to throw bricks they can tell you 101 reasons why any other strategy is a bad idea or why they simply have no choice but to throw bricks, this is all usually after the fact.

You know how psychological rationalisation and justification works, its not complicated and anarchism is a very broad and deep literary school of thought, more diverse and disparate than any other political movement I'd say.

ok but you have made a claim about what lines these people have used and id like to know what lines they were

 

[muir]

They're jokers.

I tried hard for a long time to try and break down whatever barriers there were among them and between them and others in the ninties when there were more people interested in topics like this and it was pretty hopeless, I began to think that if you couldnt get a few individuals who were self-proclaimed representatives of the creedo to get together and treat each other right then whatever could be said for it in literary terms it was practically failed.

I remember one guy who had come up with the idea that anarchism could be and should be nothing other than attack on the idea of authority, any sort but specifically institutional and by which he meant any sort of organised authority, yup, no obligations or responsibility or anything, sort of hard to get anyone like that to keep their word or honour any promises, when you cant get something as simple as that from someone they arent going to be able to deliver any alternative, let alone a perferable one, to the status quo.

Now that was a very, very learned individual, they were able to draw on serious philosophy, post-modernism and other complex texts but, like their repeated "significantly more radical than you" insistence that rough sleeping or couch surfing or other indications or real honest to God maladjustment made them more of a "true revolutionary" than everyone else, it was all practically a strategy, a poor one at that, aiming at controlling others or pursuing dominance, buried real deep in their consciousness and seriously denied.

That individual was one of the last I met before I decided that anarchism was a dead end, I've met lots of other people who resemble that in left wing circles before and since, the brand of ideology changes but the character of people professing it doesnt change that much. The right wing has its own variety, not suggesting that this is exclusive to the left or anything.

That's absurd to try and write off any political discourse that is contrary to the staus quo as a joke or a pissing contest

As the situation gets tougher out there more and more people will be discussing alternatives...that has nothing to do with them wanting to appear radical, it has to do with them worrying about the economy, about the housing bubble, about the growing police state, about the erosion of their freedoms, about the use of their tax money to wage constant war, about their vacuous soulless culture and so on

Unemployment in spain for people from 16-24 is at something like 50% (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/30/spain-youth-unemployment-record-high). You can't say that disgruntled youth becoming dissillusioned with the current system is a psychological flaw

These are legitimate greivances and you are going to hear more and more of them

 

[Lark]

ok but you have made a claim about what lines these people have used and id like to know what lines they were

hahahaha, sorry man, its been years and it wasnt a matter of chapter and verse you know.

You know the old saying that the devil can quote scripture when they want to.

 

[muir]

hahahaha, sorry man, its been years and it wasnt a matter of chapter and verse you know.

You know the old saying that the devil can quote scripture when they want to.

It sounds to me that you are making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to demonise anarchism without offering any actual critique of the ideas contained within anarchism

All you have done is try to discredit anarchists by calling their mental state into question.....that is a classic strategy of the frankfurt school and critical theory, which is to call anyone that disagrees with them insane...which if you have been reading Erich Fromm as you say you have you should be well aware off!

 

[sprinkles]

I know what you mean and perhaps you are also attempting to use humour, its hard to tell online, but that could be a bit of an emotional over reaction to google attempting, albeit in a manner that's a pain, to be helpful.

Maybe that sort of pervasive assistance is part of what I'm talking about, on the other hand it could just be convenience and I'm not that begrudging about most of the convenience developments there's been, certainly in the space of my lifetime.

To be honest I think that there have been social and cultural developments in most of the developed world, the hegemonic nations but perhaps I just mean the english speaking nations, which amount to what would be considered some kind of emotional or maturational crisis in an individual.

These developments have resulted in a situation in which none of the modern political ideologies, and I've read pretty widely of them all, or even some of the pseduo-ideologies, like economic or other theories (ideology with a small i) are little understood and less applicable to life as it is. Some ideologues realise this more than others, some have turned out to be complete self-serving machavellians as a result, politicians have become performance artists and managerial elites, working to "manage public expectations" (usually downwards).

Of anarchism I've read LOTS, possibly the complete canon, and a lot of it is highly, highly intellectual and highly, highly rational but its supporters I've met are often highly emotive, reckless, chaotic individuals who're liable to seize upon a few lines here or there to serve as a rationalisation for behaviour they've choosen for reasons which arent even clear to themselves.

It's not an over reaction when you must search for a technical document with precise terms and you can't find it because Google is 'helping' you.

Their verbatim option is not even verbatim either. Not in ANY sense of verbatim.

They 'help' you for two reasons:
1. they think you're stupid and
2. it helps them have an excuse to inject irrelevant results which make them money

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I also want a lot of the same things you do for the world and definitely a world without coersion is something I would wish for. Where I disagree is that you're going to find it through anarchy.
Isn't the original definition of anarchy a state where there are no governments and no laws? Are we going to kill all the bad greedy people or are we going to magically turn them into caring and unselfish people? Unfortunately I don't have enough trust in the 'goodness of mankind' to believe that we could ever have a lasting peaceful coexistence on a grand scale without some sort of government and laws. I do think that it can be done on a small scale with like-minded and cooperative people but my personal experience with self-declared anarchists is that they are not very peaceful or cooperative people. They may be smart and well-meaning but they are pretty stubborn and passionate which I feel are two things that can hinder cooperation.

I strongly believe in social democracies with honest governments. They are not perfect but I believe them to be the closest to a well-functioning, caring, but also free society. I personally would rather put my efforts on working to improve the current systems rather than destroying them and starting over. I'm not sure that what would replace them would be better.

I don't think we need anarchy to change the world for the better but organized peaceful protests and pressure on governments can change things if enough people participate. We definitely need to fight apathy, but anarchy is not the 'hook' that will get the average citizen more aware and involved, no matter how many good ideas or good intentions are included.

 

[Lark]

It sounds to me that you are making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to demonise anarchism without offering any actual critique of the ideas contained within anarchism

All you have done is try to discredit anarchists by calling their mental state into question.....that is a classic strategy of the frankfurt school and critical theory, which is to call anyone that disagrees with them insane...which if you have been reading Erich Fromm as you say you have you should be well aware off!

No, I didnt say that, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of engaging in some projection, then you'll see that I said whatever the value of the anarchist ideas themselves, which I think have a lot of literary value, that the anarchists that I have met do not measure up well to the ideas. If you want to criticise anarchism or anarchists in practice all you have to use to do it is anarchism in theory, pretty much.

You know about the major differences between Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer and Erich Fromm right? I mean you'd not be making a gross generalisation about a disparite group of individuals on the back of second hand sources and prejudice?

Think about it.

 

[Lark]

It's not an over reaction when you must search for a technical document with precise terms and you can't find it because Google is 'helping' you.

Their verbatim option is not even verbatim either. Not in ANY sense of verbatim.

They 'help' you for two reasons:
1. they think you're stupid and
2. it helps them have an excuse to inject irrelevant results which make them money

Did you mean to quote me there? Its just I dont see what you mean.

 

[sprinkles]

Did you mean to quote me there? Its just I dont see what you mean.

I quoted it to notify you that I see it and I'm responding to you.

You said - and I quote:

but that could be a bit of an emotional over reaction to google attempting, albeit in a manner that's a pain, to be helpful.

That is the main thing I was replying to. The other stuff I really don't care about. I'm not an anarchist nor do I really care about them other than them being fun to mimic.

 

[rawr]

[mods]moved to Imagination Exercises[/mods]

 

[muir]

@muir

I also want a lot of the same things you do for the world and definitely a world without coersion is something I would wish for. Where I disagree is that you're going to find it through anarchy.

Ok please name another approach that is non coercive

Isn't the original definition of anarchy a state where there are no governments and no laws?

hold on a minute....i asked you what your perception of anarchy is; are you now saying that you haven't looked into it at all?

Here is a pamphlet from the anarchist federation titled: ''Introduction to anarchist communism'' that you might find interesting

http://afed.org.uk/ace/afed_introduction_anarchist_communism.pdf

Are we going to kill all the bad greedy people or are we going to magically turn them into caring and unselfish people?

No we use a combination of dual power and lifestylism to create a new system out of the shell of the old

We can't kill people as that would be coercion wouldnt it? Self defence on the other hand is another matter

Also people aren't born selfish...so if we change the culture...change the way we live....do away with the selfish consumerist way of life...then we give ourelves a chance to feed another side to human nature

Unfortunately I don't have enough trust in the 'goodness of mankind' to believe that we could ever have a lasting peaceful coexistence on a grand scale without some sort of government and laws.

Thats because you have been living under a system of government and their laws (made to protect the rich) which turn people against each other thereby giving you a dim view of people

Change the environment, change the person

I do think that it can be done on a small scale with like-minded and cooperative people but my personal experience with self-declared anarchists is that they are not very peaceful or cooperative people.

lol
so on the basis of the stories you've heard about the two lads who are sons of your friends, and identify as anarchists, anarchism as a system cannot work?

Besides you said one of them was couch surfing; try living on peoples couches if you are a uncooperative person....you'll get kicked out pretty quick!

They may be smart and well-meaning but they are pretty stubborn and passionate which I feel are two things that can hinder cooperation.

Not at all anarchism is about non coercion so they couldn't be made to do anything they didn't want to do; however if they're smart like you say they are then they'd work out pretty quick that more can be achieved when working with others

I strongly believe in social democracies with honest governments.

In a years time if we are both still on this forum, i'll ask you as the police state grows and the economy worsens if you still have so much faith in social democracies

They are not perfect but I believe them to be the closest to a well-functioning, caring, but also free society.

They're not well functioning...they're disfunctional. They're riddled with poverty, crime, inequality, pollution, corruption, economic instability, war, massed druggings and self medication and a host of other problems not least a growing feelings of ennui

I personally would rather put my efforts on working to improve the current systems rather than destroying them and starting over. I'm not sure that what would replace them would be better.

That ain't going to happen because as long as you cling to the money system the guys with the money will call the shots and they have no intention of improving things for you or anyone else except themselves

I don't think we need anarchy to change the world for the better but organized peaceful protests and pressure on governments can change things if enough people participate.

Governments are beholden to big money...that's what makes the capitalist world go round...how do you suggest tackling that? Do you hope that if enough people protest the rich might get together and make some kind of new deal type situation as a band aid on all the problems?

We definitely need to fight apathy, but anarchy is not the 'hook' that will get the average citizen more aware and involved, no matter how many good ideas or good intentions are included.

Apathy is a product of capitalism...you know why? because the money has flowed to the top and more and more people are feeling like they have no stake in society, no stake in the decision making process and therefore feel useless, unsafe and dissilusioned

Anarchy on the other hand enables people to be involved in something at every level...they are involved in the doing as well as the deciding; they would all have a stake in the system and be a part of a wider community where they could freely explore to find their place in the process

 

[muir]

No, I didnt say that, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of engaging in some projection, then you'll see that I said whatever the value of the anarchist ideas themselves, which I think have a lot of literary value, that the anarchists that I have met do not measure up well to the ideas. If you want to criticise anarchism or anarchists in practice all you have to use to do it is anarchism in theory, pretty much.

You know about the major differences between Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer and Erich Fromm right? I mean you'd not be making a gross generalisation about a disparite group of individuals on the back of second hand sources and prejudice?

Think about it.

You said this:

I've met lots of other people who resemble that in left wing circles before and since, the brand of ideology changes but the character of people professing it doesnt change that much.

This sounds to me like you are tarring everyone on the left with the same brush

So i'm not 'projecting' anything

You are trying to write off everyone on the left as being the ways you described which were very derogatory

Also you have still not offered any criticism of the ideas of anarchism

All you have done is criticise some anarchists that you vaguely refer to who you have said have just latched onto some lines of anarchist thought but are unable to say what those lines are...its all very vague...there's no substance to what youre saying

A classic strategy of the frankfurt school was to try and discredit things by calling peoples sanity into question but without actually discussiing an alternative

Well anarchists have an alternative

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]


I said that the 'original' definition of anarchy is a state where there is no government and no laws, which is basically correct and does not mean that I am not aware that there are schools of thought that use the label anarchy and that vary in their exact views of what anarchy represents.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition, I was actually more neutral then their definition:

anarchy

Pronunciation: /ˈanəki 

noun

1A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems: ‘he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy’
More example sentences‘’
‘’
‘’



2Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Origin

mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler'.

I'm sure you know that there are many types of 'anarchists' and not all anarchists agree on the fundamentals of what anarchy is or should be.

Here is a list that am aware of:

1 Philosophical anarchism
2 Mutualism
3 Social anarchism
3.1 Collectivist anarchism
3.2 Anarchist communism
3.3 Anarcho-syndicalism
4 Individualist anarchism
4.1 Egoist anarchism
4.2 Individualist anarchism in the United States
4.3 European individualist anarchism
5 Religious anarchism
5.1 Christian anarchism
6 Anarcho-pacifism
7 Anarchism without adjectives
7.1 Synthesist anarchism
8 Contemporary developments
8.1 Green anarchism
8.1.1 Anarcho-naturism
8.1.2 Social ecology
8.1.3 Anarcho-primitivism
8.2 Anarcha-feminism
8.2.1 Platformism
8.3 Anarcho-queer
8.4 Post-left anarchy
8.5 Post-anarchism
8.6 Insurrectionary anarchism
8.7 Anarcho-capitalism

It seems to me that the word 'anarchist' suffers the same problem as 'feminist' because it gets used by different people to represent different things.
I am definitely not versed in all these schools of anarchy and I can't tell you that any of them are right or wrong in their approach. I can just tell you that my own personal opinion is that anarchy is not the right approach. I can tell you that in my world you are absolutely free to believe in anarchy and I will not coerce you into anything . But you have also not managed to convince me that anarchy is the one and only way to change the world for the better.

so on the basis of the stories you've heard about the two lads who are sons of your friends, and identify as anarchists, anarchism as a system cannot work?

I definitely don't base it just on these two guys, but they are two people that I know passionately identify with the label 'anarchist' and have taken personal steps in their own lives to try to live in a way that reflects their beliefs. So, although I know that there is a lot diversity in any group, they made an impression on me that does influence the way I would feel about people who label themselves anarchists (to be honest they gave me a better impressiont than I have gotten from other sources like the media and the 'Black Bloc' that we had at the G20 here).

Also people aren't born selfish...so if we change the culture...change the way we live....do away with the selfish consumerist way of life...then we give ourelves a chance to feed another side to human nature

Apathy is a product of capitalism...you know why? because the money has flowed to the top and more and more people are feeling like they have no stake in society, no stake in the decision making process and therefore feel useless, unsafe and dissilusioned

I really disagree with you on these two points. I believe most people are born selfish. I also beleive that apathy would exist no matter what because most people are concerned with their little circle around them and don't really care about what's going on outside of that (there are exceptions but I think they are the minority by far). Capitalism and the shape the world is today happened because people are selfish and greedy. People created this world the way it is. You make it sound like this system and the way it works was created by something else and then people became selfish and greedy because of it.

You don't trust the system, well I don't trust people...and the next system that would be put in place would likely end up as unbalanced and unfair as this one because it would also be created by people.

Unless I didn't see it on here somewhere I have not really seen from you a concrete description of how we could achieve this wonderful anarchist society. How do we overthrow the current system anyways?

I am quite serious when I say that there are some great ideas found in anarchist ideologies and I am an egualitarian so I would support many of the concepts but I find the overall idea quite impractical and frankly not probable with the current lot of human beings.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[sprinkles]

I think the Anarchy movements are like the Dadaist movements. They're a counter balance.

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

Dada was an informal international movement, with participants in Europe and North America. The beginnings of Dada correspond to the outbreak of World War I. For many participants, the movement was a protest against the bourgeois nationalist and colonialist interests, which many Dadaists believed were the root cause of the war, and against the cultural and intellectual conformity—in art and more broadly in society—that corresponded to the war.

Many Dadaists believed that the 'reason' and 'logic' of bourgeois capitalist society had led people into war. They expressed their rejection of that ideology in artistic expression that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality. For example, George Grosz later recalled that his Dadaist art was intended as a protest "against this world of mutual destruction."

According to Hans Richter Dada was not art: it was "anti-art." Dada represented the opposite of everything which art stood for. Where art was concerned with traditional aesthetics, Dada ignored aesthetics. If art was to appeal to sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend.

As Hugo Ball expressed it, "For us, art is not an end in itself ... but it is an opportunity for the true perception and criticism of the times we live in."

A reviewer from the American Art News stated at the time that "Dada philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." Art historians have described Dada as being, in large part, a "reaction to what many of these artists saw as nothing more than an insane spectacle of collective homicide."

Years later, Dada artists described the movement as "a phenomenon bursting forth in the midst of the postwar economic and moral crisis, a savior, a monster, which would lay waste to everything in its path... [It was] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."

 

[muir]

@muir


I said that the 'original' definition of anarchy is a state where there is no government and no laws, which is basically correct and does not mean that I am not aware that there are schools of thought that use the label anarchy and that vary in their exact views of what anarchy represents.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition, I was actually more neutral then their definition:

You know that oxford university are part of the british establishment right?

But even they say that anarchy is about the freedom of the individual

We are speaking about anarchy as a system so any usage of the word to mean disorder is completely irrelevant here

This is why portraying anarchy as lawless disorder is incorrect

I'm sure you know that there are many types of 'anarchists' and not all anarchists agree on the fundamentals of what anarchy is or should be.

Here is a list that am aware of:

1 Philosophical anarchism
2 Mutualism
3 Social anarchism
3.1 Collectivist anarchism
3.2 Anarchist communism
3.3 Anarcho-syndicalism
4 Individualist anarchism
4.1 Egoist anarchism
4.2 Individualist anarchism in the United States
4.3 European individualist anarchism
5 Religious anarchism
5.1 Christian anarchism
6 Anarcho-pacifism
7 Anarchism without adjectives
7.1 Synthesist anarchism
8 Contemporary developments
8.1 Green anarchism
8.1.1 Anarcho-naturism
8.1.2 Social ecology
8.1.3 Anarcho-primitivism
8.2 Anarcha-feminism
8.2.1 Platformism
8.3 Anarcho-queer
8.4 Post-left anarchy
8.5 Post-anarchism
8.6 Insurrectionary anarchism
8.7 Anarcho-capitalism

It seems to me that the word 'anarchist' suffers the same problem as 'feminist' because it gets used by different people to represent different things.

I'll go one further and say that just as there are people steering feminism there will be people trying to coopt anarchist movements as well

I am definitely not versed in all these schools of anarchy and I can't tell you that any of them are right or wrong in their approach. I can just tell you that my own personal opinion is that anarchy is not the right approach.

So you've formed an opinion without any understanding?

I think you have short changed yourself there as you have discounted an option without even understanding it; how can you be sure what the best option is if you don't consider the different options?

I can tell you that in my world you are absolutely free to believe in anarchy and I will not coerce you into anything . But you have also not managed to convince me that anarchy is the one and only way to change the world for the better.

But have you read the pamphlet i posted?

I definitely don't base it just on these two guys, but they are two people that I know passionately identify with the label 'anarchist' and have taken personal steps in their own lives to try to live in a way that reflects their beliefs.

In time their decisions might make a lot more sense to you; for example after the bank bail ins take a big haircut off everyones bank accounts

So, although I know that there is a lot diversity in any group, they made an impression on me that does influence the way I would feel about people who label themselves anarchists (to be honest they gave me a better impressiont than I have gotten from other sources like the media and the 'Black Bloc' that we had at the G20 here).

You know that people have been behaving aggressively for centuries and then blaming it on anarchists to discredit them?

Examples would be the 'black hand' or the 'strategy of tension' of operation gladio

Who do you think is behind the black bloc? You think people who don't believe in coercion are behaving like that?

Here's a picture of instructions that have been handed out to protestors in various countries in recent years for example egypt:



The same instructions keep getting handed out in different countries because the troubles are being fomented by the same people each time for example george soros 'open society' group

The CIA learned that the best way to overthrow governments and destabilise countries is to send in agents with buckets of cash to pay people to protests (rent-a-mob) in the Iran coup of 1953 which has been shown by declassified documents to have been carried out by the CIA

Things aren't always as they seem out there...same with feminism and anarchism

I really disagree with you on these two points. I believe most people are born selfish.

Come on that's a very narrow view of humanity. people can be selfish sure but they can also be kind and compassionate

Its a miracle that in a dog eat dog culture like capitalism that people are able to find time for each other at all!

I also beleive that apathy would exist no matter what because most people are concerned with their little circle around them and don't really care about what's going on outside of that (there are exceptions but I think they are the minority by far).

The point of anarchism is that people aren't part of a 'little circle'...thats more a capitalism thing where the el-ite wanted everyone divided and isolated and suspicious and envious and competing and tuned into their own TV

If you look at historic examples of anarchism anarchists weren't apathetic at all. In fact the anarchists in the spanish civil war were the most productive of all the groups

Capitalism and the shape the world is today happened because people are selfish and greedy.

No its not. It's happening because a handful of people have created a pyramidal system where they control all the wealth and power and they make the world in their image

This is a recent development in human kinds history...why? because we didn't have that pyramid before

People created this world the way it is.

You know about 'monarchy' though right?

Well those folks shaped society in europe and when the peasants tried to gain more say in society they were always violently oppressed eg the peasants revolt 1381

The bankers today are the same banking families who have banked for those monarchies for centuries and they have taken over your economy and mine

You make it sound like this system and the way it works was created by something else and then people became selfish and greedy because of it.

Yup capitalism is a recent blip in human kinds long history most of which was spent NOT pursuing money; this abheration was created by some very devious and ruthless people

You don't trust the system, well I don't trust people...and the next system that would be put in place would likely end up as unbalanced and unfair as this one because it would also be created by people.

There are people and there are people

Also people are largely shaped by their environment

Unless I didn't see it on here somewhere I have not really seen from you a concrete description of how we could achieve this wonderful anarchist society. How do we overthrow the current system anyways?

If you read the pamphlet it goes into some ideas for example two approaches:

'dual power' which is growing a new system out of the shell of the old and 'lifestylism' which is changing the way you live

If you look in the possible solutions to the worlds problems thread in the news section you'll see some ideas. I will add some more to this and am in the process of organising various notes i have

I may have to write a seperate post for that question as its a big topic but i have been discussing various ideas around the forum

I am quite serious when I say that there are some great ideas found in anarchist ideologies and I am an egualitarian so I would support many of the concepts but I find the overall idea quite impractical and frankly not probable with the current lot of human beings.

It would require people to consciously see how they have been programmed by the controllers and to consciously make a choice to do things a different way; people have grown up for generations now not knowing any different

Just my thoughts on the matter.

good thing thoughts are mutable