BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

What is deterring Anarchy?

  
 
deja_vroom
10:50 / 01.02.02
This is an attempt to try to understand a little bit more about how the big bowels of political behaviour work nowadays.
What do you think about Democracy? Honestly. Do you ever stop to consider all the meanings of the word?
I’m saying this because I’m completely delusional when it comes to aspects of the political theatre. Mind you that I didn’t say “arena”. I don't vote, because I don't believe in Democracy, a system where a vote against Hitler will become a vote FOR him, if he gets elected. It's crutial failure is to imply that a human being can take decisions in the name of, say, six million other people. That's a fallacy. I couldn't make a choice for my neighbour alone.

Our methods of organization as societies have been evolving through the centuries: we had experiments with fascism ,we have had kings who were *clearly* indicated by divine right, we had parliamentarism, all the way until for some reason the search for a better way of living among your peers stopped - we had reached Democracy.
When Churchill said that thing about democracy being the worst political except for all the others, I think the wordplay had deeper meanings. “Oh, really?”, will ask my fellow ‘lithers. I know I’m talking to people who are perfectly aware of the world they live in, however I need to lay down all my arguments before I proceed.
Since the word "Democracy" has cristalyzed itself in the masse’s colective unconscious as something inherently GOOD, it has become less and less questionable, it has become an empty shell, that the ones in the right places can fill with whatever they want.

Democracy can be the worst of the systems, except for the others, but shouldn’t we be striving for something more? To say that there isn’t a perfect society doesn’t help. Surely there are societies which are better than the others. And things always can be improved.
To me, it’s not that democracy “it’s the less worst form of system”. To me, it is a bad one, it’s as alienating as fascism, even more dangerous because since democracy stands generally as “freedom”, there’s not much one can do to fight it without danger of being perceived as a fascist, an enemy of the people. It might have been originated from a good theoretic principle, but its execution, through the years, only turned it into a readymade alibis for oppressive regimens. The fact that the USA, the big bully that intimidates even NATO (remember Nicaragua?), is generally acknowledged as a “beacon for freedom and democracy”, speaks for itself.

I’m not here to preach. There isn’t areason for this here. I’m here to ask, and my question is: Is Anarchy the next logical step towards a more humanistic form of society? And if so, why it hasn’t happened yet? Where are the anarchist thinkers today? Who better to go to the forefront in Argentina right now, for example, seize the microphones and say: “There are other ways. We can do this together”? Why it isn’t even considered an option in Argentina right now?

Another thing that I would like to see discussed relates to Barbelith and the image that its posters make of it. Because of the whole “Revolution” aspect of this board, I can’t help wondering if people around here stop and think that revolution means most of the time, sacrifice. I didn’t want to bring this up, but, you know – revolutionaries as we have known them were anything but trendy, hip people. They were the not-funny, the misfits; the ones who change the political scenario are most of the times alone in their visions (yeah, I'm paraphrasing Hitler here, but I hope you see the point). They are antisocial because the way society is organized doesn't appeal to them and they want change. Most of the revolutionaries were obsessed people that wouldn’t hesitate in giving away the priviledges and richness (Buddah, for one) and change completely their way of living.

I wanna ask, in order to be a revolutionary, you have to believe wholeheartedly in the cause, or there is a way in which you still can be true about your intents, while blowing post-modern kisses and winking at the “Revolution” concept?
This post, for instance, it's so earnest it hurts, there is no irony, no knowingly wink. And I know I'm gonna get some flaming for this, but I don’t picture Kropotkin discussing Buffy (I don't mean to diss anyone. Please take no offense, I didn't mean any).

So, how and where this leaves us? How much sacrifice are we willing to make, how much are we willing to deviate from the socially accepted standard behaviour? (I’m talking about big issues here, not only the “Tuesday’s five o’clock march” that no one gives a fuck about). How much are you willing to give?


P.S.:Apologies if this doesn't read clear. But I know that as soon as this post's disemboweling process begins, we'll be able to make things clearer. I hope to learn a lot from what will be posted in this thread.
 
 
Baz Auckland
11:33 / 01.02.02
I think I'm willing to leave it all behind for anarchy, as I'm sure many others are. Don't ask me what I'm waiting for, possibly just the opportunity to come to me....

It took hundreds of years to get from Monarchy to Democracy, since Democracy is currently the 'thing' doesn't mean that Anarchism will soon be rising due to Democracy's failure.

My problem with political activism, as may be apparent from the first paragraph, is I don't know where to begin....
 
 
ciarconn
13:00 / 01.02.02
On the last ten (or so) years Anarchy was mauled by the system. How? They made anarchy chick, to be anarchist and wear Che Guevara's face in a shirt was in. Hearing RATM was a safe way of saying " I'm an anarchist bad boy". Being square was hip.
That depowered the Anarchism in it's seriousness.

9-11 changed that.

Now we will see in the Mass media how anarchism is related with terrorism and "evil muslims".

On Revolution. The system has evolved from what it was in 19th century. It has learned from the critics of marxism and anarchism.

In many ways, the revolution proposed by 10th century thinkers is obsolete.

Transformation not revolution.

The best way to change the system is from it's insides. work with it's tools against itself.

Change through education. Fresh minds take new ideas, and incorporate into their own systems of belief.

Change has been slow, but it has advanced.

I think
 
 
deja_vroom
13:29 / 01.02.02
I have to say that the very word "revolution" is misused. Literally it means only a complete turn a body takes around itself, returning then to its initial position. That's not what I want. "Evolution" would be a better word.

And, please, some arguments. Let's leave the mottos for the t-shirts.
 
 
ciarconn
13:43 / 01.02.02
"Evolution" would be a better word.

I agree.

And, please, some arguments. Let's leave the mottos for the t-shirts.

More especifically about what?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
13:50 / 01.02.02
I think direct democracy or anarchy may in fact be more subject to abuse than the representative type of democracies held up as the ideal now. Really, if we had 'electronic town halls' in the U.S.A. right now, Iraq would be a radioactive, smoking crater.

Governmental bodies, I think, should be conservative. By that I mean simply, slow to change. Radical change, or even the possibility of a succession of radical changes, simply aren't good for the people.
 
 
ciarconn
14:29 / 01.02.02
One innocent question: Is anarchy realizable?

Could human beings live in an anarchist/autocratic society?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
16:50 / 01.02.02
At the risk of aggravating Lyra past all human patience, I have to say I think new political structures absolutely miss the point. Anarchism(s) place implicit trust in the individual to behave in a civilised way. So too does Communism. The Soviet structure was democratic, in form, but the end product was not 'power to the Soviets' at all, but to the Party.

Democracy similarly trusts its people to do a number of things - think, vote, learn, and again, to behave in an altruistic fashion. They don't of course.

Why would that change with an Anarchic society? What makes you think it would be freer and better rather than Hobbes' warre?

Once we have advanced to the point where an Anarchic society could function in a positive way, the need to have such a society fades away - because the individuals find ways to function in whatever structure surrounds them; to make any system work for the good of all. That degree of maturity is a long way off.

You might do better to ask whether Paternalist Pseudodemocracy is capable of meeting the internal and external challenges the next few decades are liable to produce, or whether something less free will be adopted for the sake of survival.
 
 
Sax
17:07 / 01.02.02
In an anarchist society, who's going to empty the bins? Not me.

And how is "anarchism" related to "evil Muslims"? If there's one thing Islam is not, it's an anarchistic culture.
 
 
Sax
17:09 / 01.02.02
Or maybe I misunderstood. Did you mean, ciarconn, that the media portrayal of terrorism is that it will result in anarchy for a "civilised" society on the receiving end?
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:39 / 01.02.02
Edited to be less hostile.

It consistently irritates me that whenever there's an anarchist-themed discussion on Barbelith, the thread is full of people who are obviously more or less completely ignorant of the history or theory of anarchism, but who feel they can discuss it based on their fairly arbitrary ideas of what anarchism is. People post questions like 'but who'd empty the garbage?' or say 'anarchism places trust in the individual to act in a civilised way' as if these were actual criticisms, rather than naive misunderstandings. Did the CNT simply assume individuals would act in a civilised way? Do Ukrainian anarchists just leave their trash to fester? I don't think so.

I'm not saying you shouldn't post until you've read Bakunin and Rocker, but some of the comments are so misguided it's unbelievable - like arguing against communism on the grounds that there were no jam donuts in soviet russia. If you don't know much about anarchism, maybe ask rather than tell?

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Dread Pirate Crunchy ]
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
09:16 / 02.02.02
Sounds good. While I don't think anarchy is the pop culture 'chaos and mayhem' definition, I've only got a layman's idea of what anarchy is and was.

Where would be a good place to start to educate myself on the history and current realities of Anarchy?
 
 
ciarconn
09:24 / 02.02.02
Sax, no I meant that the mass media have always a kind of people that are the bad guys. Latino narcs, muslim megalomaniacs, etc. And that the present trend in the USA points out to muslim terrorist-inner anarchist terrorist cells to be the bad boys for the next 5 years.
It's the image the government wants the people to believe.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:38 / 02.02.02
Right, fine, I'm naive. I have read Bakunin, but it was, freely admitted, a long time ago now. However, rather than simply saying 'that's wrong', you could take the extra six sentences to explain why.

You'll notice that my objection is to the notion that political structures are the key to realising a freer, better world, not specifically to anarchism, though I don't see (yet) why this complaint is inadmissible.
 
 
Jack Fear
09:38 / 02.02.02
Q: What is deterring anarchism?
A: Reading Bakunin and Rocker as a precondition to anarchy.

Anarchism = every man and woman a theorybitch? Shome mishtake, shurely.

Can anarchism be practiced on a large scale by people who haven't read the fucking books--who may, in fact, not be literate at all?

Seriously, Crunchy, would it have killed you to just answer the question as asked?
This quote:People post questions like 'but who'd empty the garbage?' or say 'anarchism places trust in the individual to act in a civilised way' as if these were actual criticisms, rather than naive misunderstandings...is a clever and elegant dodge, but a dodge nonetheless.

Fuck theory. Fuck history. I'm not thick, I'm not naive--I'm just sick of theory and doubletalk. If you seriously propose anarchism as a solution, as a lifestyle, as anything other than an intellectual exercise, then give me practicalities. Give me something I can use.

An ideology is a tool for living; anarchism is a tool that comes highly recommended--but those doing the recommending tend to be vague as to the specifics of the tool. I am, therefore, rather skeptical.

When I choose a tool--a hatchet, say--I don't need to know any hatchet-theory, or the history of hatchets: I just need to know if it will chop down trees.

How do you propose to make the thing work?
 
 
—| x |—
09:38 / 02.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Once we have advanced to the point where an Anarchic society could function in a positive way, the need to have such a society fades away - because the individuals find ways to function in whatever structure surrounds them; to make any system work for the good of all. That degree of maturity is a long way off.

Arrr, 'tis the truth, matey.

m5
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:38 / 02.02.02
Okay, there are two parts to this post, because I want to defend myself against accusations of gratuitous theory-philia before I get to the main bit. Feel free to skip ahead; it's very long anyway.

First of all, I apologise. I was in a hurry when I made my last post, I was snappy and I didn't have time to expand on what I said. Second, I don't consider myself an anarchist, so I don't 'seriously propose anarchism' as anything - except a relatively coherent political position which it is absurd to argue about if you have no idea what it is. This is just as true of any other political, philosophical, religious, etc., position. I've never read Bakunin or Rocker - neither have most anarchists I know - but I hardly think reading either is a precondition for having some idea what you're talking about.

I am not trying to be a theory bitch; what I am trying to say is that many people don't even have the kind of basic, non-theoretical understanding of anarchism that would let them discuss it. Or, that people don't realise such a basic understanding exists; or they don't think it's important. You don't have to read huge tomes to have such an understanding; you could get it from talking to anarchists, reading anarchist magazines or websites (like theseones - you'll have to scroll down to 'notes on anarchism' for that last one), reading basic politics textbooks, or from the lyrics to punk songs. It's really not that difficult or elitist, at least to my mind.

It seems to me that people here are discussing anarchism as some sort of impossibly (or appealingly) utopian variation on liberalism; no violence, no state, just do what you want to do, a more humanistic society. Hence, 'who empties the bins?' But for the most part, anarchism is part of the socialist tradition - somebody famous (forget who) said 'socialism will be free or it will not be at all', which might as well be a summary of anarchism. (I am simplifying here, i.e. leaving out individualist anarchism.) Freedom, however, has never been taken to mean 'do whatever you want'. Keyword: decentralisation; rather than focusing power in a central state, it's dispersed through a connected web of autonomous communities (depending on your tendency, these might be localities, unions, affinity group clusters, whatever). These communities have the capacity to organise, to defend themselves, etc. Garbage collection and other menial tasks would be rotated through those members of the community capable of doing the work. People who just wouldn't take their turn would, presumably, be cut off from the benefits of other people's work.

Now, I am well aware that there are problems in this very hastily sketched account, and even in more sophisticated versions of same. But this is what I understand people to be talking about when they talk about anarchism. If people say things like 'so who collects the garbage', I think I am justified in assuming they do not know what they are talking about. Similarly, if a thread about rastafarianism filled up with people asking how you could have a religion if everyone just smoked dope all the time, I think it would be reasonable to assume they did not know what they were talking about. (Yes I know this is a wonky metaphor with a heavy colonial burden on one side.)

Incidentally, Marquis, my understanding is that anarchism is seriously considered a possibility in Argentina at the moment; there is a thread on this in the Switchboard.

Finally, Nick, what I objected to in your post was this line:

quote:Anarchism(s) place implicit trust in the individual to behave in a civilised way..

That, as far as I can tell, is just not true. The Spanish anarchists, who came closer than anyone to establishing an anarchist society, both entered parliament and went to war against the fascists - neither suggesting, to me, a belief that people would all act like nice anarchists if left to their own devices. If I am misunderstanding a more general point - that any political structure demands faith in people acting civilised - fair enough, but it seems a pretty quibbling point. It might be an argument against utopian politics, but unless there's a corollary that any political structure is as good as any other, it's not much more than that.

I am not trying to hassle anyone; I am trying to advance discussion. Feel free to argue, of course...

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Dread Pirate Crunchy ]
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:38 / 02.02.02
i think there are some hazy areas in the original question that need to be fleshed out. i can empathise with yr frustration with democracy as is, jade - but i think it's worth remembering that we are living in a particular type of democracy - a capitalist democracy. i can't help thinking that many of the abuses of the system we see on a pretty continual basis spring from the capitalist aspect of the model.

ie. democracy is intended to provide a representative form of government. capitalism is about the generation of wealth, focuses on the success of the individual - any positive advancement of 'society' is little more than side-effects. y'know: thatcher's 'no such thing as society' (which she apparently lifted from friedrich von hayek).

and i think the problem with envisioning anarchism as a successor to capitaslist democracy is that - surely - anarchists wouldn't want any part of the nation state. anarchism is a political philosophy that seems, to me at least, to work much, much better on a small scale - its success would necessitate splitting countries into more managable units. which is no bad thing, maybe, - but flies in the face of the organising, centralising thrust of history so far.

and i don't necessarily think change at the level of political leadership is necessarily needed. 'cause anarchist (and other) 'societies' already exist - at the level of small communities. whether they be communes, or just towns, whatever, that make the majority of the decisions that shape their local microsociety themselves. think of the federalized model employed in america that allows communities to do just this - and some of the oases of very unusual (as in, not normative) environments that have resulted - an example here, being that town whose name i don't remember geared towards and populated almost entirely by lesbians. y'know: the sherriff is a lesbian. the judge is a lesbian. most of the preconceptions about 'lesbianism' that exist in wider society, just don't apply there. which is, i think, interesting.

hmm. hadn't thought about this before, but don't want to start advocating segregation here... my point was that, given a hands-off central govt, and a system in which the local, person-scaled microsociety has freedom to create itself - we don't necessarily need any towering ideology.

i was always really jealous of the way the greeks' city-states were so radically different (though wouldn't have fancied sparta much) - they were like living, breathing experiments in political science. and i think the idea, of simply being able to move to a place that is more in accord with yr beliefs is very refreshing. buck the trend of increasing homogeneity and let decentralization run its course (though, i guess regulated by wider laws etc).

oh: also: worth remembering that we're not only having this discussion from within capitalist democracies - but also successful capitalist democracies. we are unbelievably priviliged in almost every way as a result. we are not representative of the majority of the world's population - largely, because of the nature of the capitalits system, our success is built on their failure.
 
 
autopilot disengaged
09:38 / 02.02.02
quoteriginally posted by todd:
Really, if we had 'electronic town halls' in the U.S.A. right now, Iraq would be a radioactive, smoking crater.

this, incidentally, completely terrifies me. 'cause i think you're absolutely right. and the (understandable) popular sentiment that exploded in the wake of 911 really made me rethink some of my fundamental beliefs.

democracy only works if you have an informed populace, but there's so much smoke, mirrors - and my definition of 'right', anyway is completely divorced from the interests of the individual or individual nation state. eek.

i believe in democracy, whether micro or macro. the system needs to be able to self-regulate, change - as people and relationships between people do.

but how do we avoid mob rule?

this is always the problem. it's simply impossible for everyone in society to pilot the boat. following anarchism, maybe hierarchies of representative councils?

good thread, jade. let's address the utopian project. build the barbecommune?
 
 
Rev. Wright
10:07 / 02.02.02
These people seem to have an idea
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:14 / 02.02.02
Crunchy:

quote:The Spanish anarchists, who came closer than anyone to establishing an anarchist society, both entered parliament and went to war against the fascists - neither suggesting, to me, a belief that people would all act like nice anarchists if left to their own devices.Not what I meant. Although I'd note at that point that it's far easier to sustain a political system in adversity than it is in success. On the other hand, political work also contaminates. You cannot hew to the dream in the future and function against its dictates in the present. All you do is recreate the present with an icing of your ideology.

quote:If I am misunderstanding a more general point - that any political structure demands faith in people acting civilised - fair enough, but it seems a pretty quibbling point. It might be an argument against utopian politics, but unless there's a corollary that any political structure is as good as any other, it's not much more than that.I don't think it is a quibbling point, I think it's absolutely vital. Whilst I would not go so far as to say any political setup is as good as another (Nazism, for an obvious example, hinges on falsehood and race hate), I would be happy to argue that without a conscious commitment to fulfilling the requirements of citizenship - whatever those are - in a towering majority of people in a society, any set of structures will be equally useless.

If you ask me what deters anarchism, I respond that the question is 'what commends it to my attention'? I have yet to read anything which suggests that it can effect enlightenment in the majority, any more than Marxism or (post-Protestant) Capitalism. Nor is it fair to ask it to do so. In which case I fail to see the benefit in espousing it.

But there are many anarchisms, and we're to continue this in any reasonable way, I think we need to make a few of them explicit.
 
 
deja_vroom
13:08 / 02.02.02
*I`m at a friend`s place - will elaborate more on Monday*

Some points:
a) Decentralization is in order, I agree, autopilot. This would be a problem, because there are a lot of issues concerning patriotism and notions of nation. However, the majority of theories I've seen about anarchy at work reqwuires that the central structure of power can be quickly adjusted and easily inspected. Instead of leaders, we would have volunteers (and by using volunteers ou would remove one of the causes for the failure of current systems - greed.
 
 
gentleman loser
09:53 / 03.02.02
Anarchism? Don't believe in it any more than I do in Marxism or Ayn Rand HyperCapitalism.

It's FantasyLand.

If we had true anarchism, than 99% of Westerners would be dead in very short order because they would soon be killed off by heavily armed crazoids. Unlike people who have to survive on a day to day basis in the Third World, we are no longer adapted to the blatant threat of death (which I expect will lead to the total destruction of the First World, sooner than later because economic expansion is, by definition, finite in a closed system; i.e. Earth). It's natural selection via the most heavily armed and I don't particularly want to live in that world.

If by anarchism you mean that people will choose to live by whatever rules they see fit and will respect the rights of others? Again, FantasyLand. You can't get ten people to operate under a pure Marxist, Randian or Anarchy "system", much less a whole society.

Dread Pirate Crunchy and Marquis de Jade , what you describe sounds like a idealized Socialist/Marxist crossbred system to me, not Anarchism as I understand it. It's far too idealistic to work, in my opinion. Maybe I don't understand what I'm talking about and maybe I'm misunderstanding your ideals, but in my experience, self interest governs all (unfortunately).

I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Representative Democracy seems to be the best system that anyone has come up with, but, as pointed out in this thread, it is only truly effective with an well informed, well educated electorate. Another thing that would be of great benefit would be a total rejection of Nationalism, but I don't think we've evolved to that point as a species.

Those who are already in power will do everything they can to make sure that a informed electorate doesn't happen. That and the fact that most people are lazy, don't care, or both.

I don't have a solution to this problem.

I wish I did.

If someone out there can come up with a politically effective method of reducing greed, I'll sign up right now.

[ 03-02-2002: Message edited by: gentleman loser ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:53 / 03.02.02
quote: ...not Anarchism as I understand it.

Well could you explain what you do understand by it, because otherwise I'm going to continue to assume you don't understand it. 'Armed crazoids machine-gunning whoever they don't like' doesn't cut it, for mine.

Meanwhile, I think it's bizarre to say that if the US had direct democracy at the time of S11, they'd have levelled the middle east. Maybe if direct democracy had been imposed by fiat, but I'm assuming nobody gets direct democracy without a fair amount of organising first - such that, presumably, the populace would be better informed, and less likely to maintain the US imperialism the terrorist attacks were responses to.

quote: without a conscious commitment to fulfilling the requirements of citizenship - whatever those are - in a towering majority of people in a society, any set of structures will be equally useless.

Trying to clarify - are you saying that the distribution of resources is irrelevant unless people are committed to the social order; or that if people aren't committed to the society there is no prospect for the equitable distribution of resources?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:49 / 03.02.02
Changing from one organisational model to another will not change behaviour.

Enforced change only re-emphasises technologies of force and skin-deep committment to change.

Only the rejection of accepted models (e.g. realpolitik) and tools (e.g. force) affords any hope of true change.
 
 
Polly Trotsky
09:44 / 04.02.02
Oh, Nick. It's deceptively easy to post such stong, declarative statements and let that be the end of it. Suppose, however, someone countered with "might makes right?"

Changing the organisational model and changing behavior go hand in hand. Neither happens without the other, regardless of which initially leads, if that's even possible to determine.

(oops, look, Rosa Posted)

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: YNH3 ]
 
 
Disco is My Class War
09:44 / 04.02.02
"Dread Pirate Crunchy and Marquis de Jade , what you describe sounds like a idealized Socialist/Marxist crossbred system to me, not Anarchism as I understand it. It's far too idealistic to work, in my opinion. Maybe I don't understand what I'm talking about and maybe I'm misunderstanding your ideals, but in my experience, self interest governs all (unfortunately).

I wish it wasn't so, but it is."

As Crunchy pointed out, anarchism has always had ties with socialism. But my knowledge of anarchist history is shaky, so I won't bother arguing on that point.

What I will say, though, is that any support I have for social movements *influenced by* anarchism, is based on the success of small cells of autonomous collectivity. Spain was one. Porto Alegre in Brazil, where the World Social Forum is being held, is a whole city run by the people, for the people. Just because you don't know about these things, doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, one of the things the Western 'free market' apathetic consumerist culture is to coerce people into believing that no decentralised system of living in community or collectivity would ever work -- so people won't bother to try it.

Someone has said there are many Anarchies (is that capital-A Anarchy like Capital-L Liberal relates to small-l liberal?) -- there are. I know a lot of people who call themselves anarchists and not one of them believes in the things being discussed on this thread like mob rule, free-handed violence, complete chaos and destruction. One of the things I like most about ideas influenced by anarchy and autonomist thought (a very different thing to anarchy, but related) is the refusal of ideology as a motivating force, or power. Of course 'anarchy' as an ideology won't work. It's an ideology.

And about Revolution TM, Marquis, I watch Buffy and I do activism. Che wasn't an anarchist, by the way.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:44 / 04.02.02
YNH - I was just trying to clarify what I was saying, and I didn't have time to be more specific.

Actually, 'might makes right' - or rather 'force is politically acceptable if your cause is just' - is one of the assumptions and behaviours I'd say was intimately linked with the status quo.

Yes, I realise that behaviours and structures are interlinked...however, changing the structure in order to change the (political/tacit ideological) thinking seems futile to me (a position I think is historically justifiable). Perhaps it's even counterproductive.

More later.
 
 
.
09:44 / 04.02.02
Sorry if I am breaking the flow a bit here, since this is a fascinating thread indeed, but it strikes me that various people are arguing at cross-purposes.

Essentially this thread is lacking a single definition of Anarchism. This is probably because there are different strains of Anarchisms (if that is the word), for example (off the top of my head):

Anarcho-syndicalism,
Anarcho-socialism,
Anarcho-nihilism,
Anti-government Libertarianism,
Ayn Rand-style Laissez Faire Capitalism,
etc etc...

To state that Anarchism is historically, and therefore "correctly" associated with socialism is missing the point.
 
 
Jackie Susann
11:04 / 04.02.02
quote:Changing from one organisational model to another will not change behaviour.

Okay, sure. But I still think it's only an argument against utopianism, not against political change in the sense you seem to mean it. Surely more equitable distribution of resources, for example, is i) desirable, ii) linked at least as much to political structures as to behaviour and therefore, iii) possible to achieve without any particular change in popular consciousness, i.e., indeed, through 'realpolitik'?

I really don't see what this has to do with changing political structures in order to change thinking. It seems to me that some political changes - towards distributive justice, for example - are good in themselves, quite independent of whether they shatter the bonds of ruling class ideology or whatever...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:32 / 04.02.02
quote:But I still think it's only an argument against utopianism, not against political change in the sense you seem to mean it.I see it rather the other way around. I tend to think it means that minor political change just feeds the status quo, only utopianism really offers hope.

quote:Surely more equitable distribution of resources, for example, is i) desirable, ii) linked at least as much to political structures as to behaviour and therefore, iii) possible to achieve without any particular change in popular consciousness, i.e., indeed, through 'realpolitik'?i) certainly, though not at any price ii) on the face of it, yes, but the structures which go against behaviour tend to get worked around or ignored. There are considerable obstacles to exporting guns to unsuitable countries, but there are also mechanisms, both grey and legitimate, which make it relatively simple. Hence iii) this is the promise realpolitik offers, and it's a lie. "Realism" is the slow winnowing of revolutionary concepts to fit the status quo. Realpolitik is the trading of what you really want for an interim goal... The horse-trading and power politics (economic, military, perceptual/media) of realpolitik are the status quo, far more than any structure. Sweep those away, or play out the same ghastly game over and over again.

quote:It seems to me that some political changes - towards distributive justice, for example - are good in themselves, quite independent of whether they shatter the bonds of ruling class ideology or whatever...They are up to a point. But it depends on how they are approached - and by whom. You mention 'distributive justice', so let's take it as an example. How would you put it into practice and who provides and enforces it?

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: Nick ]
 
 
deja_vroom
13:08 / 04.02.02
Ok, I'll clear some things here:
First: Forget any ideas about a perfect system, about an utopic society free of greed and corruption. Anarchy is not about it, it expects that citizens will behave orderly and hamornically as much as other forms of societal organization.
As long as the human factor is involved, you have to live with the possibility of failure and conflicts.
Think about levels. It doesn't matter that the ultimate goal - the perfect society - is unacompplishable. Move towards that unacompplishable goal, and you will be moving forwards.

Now, some questions have raised and some objections have been posed. I would like to address some of them.
When I said that using volunteers in management jobs would prevent greed, I didn't mean that it would eradicate greed as part of human nature. I meant that it would prevent that people would try to ascend to this jobs moved by ambition. It would be volunteer work. (Will develop more later, and give some examples of places where it does work)

Jack, you asked about practical aspects of the Individualist Anarchist movement. Before we go into that, I would like to say that a little bit of theory is necessary, if for nothing else, just to make sure that everybody knows what is being discussed and that "arguments" like "who will empty the thrash bins" won't come up.
The Individualist Anarchist doesn't believe, doesn't recognize and doesn't accept the authority of a man above another, in any form. As such, some of the practical issues raised and that you can try, if you're so eager for action:
-Stop voting (not a big deal in USA, but here in Brazil, where it's compulsory, it is...)
-Stop paying taxes (whoa!)
Now if I were Thoreau, this list would include "Set your documents on fire" and "Go live in the woods"
-Read about the Anarchy movement, because in doing so you can do the most important thing:
-TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT IT.

Gentleman Loser: About the armed crazoids: They would be fought by paid militias. NOT the Army. If you're in the Army you can have your butt dragged from here to any other point of the world to be killed because of blurry patriotic issues. In the case of armed militias, you can just quit the job. They could replace the police, also.

And about the thrash bins: Really. Private companies would handle this sort of services, and competition would ensure that we would get quality and competitive prices. - Compare FedEx with your the U.S. Post Offices.

Will add more later - busy day at work.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: Marquis de Jade ]
 
 
Naked Flame
14:52 / 04.02.02
Very chewy thread. Mmmmm.

First thing I can say is, I need to read. Ack. reading list in my head is now bigger than it was when I was doing Finals. As noted above, we still need a clear definition of anarchism here. We need a consensual frame-of-reference to, y'know, have a proper argument. As it stands, those arguing for anarchism are very easy meat for anyone advancing a more pragmatic argument: how are we going to make it work? We can't explain. Clearly we're a long way off being able to sustain a state of happy anarchy.

quote: Originally posted by gentleman loser:

If we had true anarchism, than 99% of Westerners would be dead in very short order because they would soon be killed off by heavily armed crazoids.

That's a possibility. said heavily armed crazoids are not the product of an anarchy, though: they're what would happen if you threw some kind of anarchy switch right now, and disempowered all the machinery of control. We're agreed that no such switch exists. 9/11 was an attempt to 'strike at the head of the snake' to destroy such structures, and all that happened was the state-snake grew a couple more heads. That's why evolution is the word. We can't 'smash the system' without fighting it tooth and nail- and that would entail creating our own control structures, and in all likelihood force us away from anarchy. Bad move, if you ask me.

quote: Unlike people who have to survive on a day to day basis in the Third World, we are no longer adapted to the blatant threat of death (which I expect will lead to the total destruction of the First World, sooner than later because economic expansion is, by definition, finite in a closed system; i.e. Earth).

Now, it's fair enough to try and shoot down anarchism with pragmatism. However, I find your reading of the situation just as speculative as any of the idealists in this thread. While I acknowledge that much of our 'civilisation' is dependent on exploitation, I don't for a moment think it's exclusively dependent on it. I can understand how it can seem that way. first world arms industries have fostered gun culture in dozens of developing countries, and it was a fucking dumb thing to do. to keep doing, indeed. And we get cheap technology, and Stuff, through the exploitation of exchange rates and international labour. But the freedoms we enjoy are such that we don't have to participate in that machinery if we don't want to. It might have a hundred million hooks in your life but there is still nothing preventing you from finding an alternative to each one of those hooks, if you're willing to search for 'em- or create your own where none currently exist. Plenty of those alternatives exist already.

What I think is essential is to recognise that while the planet may be a closed system, society is not: society is a system of ideas and practices which is constantly changing. New possibilities open up all the time. Ten years ago we wouldn't have even been able to have this conversation. Society is an act of continuous creation and every time a new field opens up, there are no rules, just ideas. We're living in such a time now. This is why I think this thread is important.
 
 
deja_vroom
15:30 / 04.02.02
I would like to say that any dismissing of Anarchy as some sort of FantasyLand is missing completely the point. Because - guess what - all forms of societal organization are, at their core, pure FantasyLand. Compare the Socialist ideals and goals, and all the heavy theoryzing that went behind it - all for the good and wellbeing of the soviet people - with the 6 million killed by Stalin. Same goes for Democracy - it looks just wonderful and perfect in the books. But if you look around you'll see that we're just living in another failed variation of FantasyLand.
A very scary one, for that matter.
The Anarchist theory does not mean we would start living in the Smurf Village.


P.S.: Flame On - for a start, "The Civil Disobedience", by Henry David Thoreau. Great work, doesn't go for the theory, but it's great for its spirit.

(Edited to add: If you go to any theory book dealing with proposals for a better society, you will get people trying to sell an idea. They will reinforce the good points and try to minimize the weak points. With the anarchist books it's not different. It's the reader's responsability to weight and judge the merits of the ideas being discussed by himself. One thing is being earnest, another one is being naive).

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: Marquis de Jade ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:09 / 04.02.02
I don't think we're in need of one clear definition of anarchism - which must seem strange coming from the one who tried to impose it. To me, iivix's list just seems to confuse things; anarcho-socialism, -syndicalism and -nihilism are all variations on what I was talking about (assuming s/he meant historical nihilism, ala Nechayev - otherwise I'm not sure), while libertarianism and Rand-ist whateverism are just forms of individualism.

To clarify (?) a little further, individualists seem to think that the state is the source of all oppression, and the market would sort the world out wonderfully if not for governments getting in the way. It seems, to me - at risk of grossly offending those who identify as individualists - to be little more than a yuppie novelty creed, since a) the unworkability of laissez faire economics has been well established since the Great Depression and b) most people fail to spot anything appealling about the possibility of state power being replaced with corporate tyranny.

Nick, I think I'm going to reply in the micro vs macro thread, since we seem to be rotting this one a little.
 
  
Add Your Reply