Real Anarchism

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
I know, I know. You love your precious opinions, and so do I. They keep us warm and fuzzy inside, and this Idiocracy is a really cold to place to exist in.

Well, you're right, I guess I prefer my own opinions that I've formed thanks to what I've seen and experienced, over some other guys opinions that I've never met, nor do I care to.

a reply to: Necrobile

Fair enough.

Except that this aint the breaking news thread for your personal take on anarchy. Just trying to provoke you naysayers to a more detailed debunk of Chomsky's logics here. We may not be likely to change our opinions, or the more irrational aspects of our personalities for that matter, but we could still try to agree on basic logics. I'm all ears, the stage is yours.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: toms54

Anarchy actually leads to civilisation, it's what our ancestors had for thousands of years. That Thing thing worked out quite well for a very long time and people had more freedom than in todays direct democracies.
Idiocracy, on the other hand, has a system of control and a hierarchy with presidential morons in place. Which is why it looks like reality-tv to me. And we're far away from having an anarchy to strive forward in.

Kinda funny though. Instead of said justifications for authority we see overstatements with a tendency to get at straight anomy, it's always the same with threads like this. That's where we are, the TINA mindset prevails.

Well. God shave the Queen! He wont mind to do so for a few more centuries then, I guess.

It could be argued prehistoric anarchy held civilization back. Only with advent of strong empires were we really able to progress at a fast rate. Anarchic civilizations live in the stone age even today.

Anarchy leads to destruction of democracy. Democracy requires structure and rules. It is different than gangs and mob rule. I suppose Idiocracy is only the best possible result of anarchy. We typically think of anarchy as continuous gang warfare and crime so I'll concede that point.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The other thing to consider is who the vast mass of people at the bottom will usually end up being.

Here's a hint -- they usually aren't the best and brightest a society will have to offer. Sure there will always be some unrecognized diamonds in the rough, but for the most part, the people at the bottom that you claim should be organizing it all, are going to be the vast masses of the mediocre.

They aren't going to be recreating the ceiling of the SIstine Chapel or reinventing the wheel.

You're lucky if they know all the Kardashian sisters.

The ones at the top like Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson are the exceptions to the rule, but they would be the ones being told to shut up and take a seat with no real say in anything in your vision of a well-run society.

But, hey, who really needs to innovate so long as we're all kept mired in mediocrity, right?

Wow! And damn, you just described the rise of Josef Stalin to be the head of the USSR! What the chaotic near anarchy of the period following the Russian Revolution dredged up from the bottom classes of its society to rise to the pinnacle of leadership............a deranged, power mad, butcher!

Chomsky is no "anarchist" libertarian-socialist at best. anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism is nothing but oxymorons and not "anarchistic" even if they adopt the "anarcho" label

"The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders"

anarchy started out as a negation of all authority and systems of domination/domestication, morals, ethics, politics, States, Governments, Religions, Societies, Civilisations, economics/monetary systems etc.

it wasn't until the red-cultists and social-anarchists started using "anarchy" and infusing it with "red theory" to create anarchist versions of "communism, mutualism, and syndicalism" and attempting to create anarchists "ethics and morals" attempting to brand it "libertarian-socialism/libertarian-communism" even though "anarchy" is an enemy to socialism and communism (besides capitalism) and socialists, communists, capitalists etc



now it has been so consumed by the red-religion/cultists and social/civil anarchists it hardly resembles the anarchy of what was, there are few of us who remained 'black'

anarchism is the 'political' theory of anarchy, it is a bunch of uptopic nonsense, and will never be achieved, "anarchy" is a continuous fight, not something that can be "won" and installed.

look back at the Russian Nihilists, the French and Italian anarchists/Nihilists in the past, the anarchists of Greek, Chile etc the individualists, egoists, nihilists etc

I could make an entire post just naming them

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Chomsky is no "anarchist" libertarian-socialist at best. anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism is nothing but oxymorons and not "anarchistic" even if they adopt the "anarcho" label

"The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), "not, without" and ἀρχή (arkhi), "ruler, leader, authority." Thus, the term refers to a person or society "without rulers" or "without leaders"

anarchy started out as a negation of all authority and systems of domination/domestication, morals, ethics, politics, States, Governments, Religions, Societies, Civilisations, economics/monetary systems etc.

it wasn't until the red-cultists and social-anarchists started using "anarchy" and infusing it with "red theory" to create anarchist versions of "communism, mutualism, and syndicalism" and attempting to create anarchists "ethics and morals" attempting to brand it "libertarian-socialism/libertarian-communism" even though "anarchy" is an enemy to socialism and communism (besides capitalism) and socialists, communists, capitalists etc



now it has been so consumed by the red-religion/cultists and social/civil anarchists it hardly resembles the anarchy of what was, there are few of us who remained 'black'

anarchism is the 'political' theory of anarchy, it is a bunch of uptopic nonsense, and will never be achieved, "anarchy" is a continuous fight, not something that can be "won" and installed.

look back at the Russian Nihilists, the French and Italian anarchists/Nihilists in the past, the anarchists of Greek, Chile etc the individualists, egoists, nihilists etc

I could make an entire post just naming them

Are you able to cite sources - I would like to read them. Thank you.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed. The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

Can you reference some sources please? Thank you.

a reply to: FyreByrd

sure, sources for what in particular?

a reply to: CosmicAwakening

self government=no government=anarchy
i feel this could only work in small groups of people, however. I someone stole something from another person in small group, everyone would know, and the correct action could be taken, for example. This would not work in a city with hundreds of thousands of people.

Direct Action

Anarchism is the "direct action" against tyranny, establishmentarianism, and the paradigm hidden in plain sight, a paradigm against man and natural law.
If natural law of man was considered organic, the government would, in opposition, be synthetic who's sole purpose is to suck as much life out of it's people without blatantly killing them outright (we the people are their cash cow).

Mass killings are the by-product of this totalitarian monarchy, under the false pretense of democracy and freedom.

The determining factor as to why we cannot truly live in this fake lalaland, completely peaceful, and pure human sanctuary: we are not developed or adequately matured yet (it eventually will be our only option when the time comes)

There's cycles ruling our existence, not allowing people through theoretical doors or stages until it presents itself. There's evidence all around us proving this fact. Perhaps... natural law dictating the mankind process.

Now... Don't be fooled, there is communes right now living off the land in mountainous regions throughout the U.S. that do not use USD or adhere to the state. Strictly encompassed within their self-sustaining and minimal lifestyle, content, happy, without the immoral and unethical mannerisms or actions shared among people in big cities. There's mutually shared respect and comradarie within these factions and they religiously are there for one another.... one cohesive unit. If you cannot comply with that standard you are shunned forever. No police, no hate, no lethal weapons, no one ordering others. The thing is... You will never hear about them unless someone seen it briefly and told others via word of mouth. Its very inspiring.

Anyways....

a reply to: XAnarchistX

anarchism is the 'political' theory of anarchy, it is a bunch of uptopic nonsense, and will never be achieved, "anarchy" is a continuous fight, not something that can be "won" and installed.

Which is probably why Chomsky defines himself as an anarcho-syndicalist. With a strong emphasis on syndicates and the critical theory, remember "Manufacturing Consent"?

However. I can't shake off the feeling, that our anarchists from history would likely mock the crap out of you for looking back so much. The correct "eschatology" of the term itself doesn't help a bit, only activism does.
And that brings us back to the "real anarchism" our OP was getting at, the non-utopian real thing of syndicalism with different anarchy gradients, if you will.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.

Bakunin

originally posted by: toms54
It could be argued prehistoric anarchy held civilization back. Only with advent of strong empires were we really able to progress at a fast rate. Anarchic civilizations live in the stone age even today.

They tend to live "off the grid" in their little communities, but I wouldn't call that the stone age. We didn't have furniture, electricity, heating and tap water in construction trailers back then.

However. I'm very familiar with our last two attempts to build up empires, and they turned out to be gigantic regressions with a little bit of progress afterwards. The UdSSR and USA took great advantage of Nazi knowledge and equipment after the last war was lost, one could also state that said progress is happening at even faster rates when empires are being dismantled.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed. The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

Can you reference some sources please? Thank you.

What part is it you're having trouble understanding?

Is this like the non aggression principle i have heard people discussing?

It works great until about 4 or 5 pm and i gets hungry

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: toms54
It could be argued prehistoric anarchy held civilization back. Only with advent of strong empires were we really able to progress at a fast rate. Anarchic civilizations live in the stone age even today.

They tend to live "off the grid" in their little communities, but I wouldn't call that the stone age. We didn't have furniture, electricity, heating and tap water in construction trailers back then.

However. I'm very familiar with our last two attempts to build up empires, and they turned out to be gigantic regressions with a little bit of progress afterwards. The UdSSR and USA took great advantage of Nazi knowledge and equipment after the last war was lost, one could also state that said progress is happening at even faster rates when empires are being dismantled.

So you're arguing destruction of civilization is a desirable outcome? It's true there was much technological advancement during, say, the US civil war. Does this mean we should do it again?

Anarchism only works for mature, self-disciplined people who don't need/want nannies or a nanny state micromanaging every aspect of their lives. If living with other anarchists then everyone has a job. Organizing work groups for maintenance or "civilization" building is no more important a job than any other. Deciding funds distributions for projects comes with no more perks or privileges than any other job. Accountability and transparency are everything. Personal responsibility and self-discipline are paramount in a society of individuals. Respect and mutuality are non-negotiable and expected. The needs of the many DO NOT outweigh the needs of the one.
Technology may have have advanced but human beings have not. We're still just poo-flinging apes and if you have any doubts, check your social media page. Our ears itch for whispers of our neighbors' tragedies. We condemn anyone not conforming to our self-imposed labels. We eat when we're not hungry, kill when we're not threatened, hate when we're not understood or when we refuse to understand. Humanity has a loooong way to go before we're worthy of the title of anarchist (self-ruling individuals).

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed. The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

Can you reference some sources please? Thank you.

What part is it you're having trouble understanding?

You didn't say much of anything so not much to understand.

The post I was and am responding to:

Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed.

The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

I've never heard of Bakunin and I am curious especially since you think everyone should be taught.

Well teach - some resources for learning please.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed. The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

Can you reference some sources please? Thank you.

What part is it you're having trouble understanding?

You didn't say much of anything so not much to understand.

The post I was and am responding to:

Freedom of the individual, free of the chains of centralized control, and the very fact that the idea of Anarchism still exists is proof that it hasn't failed.

The teachings of Bakunin should be a priority in education globally

I've never heard of Bakunin and I am curious especially since you think everyone should be taught.

Well teach - some resources for learning please.

You have the internet, no? I assume maybe your town has a library, there are a variety of sources for information these days.

en.wikipedia.org...

Additionally, no discussion on on true Anarchism would be complete without mentioning Emma Goldman:

en.wikipedia.org...

Emma Goldman (June 27 [O.S. June 15], 1869 – May 14, 1940) was an anarchist political activist and writer. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

Definitely worthwhile reading her autobiography

a reply to: toms54

Wait. Dismantling the Nazi empire would equate the destruction of civilisation? Full stop right there, let's get back on topic somehow.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Here's a good read regarding Bakunin and his ideas.

[...]Bakunin's revolutionary ideas where rooted in materialism. For him, "facts are before ideas" and the ideal was "but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence." From this base he produced a coherent defence of individual freedom and its basis in a free society and co-operation between equals. Rejecting the abstract individualism of liberalism and other idealist theories, he saw that real freedom was possible only when economic and social equality existed: "No man can achieve his own emancipation without at the same time working for the emancipation of all men around him. My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals."

For Bakunin, "man in isolation can have no awareness of his liberty . . . Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection." As capitalist ideology glorifies the abstract individual, it "proclaims free will, and on the ruins of every liberty founds authority." This was unsurprising, as every development "implies the negation of its point of departure." Thus "you will always find the idealists in the very act of practical materialism, while you see the materialists pursuing and realising the most grandly ideal aspirations and thoughts." This is obvious today when the "libertarian" right's defence of individual liberty never gets far from opposing taxation while defending "the management's right to manage" to maximise profits. Abstract individualism cannot help but justify authority over liberty. Anarchism, however, "denies free will and ends in the establishment of liberty."

This meant that anarchism "rejects the principle of authority." While Engels never could understand what Bakunin meant by this, the concept is simple. For Bakunin, "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." Instead of this, Bakunin advocated what latter became known as "self-management." In such an organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful discipline" for "collective work or action." "In such a system," Bakunin stressed, "power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere realisation of the will of all . . . this is the only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the organisation of freedom."[...]

Anarchist writers