Anarchism

Anarchists do, in general support the destruction of the state. However, how that will come about is hotly debated. Anarchists of tradition point to "Propaganda of the Deed" often enough, or, actions by small groups or individuals which will inspire and spur the masses into action for revolution.

Anarchists don't want a government, but we also carry a very concentrated and historically traditioned idea of what government means. Anarchists are not opposed to a system of community care-taking and living, but just simply the authority of another on having a final say about one's life without their consent. It is fully possible to have a traditional-esque government which operates on a very transparent and validated consent system from the populace which offers valid alternatives for those who do not wish to partake.

Anarchists, not necessarily in their theory but in those who I've met (a decent amount) seem to lack a conception of really how to achieve this state and what happens immediately after the revolution.

Lenin seems better suited for this.

Because of this lack of practical solutions to carrying out the revolution, many anarchists take to a more isolated and individualized lifestyle which is in congruence with their values. The only problem being of course, is that their isolation can lead to bitterness and to classist positions of "If everyone else just made the same changes I did, we'd be better off".

In short, Bakunin warned about states. But Marx rightfully highlighted collective action.

What I learned in my political philosophy class is that one doesn't have to change the whole government of the country they live in - each political philosophy, such as anarchism, can be applied to your personal life and the people you hang out with and that is really the most realistic place to start, and works better anyway.

an anarchic system where every constituent is mutually responsible and accountable can really only come about when the apparatuses of a civilization have reached a point where they are fully automated and intelligent, given that infrastructure is still a necessity in the given civilization.

it really requires that every individual have advanced cognitive reasoning abilities, everyone being on a highly mature mental plane. and the technology has to match that level; any infrastructure in the free-form society must be adaptive and virtually self-maintaining to have that level of transparency of movement and association that true anarchy promises.

i'm thinking at the very least a type II civilization.

The anarchists I have met in student protests in the UK have had some pretty compelling alternatives to capitalism and free market economics. Things like community-owned factories and means of production and other standard stuff, but also things regarding information and power on the internet. Wikileaks being the obvious example a lot of anarchists point to- fire storms of information release, sharing etc available to all (who have the internet at least), making it difficult for governments to duplicitously operate.

As a political operation and outfit though they have a huge and difficult task: how to replace centuries-old hierarchical state structures with complete horizontal equality? Changing hugely powerful cultural factors that are near-ingrained in Western (arguably eastern as well) society such as competition, accumulation of wealth, etc and also facing down against powerful institutions that possess huge muscle: not just monarchies and governments, but private business owners, intelligence services, armed forces, police.

A noble idea though

reply to post by StudentType


The anarchists I’ve met and seen in the U.S. have pretty much destroyed everything they touched. Just for grins and giggles it seems.

And their compelling alternatives? They had none. But they insisted that “The Man or TPTB” were keeping them down and had to go. They wanted change, but everyone had a different idea on what should be changed.

Personally, I think that they were keeping themselves down. What’s the phrase…”Useful Idiots”.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by StudentType

 

The anarchists I’ve met and seen in the U.S. have pretty much destroyed everything they touched. Just for grins and giggles it seems.

And their compelling alternatives? They had none. But they insisted that “The Man or TPTB” were keeping them down and had to go. They wanted change, but everyone had a different idea on what should be changed.

Personally, I think that they were keeping themselves down. What’s the phrase…”Useful Idiots”.

edit on 21-4-2013 by TDawgRex because: coffee

There's plenty like that in the UK too don't worry . However anarchism is a political philosophy with positives and negatives like any other and some focus on the more academic side of the philosophy and some on the more militant side. A lot of anarchists I've run into (and from) waving sticks seem to be rebelling about personal issues as opposed to ideological ones, but the phrase "useful idiots" isn't really valid - useful to who? They don't really have a global organisation or leadership of any real note to further by their very nature. It's quite an individualistic philosophy, and they're disliked by and disagree even with much socialist philosophy

On the "destruction" of the state that anarchists want, how can they possibly destroy something like the state? What is the state even? If it is everyone who partakes in it, you have got a lot of killing to do!

reply to post by TheNHK


I am a Marxist yet I have not been the biggest supporter of total Anarchism due to the current level of awareness of human society. I would say that society is not ready for Anarchy. I have been pushing for revolutionary state socialism as a stepping stone toward Communism/Anarchy. Anarchist can be very helpful in helping to educate people on how to live and work together without depending on elements outside of their community or group. The best teachers are anarchist because they are more inclined to provide students with an education which will help them to function in a group yet still retain their individual ideas.

reply to post by TheNHK


Certainly Anarchy as a Philosophy has gotten a bad rap. In a world where we are all morally centered and our goals and actions are for the benefit of all, it seems like an ideal situation to have no centralized authority. It seems like the real problem is that today our actions can impact the whole world in a dramatic way. Chemical pollutants, radioactive isotopes, genetic modification, self replicating nano-materials... if we didn't monitor these blatant overkill examples, it wouldn't be long before there was no life left to be free. I wont ride that slippery slope down any further but I hope you can see my point. Don't get me wrong, I think our centralized structure to monitor and regulate all of these things is fatally flawed due to money in politics, however having no oversight as the Libertarians have always promoted would kill us fast. Do you think we can overcome greed? That may be necessary as a species if we ever want to be able to live in peaceful anarchy.

Originally posted by TheNHK
Anarchists do, in general support the destruction of the state. However, how that will come about is hotly debated. Anarchists of tradition point to "Propaganda of the Deed" often enough, or, actions by small groups or individuals which will inspire and spur the masses into action for revolution.

The destruction of the state is not anarchism. Anarchism is a hypothetical extreme that everyone should work towards. It is extreme libertarianism. Using violence to create a solution is what statists do.

Destruction = violence = statism.

Anarchists don't want a government, but we also carry a very concentrated and historically traditioned idea of what government means. Anarchists are not opposed to a system of community care-taking and living, but just simply the authority of another on having a final say about one's life without their consent. It is fully possible to have a traditional-esque government which operates on a very transparent and validated consent system from the populace which offers valid alternatives for those who do not wish to partake.

Also false. Anarchists don't want rulers and centralized power. A "government"(an extremely libertarian representitive non-violent decentralized government of the people) without rulers(a non-representitive centralized violent coercive government of people) is still libertarian(not anarchism but very close to it).

Anarchists, not necessarily in their theory but in those who I've met (a decent amount) seem to lack a conception of really how to achieve this state and what happens immediately after the revolution.

more statism is the opposite of what we want

Lenin seems better suited for this.

Lenin is a authoritarian statist so no.

Because of this lack of practical solutions to carrying out the revolution, many anarchists take to a more isolated and individualized lifestyle which is in congruence with their values. The only problem being of course, is that their isolation can lead to bitterness and to classist positions of "If everyone else just made the same changes I did, we'd be better off".

We are not coersive like statists are. We don't force people to "change" like statists do

In short, Bakunin warned about states. But Marx rightfully highlighted collective action.

Marx was a statist so no

reply to post by darkbake


Good point.

Its more a personal decision.

Originally posted by freedomwv
reply to post by TheNHK

 

I am a Marxist yet I have not been the biggest supporter of total Anarchism due to the current level of awareness of human society. I would say that society is not ready for Anarchy. I have been pushing for revolutionary state socialism as a stepping stone toward Communism/Anarchy. Anarchist can be very helpful in helping to educate people on how to live and work together without depending on elements outside of their community or group. The best teachers are anarchist because they are more inclined to provide students with an education which will help them to function in a group yet still retain their individual ideas.

I agree we are not ready for pure anarchism.

No one has successfully ran a pure communist state. Just like anarchism you have to get there in phases.

Both communism and anarchism require society to be highly educated and emotionally mature(greed,power addiction,bullying etc).

reply to post by Qi Maker


Totally agree.

We have to get there in phases. We have to become ALOT more unselfish,greedy,power mad ect for anarchism to flourish on a large scale.

Maybe brand people outlaws like the icelander's did.