Who Are the Real Anarchists?

reply to post by Panic2k11


The word Libertarian like the word Anarchism were ours first. But as I've said before we Leftists don't mind sharing

reply to post by Kali74

I think the problem here is that you aren't discussing but rather trying to convince.

Well that is true and may be my problem here, if someone refuses to learn basic definitions of words (not accept my interpretation of them but, their definitions mind you) it is I that risks my credibility continuing to engage.

If we cannot agree on language, what hope is there for logic and ideas?

greencmp
reply to post by Kali74

 

I think the problem here is that you aren't discussing but rather trying to convince.

Well that is true and may be my problem here, if someone refuses to learn basic definitions of words (not accept my interpretation of them but, their definitions mind you) it is I that risks my credibility continuing to engage.

We're not idiots. We all know the definitions of the words you're using. It is your interpretation and contextual use of those words that some of us may take issue with.

And by the way, you're on ATS. You don't have any credibility.

reply to post by greencmp


We touched on this before and it requires delving into the history of anarchism but you seemed reluctant to do so. The definitions you are using are not correct. I wish Anok would poke his/her head in here.

reply to post by Kali74

We touched on this before and it requires delving into the history of anarchism but you seemed reluctant to do so. The definitions you are using are not correct. I wish Anok would poke his/her head in here.

Indeed, some moderation is in order.

reply to post by greencmp


If you can get your hands on a copy of A Short History of Anarchism by Max Nettlau a lot of your confusion might get cleared up.

Max Heinrich Hermann Reinhardt Nettlau (30 April 1865 – 23 July 1944) was a German anarchist and historian. Although born in Neuwaldegg (today part of Vienna) and raised in Vienna, he lived there till the annexation to Nazi Germany in 1938. Max Nettlau retained his Prussian (later German) nationality throughout his life. A student of the Welsh language he spent time in London where he joined the Socialist League where he met William Morris. While in London he met anarchists such as Errico Malatesta and Peter Kropotkin whom he remained in contact with for the rest of his life. He also helped to found Freedom Press for whom he wrote for many years.
In the 1890s realising that a generation of socialist and anarchist militants from the mid-19th century was passing away and their archives of writings and correspondence being destroyed, he concentrated his effort and a recent modest inheritance from his father on acquiring and rescuing such collections from destruction. He also made many interviews of veteran militants for posterity. He wrote biographies of many famous anarchists, including Mikhail Bakunin, Élisée Reclus, and Errico Malatesta. He also wrote a seven volume history of anarchism.
His extensive collection or archives was sold to the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam in 1935. He lived continuously in Amsterdam from 1938 where he worked on cataloging the archive for the Institute. "The Nazis, apparently, were not aware of this fact",[1] so he died there suddenly from stomach cancer in 1944, without ever being harassed.

wikipedia

Maybe this will help too...

Kropotkin recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp. 158-9]
Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

spunk.org

reply to post by Kali74

Go look at my posts, you might understand what my thread is about.

However, if you want to go to wiki for the first incarnations of anarchism...

Taoism, which developed in Ancient China, has been embraced by some anarchists as a source of anarchistic attitudes. The Taoist sage Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) developed a philosophy of "non-rule" in the Tao Te Ching and many Taoists in response lived an anarchist lifestyle. In 300 CE, Bao Jingyan explicitly argued that there should be neither lords nor subjects.[20] Similarly, in the West, anarchistic tendencies can be traced to the philosophers of Ancient Greece, such as Zeno, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, and Aristippus, who said that the wise should not give up their liberty to the state.[22]
The usage of the words "anarchia" and "anarchos", both meaning "without ruler", can be traced back to Homer's Iliad[23] and Herodotus's Histories.[24] The first known political usage of the word anarchy appears in the play Seven Against Thebes by Aeschylus, dated at 467 BC. There, Antigone openly refuses to abide by the rulers' decree to leave her brother Polyneices' body unburied, as punishment for his participation in the attack on Thebes, saying that "even if no one else is willing to share in burying him I will bury him alone and risk the peril of burying my own brother. Nor am I ashamed to act in defiant opposition to the rulers of the city (Ἒχουσα ἄπιστων τήν ἀναρχίαν πόλει, Ekhousa apistõn tēn anarkhian polei)".

reply to post by greencmp


Grr I had posted a reply to you but it timed out, so I apologize but I'm going to summarize it now.

I had previously stated to you that I believe anarchy to be the natural state of humanity first appearing when we separated from the rest of the primates.

I think you are getting frustrated with me because you want to have a discussion on implementing anarcho-capitalism with people who agree with you that anarcho-capitalism is the true and original form of anarchism as opposed to what your thread title asks "Who Are the Real Anarchists?". I've provided my answer which is ideologically authentic anarchism is anti-capitalist.

My opinion on capitalism won't be swayed, though I do concede that anarcho-capitalism is more tolerable than what we have now, simply because I despise authority more than I despise capitalism. But no illusion that capitalism in and of itself is not hierarchical and authoritative and will always strive for more authority, should be suffered.

Could there be a compromise between sell-out statism and classical anarchism?

Is extreme minarchism a good compromise until people are ready for full political anarchism?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Could there be a compromise between sell-out statism and classical anarchism?

Is extreme minarchism a good compromise until people are ready for full political anarchism?

Yes, I have been advocating for that. My strategy as elucidated in my comments is to demand anarcho-capitalism and settle for our constitutional republic as it once was and was intended to be.

reply to post by Kali74

I think you are getting frustrated with me because you want to have a discussion on implementing anarcho-capitalism with people who agree with you that anarcho-capitalism is the true and original form of anarchism as opposed to what your thread title asks "Who Are the Real Anarchists?". I've provided my answer which is ideologically authentic anarchism is anti-capitalist.

You are not understanding because you haven't read the article or my comments.

I am not asking the question "who are the real anarchists?", I am agreeing with the article that it doesn't matter.

NthOther

But I think that any anarchist who calls himself a "real" anarchist doesn't really get it. Anarchism refuses definition. That's kinda the point.

Anarchism is the DIRECT ACTION towards the state and any governing powers... have ye not read the texts of olde?
Sitting back and breaking rules is not the DIRECT ACTION against tptb... breaking rules society deems or law does not make one anarchist. Sitting back eating your veggie burgers... doing your yoga meditations pretending to see the future with your one eyed monster... growing tomatoes in your backyard.... with your BoB all ready for SHTF... does not make ye an anarchist... maybe some trendy hipster with an overpriced computer who reads too much nonsense... but even these things are not the makings of an Anarchist but actually just the opposite as one who does nothing... might as well be dead weight for the purists to carry in the end.

Plenty of Anarchists clearly express this... the Emma Goldmans... Peter Kropotkins... Voltairine de Cleyres... Alexander Berkmans.... the list goes on and on... or have ye been oppressed as a reader growing up? O_o

With the internet at our fingertips... I am sure you can fill in these gaps

reply to post by greencmp


I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

It's the capitalism that has fortified and welded the doors shut .... to our exit of this disposition we have found ourselves in TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!!!!

GREED

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

Grr I had posted a reply to you but it timed out, so I apologize but I'm going to summarize it now.

I had previously stated to you that I believe anarchy to be the natural state of humanity first appearing when we separated from the rest of the primates.

I think you are getting frustrated with me because you want to have a discussion on implementing anarcho-capitalism with people who agree with you that anarcho-capitalism is the true and original form of anarchism as opposed to what your thread title asks "Who Are the Real Anarchists?". I've provided my answer which is ideologically authentic anarchism is anti-capitalist.

My opinion on capitalism won't be swayed, though I do concede that anarcho-capitalism is more tolerable than what we have now, simply because I despise authority more than I despise capitalism. But no illusion that capitalism in and of itself is not hierarchical and authoritative and will always strive for more authority, should be suffered.

It is important to point out that Kali74 came in from a separate thread where we were discussing the same thing but, not through the normal evolution of this thread which is why the article fell by the wayside. That is my fault for not clarifying, sorry Kali, I am just realizing this now.

Here are my comments from that thread: Please let me know if i should include your comments here too, not sure they will fit but, I could break it up into two posts.

See now this is the sort of thing I think libertarian constitutionalists need to learn from.

She's not wrong about the cronyism, indeed there are many issues that are cross ideology in the sense that we all hate them. It is just a question of what replaces them, if anything.

We are always complaining about our rights being taken away and all we can come up with is to ask for some of them back. This is not working and it is flawed as a strategy.

The left has a better strategy, in many ways it is more 'free market capitalist' in it's negotiation style. Why ask for what you want when you can demand it all.

We need to demand anarcho-capitalism and then negotiate from there and ultimately settle for our constitutional republic. This is the general idea of my anarchy threads of late. I used to dismiss anarchy as hogwash but, I have been reading a lot of Mises and Rothbard and it isn't chaos at all. I am embarrassed that it took me this long to come to that conclusion.

The main issue with the term is that it was stolen by the 1920's anti-capitalist anarchists and is still associated with the black ski mask euro crowd. Both of which present no threat to a true anarcho-capitalism, their ideology will simply be proven wrong and trade will continue as it always has. Some even say we can thank them later for helping to save us all from statism.

I mean in popular understanding in America, what Hoover talked about and sought to destroy with the FBI. That is anarcho-syndicalism. Etymologically speaking, anarchy goes back to the 16th century or even back to Athens.

Literarily, anarcho-capitalism goes back to Burke and sympathetic individualists throughout our countries history.

I am very interested in talking about this, I am certainly hoping to learn more about how others view the subject.

It merits a deeper discussion. Thanks!

That's good right there, we are already discussing this!

I see your point but, I do mean in the context of society. Humans acting in their own interests and through the combined efforts of each, achieving positive results that could not have come about through planned action.

True capitalism as opposed to mercantilism (what most would call corporatism these days) which may be a good topic for a thread as well.

I have always regarded authoritarianism as a measure of the threshold at which the state is willing to exert violence to enforce laws. It is ideologically independent and universally abhorred by free thinkers (I hope).

Whenever I hear someone saying that those people should be stopped from doing those things, I always ask "are you willing to use violence to coerce them to your will?" In follow up the clarification becomes, should the state use violence to achieve that goal?

Bloomberg is a great example of how shallow thinkers allow these overreaches without considering the implications at all. Should our government use violence to stop people from drinking soda, smoking cigarettes or parking their cars in an unattractive or inconvenient manner?

So, basically, you are not an anarchist at all. If you want a government to do anything for you, that kind of precludes the definition.

Also, itemized lists are fine for articles and literary forensics I suppose but, I was looking forward to a 'discussion' rather than an academic dissection of the term.

Have I misunderstood your position on this?

-puzzled (emoticircles just aren't working here)

Well, among the things you mentioned that you aren't comfortable leaving to the grownups is smoking and parking.

You also seem to be questioning the fact that in order for any ordinance to be enforced, violence must be employed. I use the term in the broad sense because, ultimately, coercion of some sort is necessary to compel a citizen to submit to any requirement.

[edit] I detect a contrarian tone to this exchange so maybe we should start a separate thread for this as it is an inevitably endless circular semantic argument that appears to be developing and I don't want to hijack the thread

edit on 14-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Kali74
reply to post by greencmp

 

Collectivists are not statists or globalists. They are a group of individuals with common goals. Collectivist anarchists still very much are anti-state/authority/government.

Thank you for clearing that up actually!!! I read that part he said and I got a little lost and just ignored it as perhaps he was using the word differently then I've been accustomed to hearing it. But yes, I have hung out with collectives and such... they are very much against all those in authority... which is WHY they are COLLECTING lol!

It's like..."Hey... if you're an anarchist or aspiring anarchist come and join us!"

I think using the word "anarchist" is actually a bad idea and instead having a word to take it's place like "collectivist" might be the smarter way to go as it doesn't give people some impression of violence the world has come prone to see when reading the word "anarchy".

benrl
I have been called an Anarchist by people who actually know what it means.

I believe in my right to do as I please with out any interference from Government or Man, as long As I am not harming anyone.

Period.

Perfect answer, and is exactly what everyone embraced not too long ago, until our 21st century (and before, of course), Stalin's and Mao's arrived and used those same strategies to pervert our government

Anarchy to me is exactly what government employees are doing right now. They are disobeying the constitution and bill of rights, which means they are going against us, (the real government), ( and probably a lot of other less pertinent documents).. That actually makes them the true anarchists because they are the ones going against our government..

These idiots don't even know that the government is all of us, the citizens, and, or they don't care. Anyone going against them are called the anarchists.. This illustrates to the "tee" exactly just how socially and spiritually bankrupt they all are.

These anarchists that are in control are too self centered, they think only about themselves without regard to the freedom of others. Because they are living in a delusional world where everything is peachy, but it can only remain that way if they can keep their power (Bailouts, new large government agencies (DHS), Dept. of Energy, etc, etc.. perhaps necessary, but look how they were made with functionality for the people to see, but also subversion so it all fits together nicely for these folks in their future.

By their own definition, they have made a law that anyone mentally ill turn in their guns, or barred from owning.. but narcissism is not a condition that is open to self examination in a true way.. So of course they would ignore this like everything else..

I could add a lot more, but I don't want to turn this into a rant.. HAHA!!

reply to post by Kali74

I have read the article and your comments.
The article as well as yourself dismiss anti-capitalists.

Yes, the one thing that keeps us from embracing the term anarchists is the association with anti-capitalists. Since that ideology will simply not supercede free trade, it is therefore not a threat.

alienreality


Anarchy to me is exactly what government employees are doing right now.

Dude, there's no point in writing a whole friggin 5 paragraph post if you initially start it out with lines like this!!! Do you think any of us read the rest of your blabbering rants?

LOL!!!!


Well the answer is NO... one of the FIRST things you learn when studying anarchism is NATURAL RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE STEPPED ON BY ANOTHER....

you fail miserably...

NEXT

reply to post by greencmp


Well since anarchism is actually anti-capitalist, I don't think you're going to get the discourse you are looking for.