Fortunately or unfortunately, my only experience with Anarchists have been at various protests, and I must say I was not impressed with their involvement nor ideology espoused. In 2000 I marched in Cincinnati where the Transatlantic Business Dialogue met. Laborers, teachers, nuns, students, folks of all kinds, not just dumb hippies were marching. It was a well-organized yet diverse group.
And then there were the anarchists. They started smashing windows with hammers, and that's when the police got violent. Some dick in front of me pulled a claw hammer out of his backpack, smashed a bank window. When I asked him what the **** he was doing, he said, "I'd rather break a bank window than torture animals," or something idiotic. Ok, so Proctor and Gamble was part of the TABD, but the bank?
Yes, that's just one person, but after 50 people were arrested, the message was lost upon the media, who focused on the violence. Sad.
Some disjointed ramblings from a self-described anarchodemocrat...
I think anarchism might well represent the best way for people to be happy.
I also think it is no longer possible in this modern era, where the scale of everything has multiplied.
Ie, a pre-modern agricultural village. The land is unowned - its use is decided on by the community. It happened - think of the Russian mir of old. Whatever was harvested, was shared. (Not by order.)
Coupla problems with human nature there, already - ambition, for one, wanting something others dont have. The demand to be rewarded according to work rather than need - hey, I worked harder, why shouldnt I get more?
Then again, in an anarchistic society there wouldnt be a commissar forcing you to give away and share - the basis of it voluntarily happening would be more something like social control. (Goodfielder has a good point about anarchistic communities actually needing to be kind of conformistic, in the sense of feeling a common loyalty to the community). Voluntary sharing - but no policing.
Of course, this only works if the community is pretty stable itself - like the rural communities of old were. Everybody knew each other, apart from the odd travelling artisan (who in an anarchist society I suppose would be fed in exchange for working his trade). It doesnt work in an age of mass migration.
It also presupposes being happy what nature yields and what you can produce yourself, kinda. In this time of material prosperity and a sense of entitlement to arrays of mass-produced consumer goods, there's no way people will voluntarily go back there, other than in small break-away communes/communities. I dont see how you could arrange DSL or cellphones in an anarchistic society.
And the consumer age, where each of our actions (buying an orange; sending an email) involves materials, resources and people from across the world, is a direct result of those problematic elements of human nature: ambition, the drive for ever better, ever more, ever larger.
But then again, are those elements of human nature the ones that actually make us happy? They're exactly what keeps us in this rat race of frustration about unfulfilled expectations, envy and a perpetual sense of insufficiency.
You wouldnt have that in a life where each does what he can, and all get what they need. But by now, we have too twisted a sense of 'need' - I 'need' D&G trousers.
I think, if anarchists had won, we might be happier people. All we now are left with is to try to inject as much elements of anarchy into our system, by ways of antidote. Use it as a pole star, like Dys said.
Oh, and your friends are right on one thing, when they argue with each other about what anarchism is: you're not gonna find the one, true definition. I describe it as above - but there's many other ways to conceptualise it. Then again, what else is new. Christians, socialists and nationalists cant agree on what their teachings really mean or how they should be worked for either.
Gargamel wrote:Fortunately or unfortunately, my only experience with Anarchists have been at various protests, and I must say I was not impressed with their involvement nor ideology espoused. In 2000 I marched in Cincinnati where the Transatlantic Business Dialogue met. Laborers, teachers, nuns, students, folks of all kinds, not just dumb hippies were marching. It was a well-organized yet diverse group.
And then there were the anarchists. They started smashing windows with hammers, and that's when the police got violent. Some dick in front of me pulled a claw hammer out of his backpack, smashed a bank window. When I asked him what the **** he was doing, he said, "I'd rather break a bank window than torture animals," or something idiotic. Ok, so Proctor and Gamble was part of the TABD, but the bank?
Yes, that's just one person, but after 50 people were arrested, the message was lost upon the media, who focused on the violence. Sad.
The idiots you ran into are not true anarchists. They are just immature violent thug rioters who are there for the fun, not idealism.
I figured as much. It's cool to get some info from people with credible exposure/experience.
Gargame
Gargamel wrote:I figured as much. It's cool to get some info from people with credible exposure/experience.
During my long checkered past :wink: I worked with a lot of different folks. I soon learned which were there for their feel good needs and those who really wanted to make things better.
BBB
Cripes.
What on earth does "really wanted to make things better" mean?
Is want like in want an ice cream,want that dog to stop barking,want the horse you've backed to win,want the toothache to stop,want the wife to knock off the nagging,want the operation to be a success,want a bowl of rice and clean water or want the torturer to drop dead.
Then there's the small matter of what "better" means.
As an old time demonstrator from the 60s, I can attest the publicity generally went with the non idealists, who tended to violence or just plain stupidity. Few listened to the ones of principle and true purpose.
Libertarians?!?!
Let us see where anarchies can fit into today's world. I have a feeling that it will never work. I'd work toward a system of a united responsible government where corruption is out, but not toward a system where people are divided and corruption lies not centrally, but in scattered group.
Let's face it, anarchy = chaos.
The idea of the "invisible hand" is overhyped and oversimplistic.
I tend to agree with Ray.
It sure would be great if everyone could regulate themselves in a non-violent, efficient, and supportive way. If we could all do exactly what we want within our means, and never strive for that beyond our needs, never push ourselves onto another guys turf, never hold positions of power and become corrupt.
Actually, that sounds like a nightmare to me. ~shudder~
Humans are humans, and there's always bullies on the block. Try getting beaten a couple times in a situation where you are weaker, and it quickly kicks in that might does have some right. You don't have to live through the Holocaust to learn that lesson.
I like our messy world. I like that we keep trying to organize ourselves in different ways. I'm all for screwing it up even more, if that's what we have to do to keep from stagnating as a species.
There is no going back to a simplier time. We live now.
Love to you all.
spendius wrote:Cripes.
What on earth does "really wanted to make things better" mean?
Is want like in want an ice cream,want that dog to stop barking,want the horse you've backed to win,want the toothache to stop,want the wife to knock off the nagging,want the operation to be a success,want a bowl of rice and clean water or want the torturer to drop dead.
How would you define "idealism", then? Cause thats what that was about. Hell, there's idealist fascists out there, who sincerely just want to make things better. <shrugs>
goodfielder wrote:So Dys - Proudhon is the first port of call?
Start with William Godwin. Then move on to Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman, and (for a dash of anarcho-capitalism) Nozick.
With regard to the young punks breaking windows and generally causing mayhem in the streets: in the good old days we used to differentiate between "anarchists" and "nihilists." The former wanted a new society, the latter just wanted to destroy the old one. Given that some self-proclaimed anarchists adopted violent means to achieve their ends, though, the distinction between the two became blurred in the minds of most people. There is nothing inherent in anarchism that tends toward violence or destruction (although there are different brands of anarchism -- Bakunin was, for instance, far more willing to tolerate violence than Kropotkin, just as Lenin wanted to hurry the revolution along whereas Marx expected it to happen as a result of historical forces).
As for the crowd of anarchists into which
flushd has fallen, we unfortunately see on college campuses today the equivalent of the "Lexus liberals." One might refer to them as the "Audi anarchists." Children of wealth and privilege, thoroughly bourgeois in manners, morals, and mindsets, they talk about freeing themselves from their possessions while they shop at the Gap and contentedly sip their lattes while talking about "the people" as if they actually knew a few of them. That's not anarchism. That's not even "anarchism lite."
joefromchicago wrote:As for the crowd of anarchists into which flushd has fallen, we unfortunately see on college campuses today the equivalent of the "Lexus liberals." One might refer to them as the "Audi anarchists." Children of wealth and privilege, thoroughly bourgeois in manners, morals, and mindsets, they talk about freeing themselves from their possessions while they shop at the Gap and contentedly sip their lattes while talking about "the people" as if they actually knew a few of them. That's not anarchism. That's not even "anarchism lite."
Comparable to the College Che's, I'm sure ...
Like TNR noted in a very interesting recent article about the cult of Che that I'll still bother you with later:
Quote:Che Guevara, who did so much (or was it so little?) to destroy capitalism, is now a quintessential capitalist brand. His likeness adorns mugs, hoodies, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and of course those omnipresent T-shirts with the photograph, taken by Alberto Korda, of the socialist heartthrob in his beret during the early years of the revolution, as Che happened to walk into the photographer's viewfinder--and into the image that, thirty-eight years after his death, is still the logo of revolutionary (or is it capitalist?) chic. [..]
It is customary for followers of a cult not to know the real life story of their hero, the historical truth. (Many Rastafarians would renounce Haile Selassie if they had any notion of who he really was.) It is not surprising that Guevara's contemporary followers, his new post-communist admirers, also delude themselves by clinging to a myth--except the young Argentines who have come up with an expression that rhymes perfectly in Spanish: "Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué," or "I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why."
Thanks Joefromchicago and Nihm!
Now I have an idea of what to read, and where to direct my attention in getting to the root of my original querie.
I'm going to do some quiet research on this.
Hey, I know when I'm outta my league :wink: ...usually...in this case anyhow.
Quote:It sure would be great if everyone could regulate themselves in a non-violent, efficient, and supportive way. If we could all do exactly what we want within our means, and never strive for that beyond our needs, never push ourselves onto another guys turf, never hold positions of power and become corrupt.
Actually, that sounds like a nightmare to me. ~shudder~
Humans are humans, and there's always bullies on the block. Try getting beaten a couple times in a situation where you are weaker, and it quickly kicks in that might does have some right. You don't have to live through the Holocaust to learn that lesson.
I like our messy world. I like that we keep trying to organize ourselves in different ways. I'm all for screwing it up even more, if that's what we have to do to keep from stagnating as a species.
Well, that's not quite what I'm getting at. I think a world where all people are not violent and not corrupt is good. People can change and I'd work hard to build a better world. Humans are humans is not a justification, it's an excuse to me. What we are, are potentials.
I do believe in working toward an ideal, but not the wrong ideal.
I tend to associate anarchism to no government, which I disagree completely with.
Ray, just to clarify what I believe to be the philosophical anarchist postion re government, the ojective of anarchism is the minimal government intrusion on personal liberty relagating government to a service provider (the extent of services to be defined by legislation) I have my personal views on what services would be included but the main thrust would be that services are made available rather than mandated whenever feasible. This is basically generated out of the assumption that the more laws a society enacts the more corrupt the society is in needing the laws. (and of course, the more law-breakers there are due to the increase in laws themselves)
joefromchicago - thanks for the reminder about anarchism/nihilism distinction, it's important.
Ray,
sorry, I didn't intend to attach my personal opinions onto you.
What you quoted is my personal feelings and perspective.
-------One of my 'friends' sent me a link to something called Practical Anarchy.
It's quite disturbing. I has such suggestions as "deflating the air out of cops cars." "Distribute pamphlets throughout your community" "Buy a cop a bagel and tell him to consider getting another job".
pffft! silly buggers.
I'm going to just keep reading bc there is actually a huge amount of info about Anarchy. I discovered the Anarchy Archives.
I'm getting a ton of emails back from 'anarchists' who I've contacted. Huge diversity of opinions and causes: this is like trying to form an opinion about Liberal ideas/initiatives. Quite a task.
If anyone cares to provide links to their favorite sites regarding Anarchy, I'd be appreciative and would be sure to check them out.
thanks everyone
