Anarchy

We'd deal with crime the same way most of our ancestors did. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. Revenge was a personal matter. That's how long-standing feuds got started. You kill one of my people, I go after you. If I get you, your brother or son or somebody from your clan comes after me. Simple. It carries on into perpetuity, like the Hatfields and McCoys.

I've always thought of Anarchy as a truly idiotic idea.

We, just as animals, naturally follow. Even without a titled Government dictating us, there would eventually be someone, if not groups of people, that take a leadership position. There would be chaos, destruction, danger and survival of the fittist. All anarchists I've ever spoken to about this always counter that with "No! There would be calm, it would settle down after a while." Really? How - by creating order and thus instruction (leadership)? It's foolish to think that in a Government-inforced world, where we still need a Death Row, that there would be anything less than pandemonium without a government.

I compare anarchists to rebelious five, six, or seven year olds who merely don't know how to listen.

Hey. Back in the day I started a thread on Anarchy.
It is a little embarassing; but the kind people here at A2K answered all my questions with a LOT of patience.

Here's the link if you are interested.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56537&highlight=anarchy

Goes to show that you don't know much about anarchism. The very reason it doesn't work is that people are like rebellious six-year olds who merely doesn't know how to listen.

Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos. Anarchy is a society of individuals without any hierarchy. There can be no laws because there can be no enforcers. It is a society that demands alot of it's inhabitants, and because of the relatively low morals and poor capacity for thought among most people, we'll probably not see anarchy in our lifetime, if ever.

P.S. When I am saying the poor capacity for thought among most people I mean that most people don't think straight, because their ability for sound judgement is impaired by the many fears that are nurtured by our lifestylemongers. You cannot blame a plant for not growing if the gardener gives it bad manure.

Cyr,

One of my big dislikes of 'anarchy' is the idea that people would WANT to live that way!

Amen, Flush!

Cyr, I understand what you're saying (and am indeed not ignorant on the subject), and that's exactly what prompted my comparison. The reality is, that unless you begin a civilization based on anarchy, it would never work. Thus, anyone who still desires it in modern times is, in my opinion, quite immature.

I can understand that, flushd, but still, opinions like that is equally a reason why it would never work. I do not advocate anarchy, and Sanctuary is right in that it cannot be imposed. Anarchy is when all imposed governing falls away unneeded and unheeded.

When the day comes that nobody -- nobody -- goes to the polls to elect anyone in a democratic society because they see no need for a group of rational, moral and sane people to have a government, even if chosen by themselves, then that group will have shown themselves to be ready for true anarchy. Anarchy implies chaos for most people today simply because, as a group, we are mostly not rational, moral and sane.

Do we? What's your evidence for this? Are leaders not animals like the rest of us? If humans are natural followers, shouldn't leaders be followers too? Who would/do they follow?

Oy, Arg - start another thread.

this is a philosophy forum with the topic of anarchy, those of you unable to discuss philosophical anarchism (and unwilling to learn) are superflous.

I don't think I need to - I don't care much about whether humans are natural followers or not. But you stated it as a reason for your rejection of anarchism - isn't that a bit hasty, if you don't, in fact, have any clue as to whether or not humans are naturally followers?

If you're sure that humans are natural followers, post a link to some evidence for that, or something. If not, come up with a better excuse to reject anarchy.

Inalienable Tenets of Anarchism

That Mankind is Born Free

Our rights are inalienable. Each person born on the world is heir to all the preceding generations. The whole world is ours by right of birth alone. Duties imposed as obligations or ideals, such as patriotism, duty to the State, worship of God, submission to higher classes or authorities, respect for inherited privileges, are lies.

If Mankind is Born Free, Slavery is Murder

Nobody is fit to rule anybody else. It is not alleged that Mankind is perfect, or that merely through his/her natural goodness (or lack of same) he/she should (or should not) be permitted to rule. Rule as such causes abuse. There are no superpeople nor privileged classes who are above 'imperfect Mankind' and are capable or entitled to rule the rest of us. Submission to slavery means surrender of life.

As Slavery is Murder, so Property is Theft

The fact that Mankind cannot enter into his/her natural inheritance means that part of it has been taken from him or her, either by means of force (old, legalised conquest or robbery) or fraud (persuasion that the State or its servants or an inherited property-owning class is entitled to privilege). All present systems of ownership mean that some are deprived of the fruits of their labour. It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed artisan, he said "property is liberty", which seems at first sight a contradiction with his dictum that it was theft). But the principle of ownership, in that which concerns the community, is at the bottom of inequity.

If Property is Theft, Government is Tyranny

If we accept the principle of a socialised society, and abolish hereditary privilege and dominant classes, the State becomes unnecessary. If the State is retained, unnecessary Government becomes tyranny since the governing body has no other way to maintain its hold. "Liberty without socialism is exploitation: socialism without liberty is tyranny" (Bakunin).

If Government is Tyranny, Anarchy is Liberty

Those who use the word "Anarchy" to mean disorder or misrule are not incorrect. If they regard Government as necessary, if they think we could not live without Whitehall directing our affairs, if they think politicians are essential to our well-being and that we could not behave socially without police, they are right in assuming that Anarchy means the opposite to what Government guarantees. But those who have the reverse opinion, and consider Government to be tyranny, are right too in considering Anarchy, no Government, to be liberty. If Government is the maintenance of privilege and exploitation and inefficiency of distribution, then Anarchy is order.

- my man Meltzer. http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html#TENETS
(Yeah, this is an exerpt from a book, I own it.)

I hope this clarifies at least the definition of one form of anarchy: anarcho-syndicalism (search www.wikipedia.org for better definition), the belief that all forms of government are both unecessary and evil, and the worker's have the right to take back what is theirs: themselves, their time, and their birth-given rights.

links:

crimethinc.com
infoshop.org
chomsky.info
wikipedia.org (search for anarchy)
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html
more to come. . .

as for you claims of the necessity of a police force. . .

"Even the police at times fulfill some necessary functions -- one goes to the police station to find lost dogs simply because it happens to be there and has taken over that function. It does not follow that we should never find lost dogs if there were no Police, and that we need to be clubbed over the head in times of social unrest so that old ladies can need not lose their dogs. For insurance purposes, all car owners report their lost or stolen cars to the Police, but it does not mean that the police force as such is indispensable.

Just as insurance companies would find some way of seeing they could not pay out on fraudulent claims if there were no police force, society would see to it that it could protect itself. Unfortunately, having a police force atrophies the ability of society to defend itself. People have lost all sense of social organisation and control. They can be put in terror by a few kids running wild, however young. The only reaction is to run to the Police, and the Police cannot cope. "

. . .

""What would you do without a police force?" Society would never tolerate murder, whether it had a police force or not. The institutionalisation of a body to look after crime means that it not only "looks after" crime and nourishes crime, but that the rest of society is absolved from doing so. The reasoning is that a murder next door is the State's business, not mine! Responsibility for one's neighbour is reduced in an authoritarian society, in which the State is solely responsible for our behaviour."

alert meltzer

on leadership

"Do Anarchists believe in leadership? They always deny they do, but undoubtedly many Anarchists have emerged as leaders, sometimes even of armies (like Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno) or of ideas, or of organisations. In any grouping some people do naturally "give a lead", but this should not mean they are a class apart. What they always reject is responsibility for leadership. That means their supporters become blind followers and the leadership not one of example or originality but of unthinking acceptance.

Musical geniuses, artists, scientists can be of an "elite" without being elitist -- there is no reason why excelling in certain spheres should make one better entitled to the world's goods or more worthy of consideration in matters in which one does not have specialised consideration (the correspondence between Freud and Einstein in which they discuss whether war can be prevented is a classic example of futility -- Einstein looking to Freud for a psychological lead in pacifism and Freud explaining it is in the nature of Man. In the end, scientists who were pacifists, or believers in the League of Nations enthusiasts, or -- like Einstein -- both, invented the atom bomb).

In the same way, people can work in an office without being bureaucrats: a bureaucrat is a person whose power is derived from the office they hold. Holding an office in an organisation can bring supreme power by being at the head of a chain of command-and-obey (as it did in the case of Joseph Stalin). In slang it is a term flung at anyone who happens to be efficient, which is far from being the same thing. v In the same way, no real Anarchist -- as distinct from someone pretending to be or remain one -- would agree to be part of an institutionalised leadership. Neither would an Anarchist wait for a lead, but give one. That is the mark of being an Anarchist, not a formal declaration of being one. What above all is the curse of leadership is not the curse of leadership, but agreement to being led blindly -- not the faults of the shepherd but the meekness of the sheep. What would the crimes of Hitler have amounted to, had he had to carry them out by himself? "

-albert meltzer

Leadership is so misunderstood when put in relation to anarchy it makes me sick. Yes, people are natural followers. And yes, some people are natural leaders. But does that mean that the followers shouldn't question what the leaders are doing? Does that mean that a soldier should not refuse to kill his best friend when ordered to? (by George Washington, I might add, see A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn) The problem is that people have stopped questioning, or a lot of them have, and they have ended up paying for it, so much sometimes that they don't even realize it (What's so special about Nike clothing? That it's made in sweatshops?).

If the balance were kept between leader and follower there would be no problem, there could be no abuse. And likewise, no state, for the state is the abuser, and we are the followers. To have a government gives too few of people too much power, and it is impossible for the followers to check the abuses. This has been proven too many times for me not to act.

CONCLUSION (for now)

A person made a remark about the cover of a book about anarchy, stating that it was "truly amazing that those people are raising their hands to ask their anarchy questions."

I replied: "Just because they are raising their hands to ask questions doesn't mean that they aren't anarchist or or acting in an anarchist fashion, it just means that in that situation it was more convenient for people to take turns asking questions than to all shout out at once. Anarchy isn't the lack of order, it's the lack of unquestioning following, and embracing the most efficient way of doing things without unquestioning following. If the teacher demanded that they raised their hands for no reason (if the teacher demanded a lone student to raise his/her hand, for example) then the efficiency would be ruined, and it would be ironic, and the student would be in a position to question the teacher's policy."

That sums something up, I'm just not sure what yet. Anyways. . .

I personally have taken this stance (anarchism) and have been much happier; that doesn't mean that I don't lock my car when I park, it just means that I have realized that when I step out my door in the morning, I have a better chance of being shot by a cop than a "criminal." It doesn't mean that I lend things to people who I know will not return them, it just means that I realize that I need to know for myself who will and won't return things, that I shouldn't judge people I don't know, and act according to what I do know. It doesn't mean that I leave valuables unguarded, it just means that I have realized that capitalism has driven people into hurting and stealing from each other in the endless climb on the worthless (and mostly step less) ladder to the top.

Think about it, how many crimes are driven by the need for money, or for the need for something as a result of money? How many people have the militaries of the world compared to how many they have killed? How many abuses have these police prevented compared to how many they have created?

Do you stand for this?

Even if anarchy doesn't work perfectly (nothing ever will), I can assure you that it will be so far superior to our present system that you will wonder how we fell into this endless pit.

Would a transition be tough? Undoubtedly. Would it be worth it? More than we can imagine.

Links, books, references, movies, music, somewhere to send hate mail

www.crimethinc.com
Really good for a clear explanation with amazing authors, no philisophical or political buzzwords.

Fighting for Our Lives
This is a good start. You can ask crimethinc to send you a copy, too. For free. http://www.crimethinc.info/media/fighting_for_our_lives.pdf

Anarchism: Arguments For and Against by Albet Meltzer
This is a more in-depth book (viewable online here) that is still very clear and not too wordy.
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

Hegemony or Survival: The United States' Quest for World Dominance
by Noam Chomsky
Title sounds dubious, but he proves it, and it is all referenced. Chomsky is good if you're looking for state abuses. You should read Chomsky like the Pope reads the bible. He has a book about anarchy too, I'm just too lazy to look it up right now, but the title is a giveaway.

The Corporation
(dvd, my library had it) Title explains everything. Has Micheal Moore (don't worry, he only talks for a few minutes) and Noam Chomsky (my main man) amoung others.

www.microcosmpublishing.com
Buy books, zines, movies, shirts, patches, and stickers here. It's all good. All of it.

1984 by George Orwell
Cliche(?) but oh well.

Immortal Technique
Political hip-hop at it's climax. I hate hip-hop and love this guy. Vol. 2 is more political.

The CIA, A Forgotten History by William Blum
The not-propaganda version.

The Sword and the Dollar by Micheal Parent (mayber Parenti)
Quoted stories of state sponsered terror, torture, and war. Moving.

Evasion
Available through crimethinc and microcosm. Author denounces capitalism and lives off the streets, dumpstering, stealing, and finding real happiness.

all hate mail (or just questions) can go to [email protected]

-sheldon