Difficulties with understanding

Proudhon and Bakunin were early disciples of Marx, whose interpretations of just how much personal property a person might possess without becoming an exploiter of the masses.

Proudhon came to believe that each person (men) is entitled to own a home, some land and the tools to work it with. This is essentially an agrarian or peasant centered approach to ownership. Proudhon, would give all other production to the State to manage for the good of the whole.

Bakunin, went further and declared that all ownership should be abolished, and that only in a state of anarchy can class conflict be destroyed. Bakunnin was infamous during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as Anarchism became popular with the downtrodden in an increasingly industrialized world. Anarchists of the time were associated with terrorist bombings, mass rioting, and assassination of leading political and business figures.

For Bakunin, and others, the very act of destruction was in itself a creative step toward Utopian world where everyone was exactly equal and no one owned anything at all. Anything less, to the anarchist enslaves the individual to either personal or State capitalism, and the struggles of Dialectical Materialism between classes continues indefinitely. Bakunin was uncompromising and called for eternal violence against every form of ownership.

But not violence to the owner of the item, because that would be an act of authority. To cause harm to another human being is to take control of that humans life, which defies the doctrines of anarchy. Am I right or is this some other anarchist doctrine?

Late 19th and early 20th century Anarchists and followers of Bakunin were out to destroy Capitalism and government by any means available. Anarchist bombings and assassinations were constantly in the press. The Anarchist Movement was a public nightmare, but the actual number of assassinations, bombings, etc. weren't all that frequent. Sacco and Vinzetti were tried and executed for a bombing in Chicago that most people believed was part of an Anarchist plot. Anarchists tried to assassinate the Czar. The assassin who killed President McKinley was believed to also be an Anarchist.

Anarchists had a bad reputation for being the enemies of social organizations, government and property ownership. Modern anarchists have reinvented themselves as quite a bit more benign, but they remain totally opposed to all governments and laws as the foundation for exploitation of the poor and those without property. Anarchism remains a Utopian ideal, that would result in destructive chaos if it were ever truly attempted. The Killing Fields of Cambodia are a sad lesson about what happens when a political idealism is given full reign over human behavior.

Thanks, the only side of anarchism I've heard was from an anarchist. Most other people just blow it off as a political system, and they probably do so with good reason. But I prefer to hear all sides of the matter before making up my mind, and I've had a hard time finding unbiased sources for anarchism.

You don't suppose you have any neutral links you could give me?

Sorry, but I can't really give you any specific sites dealing with the Anarchist Movement. With my postings you get my opinion and understanding based on a long life of reading and study. As a consequence, I occasionally screw up a date, or how a name is spelled. I do try to check facts against the reference books I keep ready to hand, and take care not to exceed what I think that I know.

My views are influenced by my conservative politics, and Buddhist religion. I sure that a Communist, Socialist, or Anarchist would paint a more rosy picture of Anarchism. People love Idealism, and always shake their heads in wonder when actual human beings reject supposed perfection for more human aspirations.

Asherman,
Your introduction of the anarchist is quite helpful ,for now I understand some specific circumstance of that time.What is more, I can see that though Anarchism is usually considered to be connected with violence,it contained more than bombs,beards and fizzing fuses.It seems that you hold a positive attitude towards autonomous groups and communities.

I try to keep a positive attitude about most things; negative attitudes have a bad habit of ending up causing suffering. We humans are herd animals, we tend to become anxious when we stray too far from our group. One of the things that makes childhood so wonderful in retrospect, is the complete acceptance and love we have from our parents and siblings. We learn from earliest childhood what is important to our parents, and those attitudes and beliefs hardly ever are totally erased. However, even in infancy there is a second competing human trait and that is placing our selves at the center of the world.

As we grow into adulthood, we become members of other groups and are influenced by their values and beliefs. Almost inevitably, our values change in some measure from the values of our fathers, and their great grandfathers. Still later our egos become strong enough to begin questioning the values of our family and "herd". What seems important is Our emotions and desires, our needs and aspirations. When we begin to have families, we love them like ourselves and our parents. We tend to think in terms of what is best for the children, and grand children, and there great grand children.

In Western cultures this constant struggle between the importance of the group and the individual has evolved to the point where the individual's desires and aspirations are greatly valued. This makes for a very creative environment and endless competition for material wealth, fame, and power. People strive to satisfy their desires, and as a consequence we tend to act without civility, to challenge the very authorities that make our luxuries possible. Indeed, we in the West rebel at the very thought of "authority" in whatever guise.

In your own culture, the balance tends to struck in favor of the group, and acceptance of authority goes almost without saying. Cooperation rather than competition was a cardinal Chinese value prior to the 20th century. One was expected to be very competitive in their studies, because entrance into the Mandarin Class was important to the material well-being of the entire family. On the other hand, "the protruding nail, is pounded down". Civility, or at least the appearance of civility, remains a hughly important social value. Chinese cultural values resulted in an amazing array of inventions and productivity built on the self-sacrifice of countless Chinese. China became so successful, that quite early on they became convinced that they were the center of all civilization surrounded by destructive barbarians. Ultimately that attitude hampered Chinese progress, and so when the more contentious Western nations suddenly appeared with advanced technology China was unable to respond effectively. Even worse, the West began to appear as a significant threat at the same time that the Ching Dynasty was coming to the end of the Dynastic Cycle. The Maoist Dynasty has been a little different from previous ones, but gives every evidence of following in the familiar cycle.

I am always expecting one of the greatest identity crises to happen in China soon, in these years so long after Mao, Deng and even those confucian dynasties.

Asherman:
Now I feel a kind of powerless to express my point of view in English facing your post...not the problem with understanding.

J-B:
I agree with you that China will have a great identity crises as we have discussed.Yet the conclusion of which direction it will extend or ideology it will accept doesn`t reach an agreement.

Lust,

Don't worry about it. Knowing that you and JB are friends, I was sure he would be reading that post and could help you understand my comments.

JB has very good English language skills, but that wasn't always so. He's been working very hard for years to improve his understanding. English is a hard language to learn. You are doing fine so far, just keep working at it.

Visit the various forums here and try to understand what's going on. Read anything you can find in English. Write using English language every day, and the more the better even if it has errors. When you post here, ask people to correct your English.

Watch English language filmes and television to get a feel for the cadences of the language. Use the spoken language as much as you can, especially with people whose native language is English. English is, as you know, polysyllabic and doesn't use tones the same as Mandarin. You'll do fine.

Hope to see you here often.

Thank you for the suggestion