by Guest » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:05 pm
Alright, folks, first of all I want to say that a 'criticisms of anarchy' section for the forums is a great idea. That's an ideal tool for developing a theory (or discarding it if it proves impractical, which is unlikely with Anarchism, if you really consider it's significance historically, and the reasons why it has/has not had success in the past), but I think most of the people responding to criticism need a break... the way they react to criticism doesn't appear very thought out.
Take, for instance, this thread. "Middle Class Values" doesn't even seem like someone who really dislikes anarchism! It's certainly not someone who wholeheartedly believes what they're saying; they've created an obvious caricature. To me, it appears to be someone taking the position of 'Middle Class America" to see how you can make anarchism appeal to them. They're either doing it out of an intellectual curiousity, to discover if anarchism actually holds significance to them, or they're doing it to Help You (!) figure out how to appeal to the middle class.
Instead of attacking the caricature posed by "Middle Class Values" (a futile effort; the character itself is a mockery, the person posing this character doesn't actually believe themselves to be the character they speak for) by calling it hypocritical and all that, play with it; Can you actually make anarchism appeal to the middle class?
I would start by framing anarchism the way that I (a member of the middle class) see it. I'd debunk the idea of anarchy as a dirty, chaotic, destructive society. What is anarchy really? A society of close community, direct democracy, and mutual aid. Hello! Those Are middle class values! In truth, anarchism is far less hypocritical with those values than the actual middle class, who have isolated individuals, alienated from community, no real direct control over their lives, and live in competition with each other rather than mutual aid.
Anarchists believe in equality; cooperation is better than domination, submission, or competition. Middle Class Values, have you considered that if economic equality existed, most of the motivation for crime would be gone? In fact, it's a drastic inequality, protected by the state, police forces, etc, that keep crime at a boiling point.
Anarchism is what you, Middle Class Values, practice whenever you have a neighborhood barbecue, or start a community project, such as helping a neighbor build onto his house. There are no bosses and no employees; in fact, I'd imagine one of you declaring he's the 'boss' of the barbecue would make things a bit awkward, eh? Anarchism proposes that as much as our lives as possible should be organized in these cooperative ways. Have you ever had a good idea that your boss rejected? Have you ever felt like you and your fellow employees could run a business better together rather than under the control of one person?
Of course, anarchism takes this a step further. Without bosses, you can't very well get people to do the work they wouldn't want to do. In this 'capitalist' economy, people sometimes must do work they dislike because the alternative is poverty and starvation. In anarchism, communities would choose to support each other rather than work on a basis of money. Rather than let your neighbor starve, you give him food from your garden. He can fish, and he can share the fish he catches with you, if he desires. And who wouldn't? Well, some people might not want to share. Chances are, they'd end up in a heap of trouble when nobody wanted to support them. That'd be pretty big motivation to do *Something* for your neighbors, huh?
Alright, folks, first of all I want to say that a 'criticisms of anarchy' section for the forums is a great idea. That's an ideal tool for developing a theory (or discarding it if it proves impractical, which is unlikely with Anarchism, if you really consider it's significance historically, and the reasons why it has/has not had success in the past), but I think most of the people responding to criticism need a break... the way they react to criticism doesn't appear very thought out.
Take, for instance, this thread. "Middle Class Values" doesn't even seem like someone who really dislikes anarchism! It's certainly not someone who wholeheartedly believes what they're saying; they've created an obvious caricature. To me, it appears to be someone taking the position of 'Middle Class America" to see how you can make anarchism appeal to them. They're either doing it out of an intellectual curiousity, to discover if anarchism actually holds significance to them, or they're doing it to Help You (!) figure out how to appeal to the middle class.
Instead of attacking the caricature posed by "Middle Class Values" (a futile effort; the character itself is a mockery, the person posing this character doesn't actually believe themselves to be the character they speak for) by calling it hypocritical and all that, play with it; Can you actually make anarchism appeal to the middle class?
I would start by framing anarchism the way that I (a member of the middle class) see it. I'd debunk the idea of anarchy as a dirty, chaotic, destructive society. What is anarchy really? A society of close community, direct democracy, and mutual aid. Hello! Those Are middle class values! In truth, anarchism is far less hypocritical with those values than the actual middle class, who have isolated individuals, alienated from community, no real direct control over their lives, and live in competition with each other rather than mutual aid.
Anarchists believe in equality; cooperation is better than domination, submission, or competition. Middle Class Values, have you considered that if economic equality existed, most of the motivation for crime would be gone? In fact, it's a drastic inequality, protected by the state, police forces, etc, that keep crime at a boiling point.
Anarchism is what you, Middle Class Values, practice whenever you have a neighborhood barbecue, or start a community project, such as helping a neighbor build onto his house. There are no bosses and no employees; in fact, I'd imagine one of you declaring he's the 'boss' of the barbecue would make things a bit awkward, eh? Anarchism proposes that as much as our lives as possible should be organized in these cooperative ways. Have you ever had a good idea that your boss rejected? Have you ever felt like you and your fellow employees could run a business better together rather than under the control of one person?
Of course, anarchism takes this a step further. Without bosses, you can't very well get people to do the work they wouldn't want to do. In this 'capitalist' economy, people sometimes must do work they dislike because the alternative is poverty and starvation. In anarchism, communities would choose to support each other rather than work on a basis of money. Rather than let your neighbor starve, you give him food from your garden. He can fish, and he can share the fish he catches with you, if he desires. And who wouldn't? Well, some people might not want to share. Chances are, they'd end up in a heap of trouble when nobody wanted to support them. That'd be pretty big motivation to do *Something* for your neighbors, huh?