Why does anarchism matter to me?

[skullcap]

So again, how much benefiting from the state is in line with anarchist principles? How is accepting a free factory and disposing of it in a way that hurts the state opposed to anarchist principles?

i would say none, since anarchy by definition is against the state. but we don't live in anarchy so compromises must be made. i do think that driving a car or riding my bicycle on paved roads is benefitting from the state, and i do these every day, what else can i do? we all make these compromises each day, while waiting for opportunity to arise, no?

ok, say i accept a factory and give it to the workers, how long do you think it would take the state to crush them, absent a social revolution to back them up? it's not just that it is against anarchist principle to own capital, doing what you suggest is not going to work. it is a bad idea.

[skullcap]

Skullcap, if you are a prisoner, and are given daily meals by your captors.... would you decline to accept those meals out of principle, in the interests of not "benefitting" from your captivity?

Or would you accept the food, yet still try your best to secure your freedom?

even you must see the categorical difference between accepting a factory and accepting meals in prison.

i have said the compromise with capital and the state are pretty much enevitable, but i still do have a choice on some things and i would choose not to become a capitalist.

[Nexonic]

ok, say i accept a factory and give it to the workers, how long do you think it would take the state to crush them, absent a social revolution to back them up? it's not just that it is against anarchist principle to own capital, doing what you suggest is not going to work. it is a bad idea.

You could sell the factory to a capitalist and use the money to open an infoshop.

[African_Prince]

You might have a happy life but you are not free. You live on land that the state claims as property (which is silly because humans can no more 'own' land than we can 'own' air). The state has decided for you that you will not walk around naked, you will wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, you will not have sex in public, you will not smoke marijuana, you will not solicit sex for money etc. in their house and should you do these things, they will use force to coerce you into obedience. These sound like trivial, hedonistic concerns but the point is that you don't run your life. You should be allowed to, so long as you don't violate anyone else's right to run their life or control their body.

If there is no practical reason for me to support anarchism, then maybe there is a moral one. For the sake of argument, let us assume that I have no belief in morality and that any attempt to appeal to moral obligation will not work on me unless you can show that such an obligation truly exists. What arguments can you present that would show that I am morally required to support anarchism, even if I do not need to support it to gain anything?

Besides the freedom to do some of the things I mentioned, I can't think of any non-moral reason to advocate anarchism. In my opinion, empathy is the basis of morality and compassion (an empathetic form of love) requires egalitarianism, you cannot empathize with inferiors or superiors. If all humans should be regarded as equal (in terms of worth and value) then there is no moral justification for non-egalitarian, human relationships. The relationships between employers and employees, police and civilians, generals and cadets etc. are non-egalitarian.

[AndyMalroes]

(which is silly because humans can no more 'own' land than we can 'own' air).

Have you seen "Total Recall"?

[lplawhead]

Why should you care? Because there are a lot more in the working class than there are in the upper middle class and we WILL have a revolution. Do you want to support liberty and positive social change or just hope and assume that what you have now will always be there? Your kids will have to go out and find a way for themselves some day, do you want them to live in wage slavery or have the opportunity to move past the rat race that we all find ourselves trapped in currently? Unless you were handed your wealth, as some are, do you realize how much time you had to waste at a job that didn't fulfill you in any way other than to provide you with material comforts. You had to neglect yourself and your family to get what you have. You spent your life in the pursuit of tangibles that couldn't bring real happiness. You were just another human, not worth remembering. Not one of your dreams came to fruition, you settled for job security and relatively decent wages instead. You didn't create anything worthy of mention, your life was a wasted endeavor in that you never really achieved anything other than comfort and you did it while standing on the backs of the people who actually have to work. Why should you care? Why the hell should you NOT care?

[thelastindividual]

Because there are a lot more in the working class than there are in the upper middle class

True, sort of. Depends what you mean by 'working class' According to Dennis Gilbert the class structure of the US goes roughly as follows

• Capitalist Class - 1%
• Upper Middle Class - 15%
• Lower Middle Class - 30%
• Working Class - 30%
• Working Poor - 13%
• Unemployed Poor/Underclass - 12%

The vast majority of people fall either into the Lower middle or working class sections. Gilbert defines the 'lower middle' as - "Semi-professionals and craftsmen with a roughly average standard of living. Most have some college education and are white collar", now if you count that as part of the working class then obviously the working class is a vast majority, otherwise it's pretty much even between the haves and the have-nots.

Although it's possible that the working class is increasing in size. Haven't seen any statistics on that anywhere yet though.

[AndyMalroes]

Id count lower middle class as working class.

[lplawhead]

Well I'd have to agree that the lower middle class is part of the working class, usually people who gave up much of their lives to wage slavery, scrimping and saving what little they could get to achieve what is called lower middle class status. I can personally attest to the fact that the middle class is shrinking and the working/non working poor class is expanding, at least here in Michigan. Most families are struggling just to keep a roof over their heads these days in my area. With an unemployment rate near 15% people are finding they can no longer maintain the lifestyle the once could. My mother's house went in to foreclosure, after she spent the first 15 years of my life renting she's now back in a small apartment. My father, who works in the automotive industry, is now working 4 days a week instead of 5. My step father just took a pay cut from GM of about 15% to keep his job. This kind of story is very common.

[Guest]

the middle class = everyone, except a few exceptionally hard-working people, who of course earned their privilege.

that's the official mantra of the usa. there is no working class. there's just a big happy family, all more-or-less equal, all middle-class. those few who have more are not to be judged, but viewed as motivation.

then there's reality, where 'middle class' means means the labor aristocracy who benefit from nationalism/imperialism and are not likely to turn against it. there's no revolutionary potential among anyone above the poverty line, which (conveniently) coincides roughly with the global average income (this is so that anyone suggesting a general global leveling can be painted as an advocate of 'poverty for all', when in reality that's the lifestyle most of us would be living without the benefits of nationalism/imperialism).

if you take 'working class' to mean anyone who is exploited by working for wages/salary less than the value of what they produce -- and if you put on your blinders to limit your view to one nation (or, say, the '1st world') -- then that's everyone who's not a capitalist. but when you take off the blinders you see that in fact the exploited workers in the '1st world' are themselves indirect exploiters of the '3rd world'. this complicates matters, and makes it especially difficult to interest '1st world' workers in anything truly revolutionary.

people are not stupid. they may be wearing blinders throughout their daily lives, but they're capable of seeing past them when it serves their interests. they know what 'revolution' means: at least a 2/3 reduction in income. they're not buying it. they're buying xenophobia instead.

the real revolutionary potential is in the '3rd world'. my hope is that they align against the '1st world'. but there's a paradoxical fear: as the global standard of living increases, revolutionary potential decreases. it's not hard to imagine a day when everyone is more-or-less content with global capitalism. plenty of food, clean water, adequate housing, a safe job, personal transportation, sufficient entertainment gadgetry... when (IF) everyone has these things, the capitalists can finally relax. they'll still be every bit the thieves they've always been, but moral outrage subsides as comfort increases. as we can see clearly in the '1st world', most people are willing to tolerate a class of elite thieves in ivory towers, as long as everyone can have their own reasonably comfortable mini-tower where they can pretend to be a mini-emperor.

what will be the potential for anarchism when the '3rd world' catches up with the '1st world'? seems to me that hand-waving dismissals of 'vanguardism' won't hold as much weight, since the only revolutionary potential will be among the infinitesimally small percentage of people who retain that moral outrage.

[Shwartz]

@OP,

Okay lets say you were living in the exact same scenario middle class and everything, in Germany around the 1940s. You have the perfect life with your family but at the cost of several Jewish/gay/disabled...etc. Why should you care if your lifestyle is at the cost of millions?; because "it is not your choice to make to use violence to solve problems, because the violence AFFECTS OTHERS". You are using violence in forced taxation, funding war, more than 2million in jail most for nonviolent crimes.
(Quotes from Stefan Molyneux-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2YsJVF-920
start at 14:45)
You don't care because the government doesn't want you to care.

[Guest]

funny how much the world has changed since 2006 when the OP started this thread.

i wonder, is he still as comfortable?

[longhairlover]

I haven't read this entire thread yet - it looks pretty long. So I might be saying things that other people have already said before.

Anarchism could matter more to this theoretical person in the future. Life is everchanging. Something could happen, some kind of crisis, that would erode this person's quality of life.

For instance, a family member could get a disease, one of the preventable diseases which is directly caused by the modern lifestyle. As they research the disease and find out that it was caused by something in the modern lifestyle, they might become aware that this should never have happened, and they might care more about fixing the world to make sure that it doesn't happen again. There are many health problems that are directly the result of the drug industry and the government-controlled healthcare industry. This person might become aware that their life would have been better if they had not been forced, or deceived, into using government-controlled healthcare. (I won't be specific about which health problems are directly caused by the government's healthcare system, because that would sort of derail the thread, but if anyone wants to know what I'm talking about I can explain.)

Or, an economic collapse could happen. The collapsing of the economic system is an inevitable, recurring event. It will happen again and again and again, every few years, because of the corruption of the government-controlled economic system. This person might lose his entire life savings when his retirement fund gets destroyed. Decades of work can vanish in an instant if something happens to the economy. This could lead the person to think more deeply about how the economic system works, which could lead him to question the government's control of the economy.

This person might lose a loved one in a war. One of their children might go off to war and get killed, and it might cause the parents to think more deeply about whether or not the government's wars are a good and necessary thing.

So, anarchism might not matter to this hypothetical person at all right now, but life is unstable, and everyone is vulnerable to being harmed by the government. Government is actively harming people in many ways, in many places, constantly, every day, in ways that are sometimes insidious and hard to see, or big and obvious ways that are easy to see. The harm done by government is like a time bomb waiting to go off, maybe, or like mold rotting away the foundations of a house - it's there, slowly growing, and someday it will cause the rafters to break and cave in. The need to protect yourself against the government is a very real, physical thing, but people aren't aware of it until they experience it. There is always the potential that something will happen in the future, even if they are contented and safe right now. And when something goes wrong and they try to trace the causes, they might learn about some of the problems that can be traced directly back to the government.

I just thought of something else. They could meet someone and fall in love with that person, and their opinions could change because of this love. Sometimes falling in love can show people a different way of seeing things.