Why does anarchism matter to me?

[Guest]

you have no reason. if you enjoy your life and do not want to foment anarchy, then don't.

if revolution breaks out you may be eliminated, along with the rest of the class enemy, though.

Oh, so now you're threatening to wipe me, my family, and my peers out if I don't embrace anarchism? I don't care, myself. In fact, I dare you to bomb my house if that's what you really want. Seriously, as though I'm going to be afraid of such a threat.

there is no moral reason to support anarchy. whether you gain or not, there is no need for you to support anarchy at all. as an aside, most anarchists don't hold moral beliefs anyway.

Oh really? If someone offered you political power or wealth, would you turn them down? If you said yes to that question, then you do in fact have moral beliefs of some sort. What do you call a requirement to abstain from the trappings of the upper class if not a moral rule?

[|Y|]

Guest,

Oh, so now you're threatening to wipe me, my family, and my peers out if I don't embrace anarchism? I don't care, myself. In fact, I dare you to bomb my house if that's what you really want. Seriously, as though I'm going to be afraid of such a threat.

collectiveindividualist does not represent anarchism. He represents a subset of lifestylism that has no basis in the overall critique of capitalism and the state. I expect if such terroristic activities were to be pervasive in the overall anarchist movement that it would not be acceptable to many. I myself have a much more friendly approach, with defense being the primary act of force.

Basically if you or capitalists or statists think that they can bomb our houses, expect to be met with resistance. I think you can agree with that wholeheartedly.

Oh really? If someone offered you political power or wealth, would you turn them down? If you said yes to that question, then you do in fact have moral beliefs of some sort. What do you call a requirement to abstain from the trappings of the upper class if not a moral rule?

Though the question wasn't being shown to me, you can see the relevant 'lifestylism' of the person in question. I personally have accepted wealth, I am dismayed in the fact that my wealth invariably harms others and am attempting to get out of that cycle, but I have no moral qualms with having wealth. In fact, anarchism stems from an almost selfish point of view for me. It's not a moral position for me so much a question of survival. Ethics doesn't play a significant role. (Not to say that I don't at times make ethical arguments, just that my beliefs trancend ethics.)

[skullcap]

if revolution breaks out you may be eliminated, along with the rest of the class enemy, though.

Oh, so now you're threatening to wipe me, my family, and my peers out if I don't embrace anarchism?

tsk, i'm not threatening you. i said "may"; it all depends on your actions in the unlikely senario of revolution. and i certainly was not refering to your adherence to anarchy. i was refering to your stated enjoyment of class priviledge. no one cares one iota if you are an anarchist or not.

Oh really? If someone offered you political power or wealth, would you turn them down? If you said yes to that question, then you do in fact have moral beliefs of some sort. What do you call a requirement to abstain from the trappings of the upper class if not a moral rule?

i would turn them down, not on moral grounds, but on principle. i call refraining from ruling class priviledge a principle of anarchy.

[Guest]

tsk, i'm not threatening you. i said "may"; it all depends on your actions in the unlikely senario of revolution. and i certainly was not refering to your adherence to anarchy. i was refering to your stated enjoyment of class priviledge. no one cares on iota if you are an anarchist or not.

Fine then.

i would turn them down, not on moral grounds, but on principle. i call refraining from ruling class priviledge a principle of anarchy.

Exactly how does that differ from following a moral rule? Perhaps I'm missing something, but refusing privilege on principle sure sounds like obeying some sort of morality to me. What do you think underlines this principle of anarchy if not some sort of morality, unless you only follow these principles for their own sake?

[skullcap]

Guest,

a moral is based on right and wrong. (i do such and such because i believe it is right, and not do such and such because i believe it wrong.)

principle is about fundamentals. anarchy is anti-capitalist because that is one of its fundamentals, it is axiomatic. i don't hold to an anti-capitalist view because i am obeying the rules of anarchy; i am an anarchist because i hate capitalism and what it does to me and my friends, the planet, and life in general. i am not making a claim about the correctness of anarchy, i am claiming my desires, to try to live anarchisticly, to be free.

[Nexonic]

Sounds like morality to me. Why wouldn't you want wealth?

[careful]

There are a few things I want to put up here, I've found this discussion interesting, though I haven't read it all.
First, guest, thank you for posting this. I am an anarchist, but not on dogmatic "principle", but through examination and consideration of competing perspectives. For me, Anarchy wins, but considering questions like yours is an important part of this process.
Second, I'd like to point out that this question could be an important strategic one for anarchists engaged in efforts to rouse the rabble...if you are involved in an infoshop or propaganda activities, if you attend mass demos, or if you talk to your aunt and uncle about anarchy this is worthwhile theoretical practice. I wouldn't be surprised if "Guest" was an anarchist themselves presenting an exercise in challenging/honing readers' beliefs....
Next, Anarchism is shorthand for a social basis based on an Anarchist perspective and analysis. This considered, I'd answer your original question from a different angle, making a distinction between what anarchist analysis and anarchist society can offer you. I'd argue that Anarchism can offer you a new perspective on your proposed situation. Namely, an anarchist analysis of the current "middle-class" might differ on your estimation of your being "...in no immediate danger of being killed in war, arrested without good cause, or experiencing a famine...." Further, as the result of such an Anarchist analysis, concluding that your situation is precarious, an Anarchistic social set-up could offer you the support of solidarity from other individuals in similarly precarious situations. This (theoretical) solidarity is reckoned to be stronger a force than the soft padding of bougie comfort can withstand. If you are looking for a pragmatic (though we are still in the realm of theoretical, of course) reason to turn down political office or material wealth, devoid of moral reasoning, perhaps this argument of solidarity, or rather, the possibility of this solidarity being revoked could satisfy...
I'll be back....

[skullcap]

Nexonic,
there is a distinction to be made between having the goods with which to live (health care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation etc.) and wealth. having the means to live healthy is not what i mean by wealth. wealth is owning land (more than one would use to live), stocks, the means of production, etc.
there is nothing un-anarchist about wanting to live well, but i would argue that there is something un-anarchist about owning a factory. does this distinction make sense?


careful,
if you are interested in trying to convert people to anarchy, that is your choice. best of luck. i don't count proselytizing as a project i am interested in.
having said that, i do enjoy talking to non anarchists about anarchy and will readily, but i don't try to get anyone to agree with me. i just try to get them to understand what anarchy means.

[Nexonic]

Nexonic,
there is a distinction to be made between having the goods with which to live (health care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation etc.) and wealth. having the means to live healthy is not what i mean by wealth. wealth is owning land (more than one would use to live), stocks, the means of production, etc.
there is nothing un-anarchist about wanting to live well, but i would argue that there is something un-anarchist about owning a factory. does this distinction make sense?

You could always donate your wealth to anarchistic causes.

[skullcap]

You could always donate your wealth to anarchistic causes.

um...yeah. i could exploit people, get a lot of money and then give to the cause of anarchy. great plan.

do you really understand what is meant by wealth? in a capitalist world wealth only comes from the exploitation of our fellow humans. that is what i don't want to participate in. if i were to win the lottery (fat chance, since i don't play) i would share that, but again, lottery winnings are not wealth.

[Nexonic]

But the original question involved wealth being given to you, not you spending your life building it up.

Oh really? If someone offered you political power or wealth, would you turn them down? If you said yes to that question, then you do in fact have moral beliefs of some sort. What do you call a requirement to abstain from the trappings of the upper class if not a moral rule?

i would turn them down, not on moral grounds, but on principle. i call refraining from ruling class priviledge a principle of anarchy.

In fact if you didn't accept it it would be likely that the methods used to accumulate it would continue whereas if you accepted it you could discontinue those methods.

[skullcap]

i believe the point of the question was would an anarchist accept wealth, thus accept the trappings of the ruling class. there is no way to answer the question to the satisfaction of the original questioner because if i accept, i am a sellout, and if i don't accept i am succumbing to morals.

the fact that you, apparently an anarchist, are arguing for accepting wealth i find weird. why are you an anarchist? are you anti-capitalist? if not, how are you anarchist?

[|Y|]

Don't be a lifestylist. It will destroy you.

[Nexonic]

i believe the point of the question was would an anarchist accept wealth, thus accept the trappings of the ruling class. there is no way to answer the question to the satisfaction of the original questioner because if i accept, i am a sellout, and if i don't accept i am succumbing to morals.

Just because the original questioner framed the question in that way doesn't mean you have to buy into it. I don't think this is a black and white issue.

the fact that you, apparently an anarchist, are arguing for accepting wealth i find weird. why are you an anarchist? are you anti-capitalist? if not, how are you anarchist?

I look at it differently I guess. If someone gave you a factory couldn't you sell it and divide the cost between the workers? Since you asked I consider myself an anarchist because in spirit I'm against the state and being ruled in general but I don't claim to avoid doing some ruling of my own.

[Guest]

just to correct the disinformation posted by our local paid shill, skullcap != CI ...

more lies from the paid shill...