Anarchy, what is it?

[thelastindividual]

How do you go about forming the kind of 'state' you have in mind?

Well first of all the state as defined by the German sociologist Max Weber is a territorial monopoly on the use of force. Anarchists do not want any institutions of this variety nor do we wish to 'form' it from the top down, rather allow it to grow from the bottom up.

I know it seems contradictory but shouldn't you form a kind of Party to gain recognition and run in elections?

Well first of all the longer political parties are around the closer they move towards the mainstream and the further away from their ideals in a pointless effort to win votes. This is the fundamental failure of representative democratic decision making, the existence of far too many competing interest groups and the fact that only the one that represents the interests of the majority can get in (Thereby allowing them to impose their values on the minority who don't vote for the winners). Anarchists have other means of dismantling the state appartus without electioneering:

- Creating the new society within the old - Starting to build businesses and orgaisations compatible with anarchist principles in preparation for the downfall of the state.

- Syndicalism - Organising workers to take control of their workplaces and reorganise them along democratic lines through the use of unions and general strikes.

- Agorism - Using the black markets that spring up in the presence of state laws against certain activities to divert funds away from the state.

- Direct action - Civil disobedience, sit ins etc

That's all I can think of at the moment, hopefully someone else can chip in with some other methods.

[Guest]

Thanks for all your help. Has anyone ever considered moving away from the Anarchy tag and re-naming because of all the bad press anarchists get?

[coup-detat]

I used to hate to call myself an anarchist because of all the negative connotation. At least people have an odd respect for communists. They think anarchists just want to bomb everything and devolve into chaos.

[thelastindividual]

Thanks for all your help. Has anyone ever considered moving away from the Anarchy tag and re-naming because of all the bad press anarchists get?

Not that I'm aware of, the word anarchism has a lot of history behind it and giving it up now would probably cause too much of a split in the movement. Besides if we gave up and picked a new name the corporate media would probably stigmatise that as well and we'd be back at square one.

[Zazaban]

If only Y were here. We should compile his best posts and sticky it, he's way better at explaining anarchism and making it sound really kickass and simple than anyone else.

[thelastindividual]

If only Y were here. We should compile his best posts and sticky it, he's way better at explaining anarchism and making it sound really kickass and simple than anyone else.

Yeah, but I take issue with a lot of his stances and he seems overly hostile to mutualism simply because it isn't 'revolutionary' even though the differences between his revolution and the mutualist evolution are largely semantic.

[Guest]

i'm not 'hostile' to mutualism (i'm not Y, i'm just chiming in), i just don't see it as qualitatively different from what we have now, at least not in enough respects. markets, money, banks, etc. ok, so i don't have to pay taxes, and i'm 'free' to 'compete' in the market without the limitations that currently exist. i guess that's swell, if that's what you want. i don't. and i'm not alone. and the fact that the reader is now saying 'you'll be free to form a commune under mutualism, and not seeing the problem in that line of thinking -- the same line i get from defenders of the status quo -- is scary.

i see mutualists as the hostile ones. every time i dare make a peep against markets, i get fucking pigpiled. there's a religious adherence to markets that i find really frightening. i DO NOT trust such people. if i woke up tomorrow and found global anarchy, i'd want to get as far away from the mutualists as from the ancaps. their minds are closed to the efficacy of any ideas outside the market paradigm. what that says to me is that these are people who would disregard my concerns about what markets do to people and the environment. they see markets as a force of nature, like gravity. there's no getting through to such people. all you can do is avoid them, if possible, so that their market activity doesn't act as a corrosive on your own community. that would require large buffer zones between communist and market societies. perhaps entire continents. but history suggests that even that probably wouldn't be enough to insulate those who oppose markets from their toxic effects.

i really see no possibility for any real anarchy as long as there are market religionists who see markets as wholly positive, or at least benign, and refuse to acknowledge externalities. this isn't hostility, it's fear.


anyway, as to the 'anarchy' label, i see no reason to just blurt out the word when you first meet someone. you can talk issues in general terms first. it's like 'communist': say the word, and people see mustachioed men in military uniforms standing over shivering, huddled, starving masses. when people have been propagandized against a word, saying it will only close their minds to anything else you say. using general terms, you can let them see that you're not a monster, then if they press you for a label you can say 'ok, brace yourself...' then drop the A-bomb and immediately begin debunking all the propaganda before you lose them. it's tough. the elite have the money, the power, the propaganda organs, so they define the terms. anything to the left of them is going to be difficult space to defend, but we must.

[Zazaban]

If only Y were here. We should compile his best posts and sticky it, he's way better at explaining anarchism and making it sound really kickass and simple than anyone else.

Yeah, but I take issue with a lot of his stances and he seems overly hostile to mutualism simply because it isn't 'revolutionary' even though the differences between his revolution and the mutualist evolution are largely semantic.

I agree here. I mean his explanations and such, his outline of how a revolution would go was the best I've ever seen. I think he did a pretty flawless description of how an anarchist society would function as well.

[jack]

If only Y were here. We should compile his best posts and sticky it, he's way better at explaining anarchism and making it sound really kickass and simple than anyone else.

Yeah, but I take issue with a lot of his stances and he seems overly hostile to mutualism simply because it isn't 'revolutionary' even though the differences between his revolution and the mutualist evolution are largely semantic.

That is.....retarded?

There is a HUGE difference between the reformist, revisionist, petit bourgeois tactics (and ideology) of the Mutualists versus the revolutionary Communist anarchists. "Evolution" is merely reformism disguised as something "revolutionary". Revolution entails the seizure of the means of production, not forming some fucking coop.

[jack]

Thanks for all your help. Has anyone ever considered moving away from the Anarchy tag and re-naming because of all the bad press anarchists get?

Actually, I completely embrace things anarchists are notorious for like the invention of the car bomb and drive by, they're a part of our history. Any attempt to cloud its existance, or worse yet accuse participants of not being anarchists, is a liberal cop out for people who want a famly friendly anarchism. People have killed and died for our movement, and no matter the negative association, it's a fact.

[Achilles]

may i suggest registering, guest? you seem to be quite intelligent and i'd hate to confuse you with some of the guests that visit here.

[Guest]

There's two guests here. I'm the OP, I think i've posted everything here under the guest tag except for this below:

i'm not 'hostile' to mutualism (i'm not Y, i'm just chiming in), i just don't see it as qualitatively different from what we have now, at least not in enough respects. markets, money, banks, etc. ok, so i don't have to pay taxes, and i'm 'free' to 'compete' in the market without the limitations that currently exist. i guess that's swell, if that's what you want. i don't. and i'm not alone. and the fact that the reader is now saying 'you'll be free to form a commune under mutualism, and not seeing the problem in that line of thinking -- the same line i get from defenders of the status quo -- is scary.

i see mutualists as the hostile ones. every time i dare make a peep against markets, i get fucking pigpiled. there's a religious adherence to markets that i find really frightening. i DO NOT trust such people. if i woke up tomorrow and found global anarchy, i'd want to get as far away from the mutualists as from the ancaps. their minds are closed to the efficacy of any ideas outside the market paradigm. what that says to me is that these are people who would disregard my concerns about what markets do to people and the environment. they see markets as a force of nature, like gravity. there's no getting through to such people. all you can do is avoid them, if possible, so that their market activity doesn't act as a corrosive on your own community. that would require large buffer zones between communist and market societies. perhaps entire continents. but history suggests that even that probably wouldn't be enough to insulate those who oppose markets from their toxic effects.

i really see no possibility for any real anarchy as long as there are market religionists who see markets as wholly positive, or at least benign, and refuse to acknowledge externalities. this isn't hostility, it's fear.

etc. The above might be the intelligent bit, lol.

[Guest]

There's two guests here. I'm the OP, I think i've posted everything here under the guest tag except for this below:

i'm not 'hostile' to mutualism (i'm not Y, i'm just chiming in), i just don't see it as qualitatively different from what we have now, at least not in enough respects. markets, money, banks, etc. ok, so i don't have to pay taxes, and i'm 'free' to 'compete' in the market without the limitations that currently exist. i guess that's swell, if that's what you want. i don't. and i'm not alone. and the fact that the reader is now saying 'you'll be free to form a commune under mutualism, and not seeing the problem in that line of thinking -- the same line i get from defenders of the status quo -- is scary.

i see mutualists as the hostile ones. every time i dare make a peep against markets, i get fucking pigpiled. there's a religious adherence to markets that i find really frightening. i DO NOT trust such people. if i woke up tomorrow and found global anarchy, i'd want to get as far away from the mutualists as from the ancaps. their minds are closed to the efficacy of any ideas outside the market paradigm. what that says to me is that these are people who would disregard my concerns about what markets do to people and the environment. they see markets as a force of nature, like gravity. there's no getting through to such people. all you can do is avoid them, if possible, so that their market activity doesn't act as a corrosive on your own community. that would require large buffer zones between communist and market societies. perhaps entire continents. but history suggests that even that probably wouldn't be enough to insulate those who oppose markets from their toxic effects.

i really see no possibility for any real anarchy as long as there are market religionists who see markets as wholly positive, or at least benign, and refuse to acknowledge externalities. this isn't hostility, it's fear.

etc. The above might be the intelligent bit, lol.

[Guest]

Jack wrote: Actually, I completely embrace things anarchists are notorious for like the invention of the car bomb and drive by, they're a part of our history. Any attempt to cloud its existance, or worse yet accuse participants of not being anarchists, is a liberal cop out for people who want a famly friendly anarchism. People have killed and died for our movement, and no matter the negative association, it's a fact.

Feel free, Jack, to embrace whatever you choose. For me it's statements like the above that give anachists the bad name and it's something I personally think you need to shy away from if you want public support. (That's not to start an aguement.)

Would be interesting to read 'Y's plan?

[AndyMalroes]

I think Jack being more militant is great! I'm all for violent revolution, but till jack came I don't think I really realised what that really meant, what a guy!