Anarchist Discussion Forums

What exactly is anarchy as a philosophy? How do you guys see it? Can anarchy bring about peaceful change in the world?

Guest wrote:What exactly is anarchy as a philosophy?

Anarchism is a movement against heirarchy and exploitation, we do not believe that people are angels and admit that total erradication of heirarchy in particular is going to be a difficult goal to strive for, however their are ways of keeping the world running without either of the two.

How do you guys see it? Can anarchy bring about peaceful change in the world?

I don't know about 'peaceful' change, I would imagine the transition into anarchism being quite turbulent (If not necessarily violent) as people become more aware of themselves and the world around them and how flawed and unsustainable the current system is.

And if you say you're an anarchist you automatically get +several hundered punk points

thelastindividual wrote:And if you say you're an anarchist you automatically get +several hundered punk points

And I immediately lose them again by loving things like Jazz, Prog, and The Beach Boys.

Zazaban wrote:

thelastindividual wrote:And if you say you're an anarchist you automatically get +several hundered punk points

And I immediately lose them again by loving things like Jazz, Prog, and The Beach Boys.

Naw man, listening to music that isn't punk and thus going against the punk mainstream is actually the epitome of Punk

thelastindividual wrote:

Zazaban wrote:

thelastindividual wrote:And if you say you're an anarchist you automatically get +several hundered punk points

And I immediately lose them again by loving things like Jazz, Prog, and The Beach Boys.

Naw man, listening to music that isn't punk and thus going against the punk mainstream is actually the epitome of Punk

But I don't listen to any punk. Except Crass and the Dead Kennedys. Eh, I suppose I'm probably more punk than the punks for doing so.

...except I actually am going to lose punk points for my favourite Crass song being Our Wedding.

Can I ask what the aims of the forum are? There's a lot to read and i'm getting there slowly. I'd like to hear it from regular posters though who know what the forum is about from actually being a part of it. Anarchy, to my mind, sounds warning bells as in 'trouble makers' etc. Don't take that the wrong way, that's why I'm here, to find out how true, or not, that is?
I like the idea of self ownership but not sure how a non-government world would work? What would be in it's stead?
I hope none of my questions appear provogative as that's not the intention. I'm merely finding my feet.
I've just remembered a book I bought years ago and never actually got around to reading. Has anyone heard of Clandestines. The Pirate Journals Of An Irish Exile, by Ramor Ryan? Just wondered if it was worth reading?
Thanks.

Guest wrote:Can I ask what the aims of the forum are?

To provide a place for anarchists to debate about old ideas and think up and bring forward new ones as well as occasionally debating about new/current events etc

Anarchy, to my mind, sounds warning bells as in 'trouble makers' etc. Don't take that the wrong way, that's why I'm here, to find out how true, or not, that is?

Well the ruling classes would probably consider us 'trouble-makers' since we want to burst their illegitimately acquired bubble. But we aren't going to cause (too much hopefully) trouble for anyone else.

I like the idea of self ownership but not sure how a non-government world would work? What would be in it's stead?

I actually think that the idea of self-ownership is incoherent but that's a debate for another day. A non-governmental society would be very hard to sketch out without more details. Any specific points you want addressing?

If you're into long reads and such might I sugges the anarchist FAQ?

Link - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

I've just remembered a book I bought years ago and never actually got around to reading. Has anyone heard of Clandestines. The Pirate Journals Of An Irish Exile, by Ramor Ryan? Just wondered if it was worth reading?

Never heard of it, although my philosophy is that any book is a good book (Apart from twilight obviously ).

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Do anachists have a common 'vision' for the future if the 'establishment' was removed? I mean it's one thing to be anti-establishment but there must be an ideal or ideology for the future? Anarchy in one sense can mean chaos and I don't see that as a good vision.
I'll check that link out you supplied.
Thanks.

Guest wrote:Do anachists have a common 'vision' for the future if the 'establishment' was removed?

Yes and no. There are a great deal of varieties of anarchism and on the surface their might appear to be insurmountable differences between us. However, if you take away all the groups that are merely advocating different revolutionary methods or modes of organisation you are in my opininon left with only two distinct groups -

'Social' Anarchism (Which can be divided into the pro-money (Collectivist) and anti-money (Communist) factions)

Mutualist Anarchism

Between the two their may be several important differences but in my opinion a large amount of the debate flying around is actually semantics probably due to cultural differences etc

I mean it's one thing to be anti-establishment but there must be an ideal or ideology for the future?

Well anarchists generally tend to prefer one system over the other but the majority have no objections to other systems emerging as long as they are explicilty based on anarchist principles (Opposition to heirarchy and cultural domination)

Anarchy in one sense can mean chaos and I don't see that as a good vision.

Only because of mass media newspeak. Anarchy comes from the greek 'an' (Meaning: No) and 'archos' (Meaning: Rulers), so anarchy etymologically means 'No Rulers'. This does not mean that anarchists are opposed to 'rules' just that we hope that the only rules will be ones arising out of voluntary co-operation and mutual aid between the members of a society and only between those members. The correct word for chaos by the way, would be anomie.

I got this from the link you supplied. Does anyone know what this means?
'a condition or arnachy, that is a decentralized society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations'.
It's the last line I'm unsure about? 'A federation of voluntary association'. What is this?

Guest wrote:It's the last line I'm unsure about? 'A federation of voluntary association'. What is this?

A voluntary association is a group of people who get together for mutual benefit and without being coerced to associate. This is the basic anarchist organisational model and could be expanded out to absolutely anything from organising factories to drilling for raw materials. I think the AFAQ specifically is talking about communities since it mentions 'federations'. Basically the idea is that all the anarchist organisations will 'federate' with each other by electing representatives from among them to negotiate and strike deals with other organisations.

Ok, so a form of authority will replace the current authority. So it's really a new system or world order that anachy is proposing? This isn't a critisism as I do believe in structure and couldn't see how it would work without any. It is a flaw in the ideology though once you start electing people to positions of status as this is forming a hierarchy. I don't understand this?

Guest wrote:Ok, so a form of authority will replace the current authority.

No, as I said these associations are entirely voluntary, you don't have to join one, you could if you wanted to attempt to defend and live on your own land without outside help, however this probably wouldn't work for most people so they'd join together to defend one another. The difference between this and an authoritarian state is simple, you aren't having your rights and such handed down to you by a beuracrat up on high. You can also leave at any time, even without physically moving (Simply by terminating your contract)

So it's really a new system or world order that anachy is proposing?

Yes, the difference is we aren't proposing a uniform system, rather that everyone be allowed to organise themselves according to their wants and needs and through experiment to determine the best system for the fulfillment of humanities needs.

It is a flaw in the ideology though once you start electing people to positions of status as this is forming a hierarchy. I don't understand this?

We wouldn't be electing anyone to any positions of status or power though, these people would have no power other than to represent the interests of their electees, sort of like a lawyer at a trial. They wouldn't be given any special privileges and representatives would probably be run on a roster or selected through participatory democracy.

And people would be free to leave at any time.

How do you go about forming the kind of 'state' you have in mind? I know it seems contradictory but shouldn't you form a kind of Party to gain recognition and run in elections?