Since this is an Anarchist Descussion Forum can we accept a clear definition of anarchism so that we all literally know what we are talking about?

Dictionary.com has two #1. definitions for anarchism, but al least they are similar.

First #1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraints as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

Second #1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.

Merriam-Wesbster on line has for it's #1. definition:

1. a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unneccessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Can those of us registered here agree that the above definitions, which say that all forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished, are acceptable definitions for anarchism , even though some people here advocate systems ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-captitalism and want limited amounts of authoritariansim to provide security, fairness, etc?
Submitted first to Infoshop Nov. 3, 2009

Of course.

I think if a government exists only in name and does not harm people it's still anarchism. Just people pretending it isnt anarchism.

From that idea, i make the conclusion that we are always under anarchism. Because there's always workers and theives about however they are named. That might sound confusing to you. I didn't really express my feelings well.

I would define it as a society where the majority of people consider themselves happy. That's just me.

Or, for more in your face anarchism: a society where most forms of trickery have been removed.

Or, a society where workers produce is not taken away by force.

1

2 this is how i get alot of posts

But yeah, a society without a (unjustly violent) government suits the name the best.

Stateless socialism, as with Kropotkin's description of "the no-government system of socialism."

this has been explained to you several dozen times.

1. a dictionary is about the worst place to get definitions for political and economic terms -- especially those that run counter to the ideology of the cunts putting out the dictionary.

2. anarchism is more than 'smash the state'.

now fuck off with your desperate attempts to make capitalism -- in any fucking conceivable fucking form -- compatible with anarchism.

Okay, to take this another step further:

If we agree that all governments are by nature oppressive and should be abolished, and that an'-archism means without rule/rulers, then we accept that an'-archy states what we are against-- against rule and rulers.

But, can we also accept that without rules or rulers to enforce them, that all individuals are free; sovereign rulers over themselves and owe no obedience to anyone? I would argue that individualism, indivdual liberty, or individual sovereignty, whatever one wants to call it, is just the positive flip side of an'-anarchy. If there are those here who call themselves anarchists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists, or any other form of anarchist, who would argue the necessity of an involuntary collective government to provide security, fairness or whatever, will they please speak up and provide an argument which shows how people gain rights to control others? If, for example, all people are created equal, and I cannot show how I have a right to tell you not to grow marihuana, how can I logically transfer this right, that I do not possess, to a Congress or Commissariat or township committee, which then has a right to tell you what or what not to do?

If we are all in agreement about all this, terrific, but if not, let's hear the reasons, so we can whittle our arguments down to points and hash out our differences. While some 18th and 19th Century anarchists made the above points about the illegitimacy of coercive government, it seems that so far, no broad group of anachists has come to agreement on this manifesto that all humans are born free.

All humans are born unfree. That's kinda the point.

Only after the destruction of capitalism which is the mothers milk of government. Even without a government the wealthy could afford to purchase a private army to protect their illegitimate wealth. The whole system is corrupted by capitalism.

It depends on how you define 'free' really. Metaphysically and mentally, yes, politically and economically, no. Doesn't really matter in the long term, because most of them will be unfree by all standards by the time they're five.

Touche

After reading A.J. Ayer I can't help but think 'literal nonsense' every time I see that word

But Zaz is correct, we have free will (Which cannot be argued against without anthropomorphising nature and the laws of physics, at least IMO) and free thought however our actions are severely restricted by the state.

I don't necessarily think by the way that the state is necessarily Immoral. Certainly if society were going to descend into chaos once the state was removed even the hyper-individualists would probably give up on anarchism after a while. The reason we should advocate statelessness is because it will improve the general human condition and taking this as the basis of our anarchism we shouldn't start denouncing things left and right because they are 'statist' but think back to our original principles that led us to the conclusion of anarchism and base our judgements on that ensuring that we have a relatively thick set of politics rather than untenably thin anti-statism. This I think is what Tom is missing from his analysis that makes his positions so unbelievably stupid, he's advocating anarchism for the wrong set of reasons.

Yeah. If there was a situation, god forbid, where the state could increase freedom somehow, I would support it. Likewise, if angels descended from the sky and gave me an infinite amount of apple pie, I would probably believe in god.