first of all i dont want to get into the "government is immoral ,thats why" debate, i wanna talk about us being anarchists as something that runs deeper, why do you consider government bad? if you give a reason, why that?
and, on a related note, why are almost all anarchists atheists?

iv never met a religious anarchist, everyone one of them have been atheists, i can understand why historical anarchists like bakunin, kropotkin, the usual suspects.., were atheists, the church then was essentially fascist, i know it still is but there not powerful anymore, save in the US, which is suffering from an epidemic of fundamentalism
but today most of us grew up in regular families, normal families right? we didnt go to sunday school and we didnt go to bible camp (i hope).....
so iv been thinking lately if radicalism in politics can be tied to high IQ's, and its pretty conclusive that high IQ = Atheism in almost every survey.
maybe being interested in politics at all brings with it a high IQ? im skeptical of that though.........
but radicalism? i think it takes a certain amount of critical thinking to choose a belief that is so small, such a minority, i think those of average intelligence would fall in line, liberal of conservative, stick with the group, i think those who stand out and decide to think for themselves like us might just have something to do with high IQ.
course im not willing to forget how we were raised, i consider myself above average in intelligence, though i was also raised in an athmosphere of freedom, of imagination and tolerance, i was thought to be questioing of authority and to think for myself, i wouldn't be surprised if our comrades were too.
assuming for a moment it is in fact how we were raised that lead us to be anarchists..that doesn't explain the prevelence of atheism in anarchism, so im willing to finnish and say its a mix

but maybe its neither? maybe its just the facts?
i was somewhat of a minarchist before being anarchist, and i was old enough to get it to, and my IQ was probably the same then, and i was an atheist then, but then i remember the day i read some of Orwells "Homage to Catalonia" and it jus tswitched "well, thats perfect!"
so maybe someone with an average IQ, growing up in an authoritarian family, who is religious, can simply be presented the facts and the proofs and then just switch?

so far iv outlined 1. IQ 2. Family Values and 3. Facts, they all seem to complement eachother, essentially every anarchist i know has all 3, i know one who grew up in a somewhat authoritarian valued family, one who is an idiot and one who couldn't tell you anything about anarchist facts, history, proofs etc, but in all cases they've got the other two, course im not saying having none of those would make it impossable to conceive of anarchy, i think only one could do it, the least important in my opinion is IQ, family values being most important, course someone who grows up in the wrong kind of family needs the other two

i think it should also be said that the Anarchist FAQ states that anarchists are often atheists because the church is opressive, a tool for the leaders, conservative etc but you can think all of that and still be theistic, i didnt like that bit

any thoughts?

IQ is bullshit. Also I'm a member of mensa and most of the political stuff in their magazine is conservative tripe defending capitalism and representative democracy so even if IQ wasn't useless it wouldn't necessarily indicate anarchism.

The reason I'm an anarchist is because I hate authority and I like Socialism. Simple as. I think that anarchism is the best way for humanity to develop.

On the religion question, I think the reason that a lot of anarchists are atheists is because of a hatred for authority and a conception of god as an authority figure. I'm ignostic personally (Which could or could not be atheism depending) with anti-theist sympathies though I only hate on the conservative christians.

Don't get me started on the intellectuals

Yeah, it's thanks mostly to anti-intellectualism that capitalism keeps sustaining itself and the workers succumb to cultural hegemony instead of fighting back.

Your kidding right? As the great anarchists intellectuals of our time sit around arguing their petty theories while feeding the capitalist monster. what good would these intellectuals be to anarchy once the revolution happens? They much rather live under capitalism to make them seem important

Because only a small class of people can ever be engaged in intellectual pursuits and intellectual concerns will always be antithetical to the concerns of the working class?

I think not.

Maybe you need to look back in history to the down fall of both the russian revolution the Ukraine and Spain? was it the fascists? the capitalists? or maybe the intellectuals in their own camp whom thought they knew what was best for the masses? Its funny how sooooo many anarchists talk about state coercian, capitalist coercian etc etc....how come they never mention intellectual coercian? which in my book is just as bad as the other two.

Right, no anarchist has every addressed the question of intellectual coercion. How about the fist social anarchist theorist in history?

"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." - Mikhail Bakunin

I'm not talking about some class of elitist intellectuals being the vanguard of the revolution. I'm talking about educating the workers themselves so that they understand and are better equipped to fight the capitalist machinery. No matter how much you might think it odd, the working classes are perfectly capable of intellectual endeavour.

No need to be pretentious...Of course Bakunin and Machajski mentions it often. I'm not saying the masses CAN'T educate themselves but most often the working class can't afford to educate themselves, find the time to educate themselves, so its left to the intellectuals of the anarchist movement to reach out. I personally see how some talk down to and over the less educated on this board. I can't say if its conscious or subconscious for some? but its coercian none the less.

This is one of my ideas i like to tell people, that i think is important. People find the society we live in to be inhuman and they seek to change it to make it more human.

They are morally respulsed, and seek change. You can go on about peoples vanity, but i'm not out to insult anyone.

Anarchism is the most human. Because it respects the ideas and desires of all human beings. It's all about createing a paradise here on the earth where we don't have to cause pain to each other to get what we want.

It's what makes everyone turn to politics. People would only ever be an individualist anarchist once they have run around enough stupid circles in their head to get there. Or they were brainwashed by someone else there, like anarchist parents who thought they had come across some marvelous discovery when they found out morality didnt exist. Then they brainwashed their children bullshit. Or some anarchist book writer who did the same.

Everyone comes to politics with compassion in their heart. Everyone.


By the way, your talk about IQ makes you sound like a nazi.

'According to the theory of Mr. Marx, the people not only must not destroy [the state] but must strengthen it and place it at the complete disposal of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers -- the leaders of the Communist party, namely Mr. Marx and his friends'

what a bunch of nonsense.

lenin was not marx. and engels was not marx's siamese twin.

the history of marxism reminds me of the history of xianity. you've got jesus, the jew, and his jewish friends who believed he was a prophet but not divine, just a very wise dude. then you've got paul, who never met the dude, and who afaict must be the original 'antichrist', who grafted a bunch of pegan and hindu stuff onto the jesus movement, thereby inventing xianity. so all xians today are actually paulians, the tiny nucleic jewish jesus movement having died out rather quickly and been supplanted by paul's nonsense. likewise, you've got marx, a very wise dude, who tore capitalism a new ass, and then there's lenin, who never met the dude, but who gave birth to all the political nonsense now referred to as 'marxism'. (actually it begins with engels, but it's hard to hang it on him since he was marx's homey. but after marx died the mantle was passed to engels and the twisting began, not out of malice, obviously, but because engels, wise as he was, was no marx.)

that above quote can be countered by dozens of quotes straight from marx. and if i were a marxist i'd have them at the ready. but i'm not, so all i can do is shake my head and sigh and remember all the ones i've read but never bothered to save because, as much as marx-bashing annoys me, i'm not invested enough in marxism to spend my time in lengthy defenses of him. but i can assure you that the above quote is ridiculous. marx made explicit statements contrary to it. lenin, on the other hand....

guess i should answer the question.

we're all human. humans are animals, mammals, apes. but what makes us unique (as all species are, in their own ways) is our introspection. we ponder ourselves. this means we don't have to follow the path of other species. when i say 'we're apes', a right-winger will say 'yes and apes have hierarchy. q.e.d.' but because we're introspective, we can analyze hierarchy and decide that it's pathological and opt out of it. we're not dumb brutes. since that is what makes us unique, i find it reasonable to explore that space. to expand our ability and proclivity to level human relations.

when i see hierarchy, i become incensed. when i hear someone speak of class in a matter-of-fact way, as though there were nothing particularly wrong with it, i want to smash things. when people at the bottom admire those at the top, i want to shake them until their heads rattle. every time a human ape manages to hoard enough resources to allow him to rise above his peers and wield power over them, all heads should turn to face him,



and he should have his legs cut out from under him. it is absolutely intolerable that any of us should attain a position of power over another.

this is why i'm an anarchist. because i have the intelligence to examine the human condition, to detect flaws in it, and to challenge them. this is all in keeping with and promoting the essence of what it is to be human.

Just dont try to impress other people, and do it for yourself. If you are a true anarchist.

Mr. Guest, In regards to the above mentioned quote on Marx. I'm not a religious man but if you believe in prophets then Bakunin was one. that is his quote on what will happen if marx's followers came into power. this quote is prophecy fulfilled because it came to pass. I can't say Marx actually expected this outcome or not but either way Bakunin found a flaw in Marx's theory.

the point is that this theory attributed to marx wasn't his. he was emphatic that the working class had to rise up from below, not be whipped into action by an elite cadre of intellectuals-cum-charioteers. that's lenin. bakunin's insight was that seizing the state (even if done by the workers from below) would inevitably devolve into that sort of coordinatorism. the quote above is nonsense because it falsely attributes advocacy of coordinatorism to marx. so you see, one can defend marx and bakunin in the same breath. the only ones who don't understand this are those whose insight to marx comes from hostile secondhand sources (this unfortunately places many anarchists in the same basket with reactionaries like the austrianites).