Pure and Simple Anarchism...

[lplawhead]

Anarchism is about objecting to any imposed authority. It is about voluntary association. It does not preach a particular rigid structure, that's not how it works. To be an Anarchist is to object to outside control via subversion, force or any other means. Anything beyond that is personal politics.

Communism, socialism, Marxism, et all are not part of Anarchism. They are the offshoots of personal taste, viewpoints and voluntary associations. The only reason capitalism doesn't jive with Anarchism is that it is in itself all about control of the people by a ruling elite in the name of profit and it necessarily requires the dissolution of personal identity for the good of the machine. Anarchists often identify themselves with hyphens, anarcho-this, anarcho-that. That isn't Anarchism, it is Anarchism with whatever other ideology to which one subscribes added.

The solidarity or unity that we need to work toward is the end of authority. The rest is up to the people to decide via voluntary association. I have no qualm with working with anyone who is an Anarchist despite personal differences as long as they are willing to WORK toward anarchy. I would not think of telling someone that their personal views on how society and the way it should be restructured are wrong, that's not up to me to decide. If I were to try and advocate only a specific offshoot of anarchism that would make me rather authoritarian.

The fact is, different groups of freely associating people with personal liberty will voluntarily agree on what will work best for them according to the needs of their particular group. As long as that group doesn't seek to infringe upon the liberty of others not in line with it's own interest what business is it of mine? We all want the same thing, Anarchy. The rest is academic, to try and say otherwise would be non-anarchistic. So what I suggest is that we set our differences aside in the interest of working toward our one common goal. Anarchy.

In order to work toward that goal I would suggest federalism, freely associated groups voluntarily working together despite personal differences, agreeing voluntarily to unite based on the common goal, not ruled by a particular group or even delegates from all groups, but actual direct democracy in that everyone has the choice to agree or not. If you don't want a part in it, who am I to say anything about it? THAT'S what liberty is all about, the ability to secede from any association based on personal, voluntary choice. The choice to agree or to opt out.

Thoughts?

[jack]

Anarchism is about objecting to any imposed authority. It is about voluntary association. It does not preach a particular rigid structure, that's not how it works. To be an Anarchist is to object to outside control via subversion, force or any other means. Anything beyond that is personal politics.

It does preach a "rigid structure", that's the entire economic aspect of anarchism. There's no such thing as "personal preference" that actually matters in the grand scheme of economic, I would personally perfer Communism, but that doesn't mean I can live in that system without subduing the market economy.

Communism, socialism, Marxism, et all are not part of Anarchism. They are the offshoots of personal taste, viewpoints and voluntary associations. The only reason capitalism doesn't jive with Anarchism is that it is in itself all about control of the people by a ruling elite in the name of profit and it necessarily requires the dissolution of personal identity for the good of the machine. Anarchists often identify themselves with hyphens, anarcho-this, anarcho-that. That isn't Anarchism, it is Anarchism with whatever other ideology to which one subscribes added.

Anarchism is workers control over the means of production, so Anarchism is Socialism, Anarchism is a stateless, classless society, so Anarchism is Communism. Marxism is completely unrelated, there is no such thing as an "anarcho-Marxist".

The solidarity or unity that we need to work toward is the end of authority. The rest is up to the people to decide via voluntary association. I have no qualm with working with anyone who is an Anarchist despite personal differences as long as they are willing to WORK toward anarchy. I would not think of telling someone that their personal views on how society and the way it should be restructured are wrong, that's not up to me to decide. If I were to try and advocate only a specific offshoot of anarchism that would make me rather authoritarian.

Synthesism helped to kill the anarchist movement, because people of different ideologies working together always results in one ideology dominating. In the case of Indonesian independence, even though the Communist Party and Darul Islam fought side by side with the bourgeois nationalists for the same goal (An independent Indonesai), the bourgeois nationalists still dominated. As far as claiming that advocating an "offshoot" of anarchism would make one authoritarian, that can just as easily be expanded to the entire political real. For instance "If you advocate anarchism you're authoritarian because you don't let Statists have their state" (fyi I hate the word "statist").

In order to work toward that goal I would suggest federalism, freely associated groups voluntarily working together despite personal differences, agreeing voluntarily to unite based on the common goal, not ruled by a particular group or even delegates from all groups, but actual direct democracy in that everyone has the choice to agree or not. If you don't want a part in it, who am I to say anything about it? THAT'S what liberty is all about, the ability to secede from any association based on personal, voluntary choice. The choice to agree or to opt out.

That's exactly what the Communist Anarchist advocates, however we also support extending that to society itself, because unlike other quasi anarchist sects, we aren't opposed to majority rule.

Thoughts?[/quote]

[lplawhead]

"It does preach a "rigid structure", that's the entire economic aspect of anarchism. There's no such thing as "personal preference" that actually matters in the grand scheme of economic, I would personally perfer Communism, but that doesn't mean I can live in that system without subduing the market economy."

Again, Anarchism is not an economic authority over oneself. As to personal preference that "actually matters" in economics different groups will set their own standard for how they will interact with one another on an economic level, how work will be divided, what the workers take will be from the fruits of their labor, etc. I also favor Communism but that doesn't mean that every organized community will have the same plan as the one in which I would freely choose to participate. As far as market economy is concerned, that can be set up by the federation of independent groups for a wider scale. If there is so rigid a structure, describe it for me. I'm sure that all anarchists must agree if that is part and parcel to anarchism.

"Anarchism is workers control over the means of production, so Anarchism is Socialism, Anarchism is a stateless, classless society, so Anarchism is Communism. Marxism is completely unrelated, there is no such thing as an "anarcho-Marxist"."

Anarchism does mean workers control over production in that it removes from power an unneeded authority that grants to the elite non workers the lion's share of that which is produced, but not all people will agree to that socialist way of running things. If a group chooses to live within their community and have a completely different standard for the way in which it would run it's economy then it would be free to do so under Anarchy for no outside authority would attempt to stop. If they began to try and take control of other communities then the people would have to respond in self defense, but otherwise as long as the community involved consented voluntarily to the way things were run the could do so if they damned well pleased. There will also be those who choose not to involve themselves with others, who will choose to isolate themselves as hermits or those who prefer not to participate in economic trade, instead gathering and hunting for their food. They wouldn't be considered communists but still as long as they didn't attempt to impose authority over another they would be within the ideal of Anarchy. As to anarcho-marxists, I wasn't speaking of a specific group, first of all it was an example of a political outlook separate from Anarchism which is simply rejection of any authority by definition, I was not claiming there to be such a branch of anarchism that calls it self anarcho-marxism, though some anarchists have been influenced to an extent by Marx.

"Synthesism helped to kill the anarchist movement, because people of different ideologies working together always results in one ideology dominating. In the case of Indonesian independence, even though the Communist Party and Darul Islam fought side by side with the bourgeois nationalists for the same goal (An independent Indonesai), the bourgeois nationalists still dominated. As far as claiming that advocating an "offshoot" of anarchism would make one authoritarian, that can just as easily be expanded to the entire political real. For instance "If you advocate anarchism you're authoritarian because you don't let Statists have their state" (fyi I hate the word "statist")."

Those are, to my mind, examples of exactly what happens when one group places it's ideology as superior to any other. It's a prime example of the power being removed from the people and placed immediately into the control of a new elite. It didn't fail because people of different ideologies worked together, it failed because one group decided that it knew best. By advocating an "offshoot" of anarchism to the exclusion of any other, as I was putting it, would be to attempt to control people with ideas apart from mine. Within anarchy one group of people within a similar frame of mind would not attempt to force their outlook on another, that we be authoritarianism. It would result in the rise of a new ruling class, one that dictates for people what they should do when they refuse to dictate in common on their own.

"That's exactly what the Communist Anarchist advocates, however we also support extending that to society itself, because unlike other quasi anarchist sects, we aren't opposed to majority rule."

While I personally, as before stated, am both a Communist and an Anarchist, I would not be alright with forcing a group who, for instance decides not to want any involvement in the federation, to do so. As long as they weren't seeking to infringe upon the liberty of anyone else, why should I care how they run their community? It is up to the people of each community to decide how it will run. Also I do oppose majority rule, despite my communist leanings, because it imposes the will of the majority onto the minority. This has proven to be foolhardy in the past. It sets up a standard whereby laws that govern how a person must live would have to be installed and mandates their participation despite their misgivings. Only through DIRECT democracy will people be able to be truly free.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done


Communism

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Anarchism

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Government

1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule
5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry

Thoughts?

[Guest]

Thoughts?

you're either a manipulative cunt or an ignorant cunt, for quoting the dictionary with regard to economic/political terms. (example of why that's bad.) all i can do is laugh when i see corporate-produced dictionaries equating communism with totalitarianism, and people accepting that without engaging in the slightest degree of critical thinking. if i didn't laugh at the spectacle of it all, i'd become a mass murderer.

[lplawhead]

Thoughts?

you're either a manipulative cunt or an ignorant cunt, for quoting the dictionary with regard to economic/political terms. (example of why that's bad.) all i can do is laugh when i see corporate-produced dictionaries equating communism with totalitarianism, and people accepting that without engaging in the slightest degree of critical thinking. if i didn't laugh at the spectacle of it all, i'd become a mass murderer.

Where in my post did I EVER say I accepted the equating of communism with totalitarianism? Did you bother to READ the post or just pick out the last part to gripe on? Did any part of the post, aside from the dictionary quotes at the end, reference the dictionary definition of ANY of those three terms? I threw those in as an after thought not as my personal definition of anything. It was meant to highlight the definition of Anarchism than anything else. Do you disagree with 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups as an accurate definition of anarchism? At least bother to read what was originally posted before flying off the handle. This is partly my fault for ascribing more ability to comprehend a total statement to a person like you than is now apparently within your grasp.

HERE:

Kropotkin wrote the first adept encyclopedia definition of anarchism in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1910. His definition was fifteen pages long. He started the definition by introducing the word anarchism as:

the name given to a principle of theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being, In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state of its functions.

Emma Goldman's life long comrade, Alexander Berkman, played a major part in helping to define the word anarchism. He wrote a book called ABC of Anarchism which defined and describes anarchism and is still read today. Berkman wrote, "Anarchism means you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you. It means you should be free to do the things you want to do; and that you should not be compelled to do what you do not want to do."

The word anarchism is taken from the word anarchy which is drawn from dual sources in the Greek language. It is made up of the Greek words av (meaning: absence of [and pronounced "an"] and apxn (meaning: authority or government [and pronounced "arkhe"]).

ANARCHISM:–The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made
law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

- Emma Goldma

"Government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself
unimpaired to posterity, but each instance losing its integrity; it has not the vitality and force of a single living man. Law never made man a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well disposed are daily made agents of injustice."

David Thoreau

Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the
arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.
Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and
Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails.

- Emma Goldman

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

-Emma Goldman

How does that suit you? Can you now move on to saying something worth hearing? Constructive even? Or do I once again credit you with more than you are capable of?

[Guest]

tl;dr

[thelastindividual]

tl;dr

[Tom Palven]

lplawhead, my fellow ignorant and/or manipulative cunt: I agree with everything you said in your last two posts, and also everything that Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Thoreau was quoted as saying, except, I don't understand what you meant by "direct democracy" when you said in the earlier post that "Only through DIRECT democracy will people be able to be truly free."

[AndyMalroes]

You mean corporations can't control the decision making process?

[AndyMalroes]

You mean corporations can't control the decision making process?