Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

[Death Aflame]

That is basically a Republic.

I don't know much about Republics, but anarchist communities can be federated as per the theory of Proudhon.

But why would random people put their lives at risk for infringement on my liberty?

Because just as they represent a threat to you, they represent a potential threat to others. Though, if you chose to exist on your own, sans community (as a hermit or what have you) you may exist outside the jurisdiction of the anarchist community, and thus are ostensibly existing in a state of nature. Depending on the laws in place you may or may not be protected under communal laws to a community you chose to secede from.

 

[Dak]

Because just as they represent a threat to you, they represent a potential threat to others.

I agree, but most people don't think like that.

 

[Meh]

Anarchy is a complete load of bollocks. And a reason why punks are fucking stupid.

This.

 

[waif]

Man is basically...bad.

Hobbes, tbh.

facism is leftwing.

oh wow

 

[cookiecutter]

Dakryn I don't think you understand the distinction between left and right wing. In America it is true that right = neoliberal/small government economic ideas and left = third way/larger government economic ideas, but there are far more strains of left and right thought. Anarchism is a left wing idea that grew mostly out of Marxism. As Death Aflame described it is socialist in that it opposed capitalism and is striving for a more egalitarian society. Soviet style socialism just happens to be the most famous. It is not the only kind. For proof that Anarchism is a left wing ideology read about the Spanish Civil War, where the Anarchists were part of the left wing popular front along with Liberals and Communists to fight the obviously right wing Fascists led by Francisco Franco.

Also I see that WAIF has you quoted saying that Fascism is left wing. This is not entirely untrue due to Fascism unique opposition to both liberal democratic capitalism and communism. However Fascism was usually allied with the far right and was most vehemently fought by the far left (see Tito in Yugoslavia) so they are usually (and rightly imo) lumped with the far right.

 

[Death Aflame]

Soviet style socialism just happens to be the most famous. It is not the only kind

And even in its earlier days, Russian communism employed anarchistic principles in practice (soviet means worker councils which were used in places, especially the Ukraine iirc, to enact direct democratic principles and the like). Of course it was wiped out by the Bolsheviks eventually.

 

[Dak]

Dakryn I don't think you understand the distinction between left and right wing. In America it is true that right = neoliberal/small government economic ideas and left = third way/larger government economic ideas, but there are far more strains of left and right thought. Anarchism is a left wing idea that grew mostly out of Marxism. As Death Aflame described it is socialist in that it opposed capitalism and is striving for a more egalitarian society. Soviet style socialism just happens to be the most famous. It is not the only kind. For proof that Anarchism is a left wing ideology read about the Spanish Civil War, where the Anarchists were part of the left wing popular front along with Liberals and Communists to fight the obviously right wing Fascists led by Francisco Franco.

Also I see that WAIF has you quoted saying that Fascism is left wing. This is not entirely untrue due to Fascism unique opposition to both liberal democratic capitalism and communism. However Fascism was usually allied with the far right and was most vehemently fought by the far left (see Tito in Yugoslavia) so they are usually (and rightly imo) lumped with the far right.

If you look at the video I linked, you will see what I am talking about. The historical outcome for the proletariat in both facism and communism is the same, regardless of the name put on it. You have a handful of people controlling everyone with a pool of power and money at the top. So regardless of the labels that get stuck on it IE: Right wing, left wing, socialism, facism etc., what you really have is a scale with no government on one end, and total government on the other end. This is what I am getting at. IMO "right wing" would be on the end of the scale with little government, whereas "leftwing" would be total government control, with practical socialism and facism as well as monarchies both falling closer to that end of the scale.

 

[Death Aflame]

but leftwing politics can exist without government.

Personally, I find the typical political spectrum the most useful in understanding the different political ideologies out there:

Naturally I would be in the Libertarian Left whereas you, Dakryn would fall under the Libertarian Right.

Most posters here probably fall somewhere above the x-axis on this graph, with a tendency, I imagine, that is slightly leftist.

 

[Dak]

I really don't agree with the concept of an authoritarian "right", or a libertarian "left". Socialism and facism are both invasive on private rights, and are therefore both are the opposite of libertarian.

 

[Death Aflame]

I really don't agree with the concept of an authoritarian "right", or a libertarian "left". Socialism and facism are both invasive on private rights, and are therefore both are the opposite of libertarian.

fascism is the authoritarian right, while state socialism is the authoritarian left.

And your critique depends on how you are discussing rights. It seems to me you only care about negative rights, and have little consideration for positive rights (the libertarian left emphasizes both, whereas the right only emphasizes negative rights). And like I pointed out earlier, under the libertarian left, individuals are free to secede from communities they disagree with, that isn't invasive of your rights, but freeing in that you are free to choose to be part of the community or not.

Libertarianism is also historically a leftist term, just fyi.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Not necessarily, anarchy can be federated.

Um......sorry to break it to you but that isn't what anarchy is bro.

What you're describing seems to be a really, really stupidly idealized version of a "democracy", this thing we've been trying to get right for a long long time.

 

[Death Aflame]

Um......sorry to break it to you but that isn't what anarchy is bro.

What you're describing seems to be a really, really stupidly idealized version of a "democracy", this thing we've been trying to get right for a long long time.

Read Proudhon.

Naturally federated/federalized anarchy would be quite a bit different from neoliberal democracy.

As per Proudhon's Wiki:

"The state would be abolished; instead, society would be organized by a federation of "free communes" (a commune is a local municipality in French). In 1863 Proudhon said: "All my economic ideas as developed over twenty-five years can be summed up in the words: agricultural-industrial federation. All my political ideas boil down to a similar formula: political federation or decentralization.""

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Yeah, in that it would be ideal and "perfect" and still have representation, etc. except in an 'anarchic' way (whatever this even means since your entire argument stems from the fact that anarchy actually does have some kind of organized leadership because...well, someone had to lead the federation attempt, etc.). I think anarchists tend to not even believe their own ideas, and reach for ways to make them seem more "feasible" by considering "federated anarchy" an actual form of anarchy (that is, society without authority [ironic in that a federation, again, would have to have some kind of leader and thus defeat the purpose of it being called an anarchy]), because "actual anarchy" such as Somalia etc. is too outlandish for people to believe to work.

Also, don't just throw authors' names and books at me. Back up your own ideas with your own relevant arguments. You can sit here flinging esoteric authors and books all day but until you actually establish a workable case of anarchism that actually makes sense and would work on something other than a high-theoretical level, you're not doing anything real here. Theorizing is all well and good, but, politics are expected to work in some way (that is to say, they are expected to keep some kind of society intact with as little horrible things happening as possible so there is, you know, a society at all) and not just be theorized.

As an addendum, I find the whole "SOCIAL COERCION IS EVIL OMG" thing incredibly weak and insulting to actual political/thoughtful discourse. It's your prerogative to think the government is just out to get you and demonize everything about the higher echelons of our power structures (in the Western world anyway), but it's way too passé and juvenile to just reiterate the same crappy "we are enslaved by the powers that "CLAIM" to be "LEADING US" scare tactic crap...anyway...

 

[Death Aflame]

Yeah, in that it would be ideal and "perfect" and still have representation, etc. except in an 'anarchic' way (whatever this even means since your entire argument stems from the fact that anarchy actually does have some kind of organized leadership because...well, someone had to lead the federation attempt, etc.). I think anarchists tend to not even believe their own ideas, and reach for ways to make them seem more "feasible" by considering "federated anarchy" an actual form of anarchy (that is, society without authority), because "actual anarchy" such as Somalia etc. is too outlandish for people to believe to work.

You seem to have not read much about anarchist philosophy. I would suggest doing so before propagating your assumptions around, if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I don't take your ideas on this seriously at all, until you actually explain what you believe, how it could work, etc. and not just tell me to "read" things, which is a cop-out.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't take your ideas on this seriously at all, until you actually explain what you believe, how it could work, etc. and not just tell me to "read" things, which is a cop-out.

I try to explain, but I am not writing a book here. I expect others to have some background knowledge or else this is a pointless discussion since I end up just correcting misconceptions.

Briefest definition possible of what I believe: Anarchism is an anti-capitalist, anti-statist political theory based on principles of mutual aid, voluntary associations, direct democracy, solidarity, liberty, and socialism.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

If it has something to do with elements of direct democracy, how can it be anarchy?

edit: and if you don't want to correct assumptions, maybe you should consider that this sounds very, very stupid and absurd to most people with some kind of experience with politics and just...not even bother talking about it?

 

[Death Aflame]

If it has something to do with elements of direct democracy, how can it be anarchy?

edit: and if you don't want to correct assumptions, maybe you should consider that this sounds very, very stupid and absurd to most people with some kind of experience with politics and just...not even bother talking about it?

To be honest, you seem to be the only one in the variety of communities where I have discussed this that knows so little about the theory, yet has such an inversely strong opinion about it.

 

[cookiecutter]

If you look at the video I linked, you will see what I am talking about. The historical outcome for the proletariat in both facism and communism is the same, regardless of the name put on it. You have a handful of people controlling everyone with a pool of power and money at the top. So regardless of the labels that get stuck on it IE: Right wing, left wing, socialism, facism etc., what you really have is a scale with no government on one end, and total government on the other end. This is what I am getting at. IMO "right wing" would be on the end of the scale with little government, whereas "leftwing" would be total government control, with practical socialism and facism as well as monarchies both falling closer to that end of the scale.

But that is not what the terms left and right wing mean. You can't change the definition to suit you. The authoritarian/libertarian graph is a good one. A monarchy would be authoritarian right and anarchy would be libertarian left. Stalinism would be authoritarian left and the American Libertarians would be libertarian right.

V5 I agree with you that Anarchism is not a viable political system. However I think you do have a misunderstanding of what it is. To me it sounds like you believe it is characterized by lawlessness and chaos (the colloquial definition of anarchy). It's not that though.

From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong DA) Anarchism is the idea of having a large amount of egalitarian communities that are independent and free and work together without an overarching state. I don't think this is viable because I don't think it would be efficient nor do I think that equality can be reached in this manner. I just don't have faith in people being able to organize an effective society on this scale without inequalities appearing between the communities.

I think Anarchism was a much more reasonable ideology in 19th century Europe with it's massive worker and peasant population with Russia and most Southern European nations being especially good places for it. However history was not kind to the Anarchists with the rise of right authoritarianism in Southern Europe and left wing authoritarianism in Russia. Anarchism may be possible today in some third world countries but I think it would not work in modern liberal democratic societies.

 

[challenge_everything]

The main thing that VVVVV doesn't seem to grasp is that anarchy (in the commonly used sociological sense, as opposed to the loaded meaning ascribed by everyday language) is not necessarily absolute. Just because there is a logical impossibility of having a perfectly anarchical society does not mean it is not possible to have a social system which one can fairly describe as an anarchy, in the same way that the fact that perfect democracy is impossible does not mean the rather unrepresentative government we have today cannot reasonably be described as a democracy.