Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

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

I think I'd like you to explain an instance, in some amount of detail, in which a "social system which one can fairly describe as an anarchy" could exist. I don't buy it at all, despite the assertion that it isn't a total anarchy.

 

[Dak]

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.

I fail to see much if any difference between facism and communism in practice, so to claim one is left and one is right is stupid.

What were the major differences between Stalin and Hitler? They were both genocidal dictators who came to power through basically an "anarchist coup" and exerted total control over all resources, human and otherwise, to the ends of a "military-industrial complex" and an oppressive police state.

Put any fucking label or arguement behind either guy but the bottom line is regardless of what you call it, it is at the core the same damn thing.


As far as this "federalized anarchy" idea you keep bringing up, as V5, Ozz, and myself have said, if you federate it really isn't anarchy. It's democracy, or a republic, etc etc. The response "well it's a form of anarchy" is like having your cake and eating it too. Either you have no form of government, or you have one of the already existant forms of government, to varying degrees. IE: If you federate into a republic, it's not still sort of anarchy, it's more or less a republic. Same with democracy.

And btw, AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a fucking REPUBLIC. There is a difference, and it annoys me to no end the dis-information floating around stating the opposite.

 

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

America has elements of a democracy, enough to warrant being called that to some extent, tbh.

edit: Actually, it's kind of both a constitutional republic and a representative democracy.

 

[Dak]

I think total democracy is honestly the worst form of government possible. Not only is it gaurunteed to fail, it's pretty much the same thing as total anarchy in practice. Majority rule = mob rule = fail.

 

[Death Aflame]

CC: I understand your position, classical anarchism as it were is at least somewhat outdated (the state and capitalism are not the sole origins and locations of oppression and illegitimate authority), but so is classical liberalism, Marxism, etc. and the societies we live in today are a result, more or less, of these ideas being used to structure society.

That is why postanarchism and poststructuralist theory in general is needed, because it helps us understand our current situation much more clearly in terms that don't rely on modernist Utopian assumptions (a charge that could be levied at most Enlightenment political philosophies).

In terms of actual anarchism in practice there are many examples to look at. The Spanish Revolution being perhaps the most important. And as challenge everything has said, nothing has to be absolute to be called as such. Anarchism may be perfect, ideal, utopian in theory and will necessarily not live up to this in practice, but that does not mean anarchy cannot come to be in the real social world.

Regarding Proudhon's theory about federated anarchy, no it is not a republic, but it is a democracy (anarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms). There is no contradiction in terms since federated anarchy remains decentralized in its structure, with power arising only from the bottom up. Of course this is 'just' the theory, though in Spain and other places it was practiced in a similar sort of way. In fact the theory arose directly from the practice occurring in French Communes.

In terms of the tyranny of the majority which you rightly point out, Dakryn, it is potentially an issue, no doubt. However, anarchism attempts to deal with it by requiring supermajorities on certain issues, and always allowing minority opinion holders to voice their dissent. If a compromise cannot be met, those in the anarchist community who oppose an action always have the option of seceding. This is their choice. You probably think this isn't enough, and to some extent I agree, but dealing with the potential tyranny of the majority is a huge topic that is problematic in many different political contexts (most recently the gay marriage vote in California), not just in anarchism.

 

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

So...why is it any better at all?

To me, this all just seems to me like you want a "stateless" government, but that it will still have a "state", just not a clearly defined and powerful/"tyrannical" (to use the demonizing word) one. Right?

It really does just seem like (and trust me, I've thought this over) you're advocating some kind of "democracy" but in an edgy way.

 

[Death Aflame]

So...why is it any better at all?

To me, this all just seems to me like you want a "stateless" government, but that it will still have a "state", just not a clearly defined and powerful/"tyrannical" (to use the demonizing word) one. Right?

It really does just seem like (and trust me, I've thought this over) you're advocating some kind of "democracy" but in an edgy way.

Edgy, sounds like a good marketing term tbh.

Anarchism is essentially a form of democracy, as I said in my first post in this thread, you could also call it a strong democracy but with the caveat of being anti-capitalist, anti-oppression, anti-hierarchy and anti-statist (state being defined here roughly as a centralized bureaucratic power structure).

 

[MasterOLightning]

I think the problems of lawlessness and disparate resources would be too much to overcome.

 

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

Well, I mean...we all want to be anti-oppression. No one likes oppression. No one really WANTS to deal with all the shit that RESULTS or tends to result from capitalism, which I assume is what anarchists are against (why be against the good parts of things?), etc...but...I think it is pretty damn unreasonable and a little crazy to want just the good parts of everything. With humans involved, things will always be a struggle.

 

[Dak]

Well some people have a problem with anyone having more than someone else. Coincidently, usually the people with those views are the lazy ones who have nothing because they are lazy/unproductive.

Most of the problems from capitalism comes from government interference/or lack thereof in ways that cut down on competition, which is basically leaning towards facism. Tactics employed by guys like JP Morgan against his competition were anti-capitalistic, and he bought off whoever he needed to, regulator wise, for it to continue.

 

[Death Aflame]

Coincidently, usually the people with those views are the lazy ones who have nothing because they are lazy/unproductive.

I expected a better argument than this from you.

 

[Dak]

I expected a better argument than this from you.

Something other than the truth?

Edit: Obviously not everyone who believes in equal distribution falls under that category, but the majority do. I personally believe lazy people should get kicked to the curb. The whole "don't work, don't eat bit", while extra productive people should get extra returns.

Edit #2: I forgot about another large category of those who advocate equal distribution: The people (usually politicians/future dictators) who advocate it, but that don't believe that it applies to them/their buddies. This would be the practical application of communism.

 

[youdontknowme]

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

hey, watch it pal!

 

[The Ozzman]

Other than the above post, this has been a pretty decent thread so far

 

[Death Aflame]

I'm just surprised someone made this topic other than me.

 

[youdontknowme]

Other than the above post, this has been a pretty decent thread so far

oh like your posts are any better.

I just get so irritated by the general anti-punk sentiments on this board. which is probably why I post here instead of UM anymore.

 

[challenge_everything]

I think I'd like you to explain an instance, in some amount of detail, in which a "social system which one can fairly describe as an anarchy" could exist. I don't buy it at all, despite the assertion that it isn't a total anarchy.

There are many cultures in the past and a few still existing which one could describe as anarchical. These are primarily indigenous societies which are largely structureless, except for a minimal number of accepted practices which one could describe as law, and without hierarchy. Hence I totally agree with cookiecutter when he said that it is a system which can only work in primitive societies. Even if we accept that it is possible for humans to be sufficiently co-operative to permit an anarchical state, the problem always remains that such a state is wide open for being conquered by another state which has resources and organisation which even a minimally anarchic state cannot possibly provide.

I think the philosophy of anarchy has things to teach us but I don't regard it as a viable system, except perhaps in the Gandhian sense. Gandhi is not usually regarded as an anarchist (in fact he supported governments as long as he regarded them as legitimate) but in a sense his philosophy of resisting laws and authorities he felt were unjust is a form of anarchy being practised in an individual level. This obviously requires a high level of personal idealism, in that one would have to accept (as Gandhi did) that it is more important to adhere to one's beliefs than submit to illegitimate force, even if that results in physical harm.

 

[cookiecutter]

CC: I understand your position, classical anarchism as it were is at least somewhat outdated (the state and capitalism are not the sole origins and locations of oppression and illegitimate authority), but so is classical liberalism, Marxism, etc. and the societies we live in today are a result, more or less, of these ideas being used to structure society.

Hmm this is a good point. To be honest classical anarchism is what I know most because of my education in history. However I don't think the newer strains of anarchist thought, at least from what I can tell from wikipedia and your posts, succeed at addressing all the flaws of classical anarchism. Also I just want to say that although I disagree with anarchism, I do agree with many of its criticism of both Marxism and Liberalism. I just don't agree that the removal of the state is the answer.

So...why is it any better at all?

I think a good argument could be made here although I can't quite think of a good enough one myself. Can someone else do it or Death Aflame can you provide a good response to this question?

I think the problems of lawlessness and disparate resources would be too much to overcome.

I think this is another good argument although it is a problem that also plagues our current system.

hey, watch it pal!

You watch it buster!

 

[Dak]

Well it plagues current systems for different reasons. In our current systems, either the state seizes control of resources and exploits them for the gain of the few at the top, or private corporations are allowed exclusive rights to resources and they exploit them for the overall gain of the few at the top.
In anarchy there is a resource problem due merely to lack of organization, not "over-organization" as is the problem currently.

 

[Death Aflame]

In anarchy there is a resource problem due merely to lack of organization, not "over-organization" as is the problem currently.

There is plenty of organization in anarchy, I don't know what you are getting at.