Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

[Meh]

Like communism, anarchism is more concerned with equality of outcome than with equality of opportunity.

Anarchism is reactionary, 'this government sucks so let's get rid of government.' Sure it sounds fun but there is a reason why anarchism has never prospered or been taken seriously.

Anarchy is destructive, it wants to tear down the government but replace it with... nothing. In that sense it is fatalistic, and also parasitic as it wants the advantages of a society but none of the obligations or responsibilities.

No-one wants unnecessary government authority or bureaucracy, but hierarchies and authorities inevitably and naturally develop due to the inherent difference in peoples' strengths and abilities. In an anarchic society, the strong would simply abuse and control the weak.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had a coherent position on racial inequality and the Jewish question. Detested the Rothschild family, so there is some usefulness in Anarchist writings.

On the other hand, Bakunin was a Mason.

In the ideological stance only, anarchism is an alright idea.

From a practical perspective, it's silly.

 

[Dak]

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

Without fair control over vital resources, like farmable land for instance, people who farm could control everyone else through control of the majority of the food supply (outside hunting and fishing obviously). Also, without hunting/fishing laws, we would quickly be back where we were at the end of the 19th century with massive depletion of wildlife.

I also still reject the idea of organized anarchy as being something different than forms of democracy or a republic. You would have to define the difference, the line where organization ceases to be a form of democracy/republic, and instead is organized anarchy. I don't think you can.

 

[Death Aflame]

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.

This isn't necessarily true, in the Spanish Revolution productivity in the anarchist communities increased far beyond what was had in capitalism and with it the standard of living also went up overall. Indeed, as Orwell documents, until the Anarchist militia was taken down from the inside by Stalin supported communists, its force was by far the most effective at fighting the fascists.

The problem for the Spanish Anarchists was not there lack of organization--they were highly organized--but that they had enemies on all sides--not just the fascists, but the communists, and the liberals as well.

 

[Death Aflame]

I also still reject the idea of organized anarchy as being something different than forms of democracy or a republic. You would have to define the difference, the line where organization ceases to be a form of democracy/republic, and instead is organized anarchy. I don't think you can.

I've already pointed out that it is based on decentralization, and power coming from the bottom-up that may have elected delegates, though whose power is temporary and can be rescinded at any time (there would be no full-time politicians in anarchy). And Anarchy favors direct democracy, so it is a type of democracy, a strong democracy as Sclove would define it.

 

[Death Aflame]

No-one wants unnecessary government authority or bureaucracy, but hierarchies and authorities inevitably and naturally develop due to the inherent difference in peoples' strengths and abilities. In an anarchic society, the strong would simply abuse and control the weak.

Which is why anarchists distinguish between rational or legitimate authorities and irrational or illegitimate authorities. They are only against the latter form.

 

[Dak]

I've already pointed out that it is based on decentralization, and power coming from the bottom-up that may have elected delegates, though whose power is temporary and can be rescinded at any time (there would be no full-time politicians in anarchy). (<-Republic, not anarchy) And Anarchy favors direct democracy (<-Democracy, not anarchy), so it is a type of democracy, a strong democracy as Sclove would define it.

Then it is not anarchy in either case, which is my point. Regardless of the amount of decentralization, what you just described in the first case was the original intent of the writers of the Constitution of the U.S., or in the second case, a direct democracy as you said.

Thank you for proving my point.

Anarchy has never be more than a temporary phase in between two different forms of government, and almost always between two different forms of tyrannical government, the United States being a fairly recent exception, but is also moving more into a tyrannical state.

 

[Meh]

Anarchy has never be more than a temporary phase in between two different forms of government, and almost always between two different forms of tyrannical government, the United States being a fairly recent exception, but is also moving more into a tyrannical state.

Bingo.

Anarchy is a step.

http://libcom.org/library/paedophilia-and-american-anarchism-the-other-side-of-hakim-bey

 

[Death Aflame]

Then it is not anarchy in either case, which is my point. Regardless of the amount of decentralization, what you just described in the first case was the original intent of the writers of the Constitution of the U.S., or in the second case, a direct democracy as you said.

How are you defining anarchy? The anarchy I am discussing is the political philosophy that has been around as long as Liberal, Marxist, and Capitalist thought. Moreover, those are not two separate types of anarchy I have described they are the same. And it is well known to anarchists that at least some of the writers of the US constitution had similar values (Jefferson in particular iirc). Anarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms, anarchy is democracy, and it is socialism, which I have pointed repeatedly so I don't understand your point.

If you are defining anarchy in absolutist terms, as challenge everything said about V5, perhaps I could understand where the confusion is coming from as in practice and theory anarchy is not absolute equality, nor is it absolute dissolution of authority. However, relative to current systems in place, it is a radical move toward those values.

Anarchy has never be more than a temporary phase in between two different forms of government, and almost always between two different forms of tyrannical government, the United States being a fairly recent exception, but is also moving more into a tyrannical state.

You seem to be defining anarchy in the colloquial sense, which is where the confusion seems to be coming from. I am coming from the lineage of the political philosophy which is based on practice and theory and not metaphysical absolutes.

 

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

@meh: Any particular reason why you clandestinely kinda just threw that pretty unrelated link in there? Looks shady.

 

[Death Aflame]

@meh: Any particular reason why you clandestinely kinda just threw that pretty unrelated link in there? Looks shady.

Hakim Bey is pedophile, ergo all other anarchists are?

 

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

Like I said, seems dubious, but I think Meh is one of those kind of people who is pretty subversive and whatnot.

 

[cookiecutter]

You're both masons aren't you

 

[Dak]

How are you defining anarchy? The anarchy I am discussing is the political philosophy that has been around as long as Liberal, Marxist, and Capitalist thought. Moreover, those are not two separate types of anarchy I have described they are the same. And it is well known to anarchists that at least some of the writers of the US constitution had similar values (Jefferson in particular iirc). Anarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms, anarchy is democracy, and it is socialism, which I have pointed repeatedly so I don't understand your point.

If you are defining anarchy in absolutist terms, as challenge everything said about V5, perhaps I could understand where the confusion is coming from as in practice and theory anarchy is not absolute equality, nor is it absolute dissolution of authority. However, relative to current systems in place, it is a radical move toward those values.



You seem to be defining anarchy in the colloquial sense, which is where the confusion seems to be coming from. I am coming from the lineage of the political philosophy which is based on practice and theory and not metaphysical absolutes.

I am saying that various forms of government already have a name and format. We disagree basically on the naming of the same thing. I tend towards Jeffersonian beliefs, but he advocated a republic in practice, with an emphasis on individual liberty and a restricted state. To claim that is anarchist in leaning is only correct in the sense as it does not lean towards totalitarianism.

@V5: i think Meh was making a thinly veiled attempt to draw a line between anarchy pushers and paedophilia.

 

[Dak]

You're both masons aren't you

Who?

 

[Meh]

@meh: Any particular reason why you clandestinely kinda just threw that pretty unrelated link in there? Looks shady.

No real reason at all actually.

What makes it look shady?

Hakim Bey is pedophile, ergo all other anarchists are?

You clearly haven't seen my posts.

I'm the first to dictate that isolated incidents are irrelevant.

Me, being pro-White, I'm used to people using extremely isolated incidents of racial violence to somehow legitimize the crime against Whites in our own nations.

So obviously, I wouldn't suggest that an isolated incident can be used to prosecute the majority and/or ideology.

So really I've no clue why I threw it in there and/or didn't clarify that. I just came across it randomly and posted it. However, it is an interesting article.

Like I said, seems dubious, but I think Meh is one of those kind of people who is pretty subversive and whatnot.

Couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[cookiecutter]

I was making a joke because Meh implied that Bakunin being a mason hurt his credibility

EDIT: @ Dakryn

 

[Dak]

Being a Mason does hurt credibility.

 

[Meh]

I was making a joke because Meh implied that Bakunin being a mason hurt his credibility

EDIT: @ Dakryn

I guess you think the history of the Masons is one of them "conspiracy" thingymajiggers, eh? Bakunin being the lead politically active Anarchist, the Marx of Anarchism, was associated with both the French and Italian Freemasons. The French Freemasons being undoubtedly connected to the Rothschild Jewish banking family.

Who happen to be part of the owners of America at this present time... therefore, not really an anarchist.

It's the typical double-speak. Andropov, head of the USSR in 1983 said that "Israel, international Zionists and Jews were the enemy", when Andropov himself was a Jewish supremacist.

In particular, I don't get caught up in the "ZOMG JEWZ EVERYHWERE!" bandwagon, but it's impossible to ignore their presence in governments. Not that it'll stop any of you, but for those of you that think cute smart-ass comments negate the validity of my point, die slow.


Anyway, a republic functions better than anarchism.

And in a republic, I can maintain the right to bear arms.

Anarchism can lead to a dictatorship wherein such would be forbidden.

I see anarchism and anarchists in particular debating in their theoretical, ideological terms.. Akin to the far-left crowd, caught up in idealisms.

I look at things from the practical standpoint, of the current reality and what's most likely to happen or sustain - anarchism doesn't fit that.


Anywho, I've got work to do so I'll return in a few hours.. should be some interesting replies by then..

 

[challenge_everything]

This isn't necessarily true, in the Spanish Revolution productivity in the anarchist communities increased far beyond what was had in capitalism and with it the standard of living also went up overall. Indeed, as Orwell documents, until the Anarchist militia was taken down from the inside by Stalin supported communists, its force was by far the most effective at fighting the fascists.

The problem for the Spanish Anarchists was not there lack of organization--they were highly organized--but that they had enemies on all sides--not just the fascists, but the communists, and the liberals as well.

This is a logical fallacy: it's like saying "x is the best form of government simply because it is better than y". In this case, it's not surprising that productivity and social cohesion increased by comparison to an illegimate and broadly unaccepted regime. If this example only allows you to argue than anarchism is better than totalitarianism, you've still got a long way to go.

 

[Death Aflame]

This is a logical fallacy: it's like saying "x is the best form of government simply because it is better than y". In this case, it's not surprising that productivity and social cohesion increased by comparison to an illegimate and broadly unaccepted regime. If this example only allows you to argue than anarchism is better than totalitarianism, you've still got a long way to go.

The Popular Front, a centre-left group was democratically elected to power prior to the revolution. This example allows me to argue that in this instance, anarchism was better than capitalism in terms of productivity and quality of life, debunking a myth about capitalist economics.

Totalitarianism came after the Spanish civil war/revolution with the rise of Franco.

Both Orwell's Homage to Catalonia and the documentary Living Utopia are great references for Spanish history at this particular time period.