Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CeeGBee]

three - most Anarchists wouldn't survive ten minutes in a truly Anachist society, because they're wishy washy, artsy fartsy pushovers.  Anarchy is usually a utopia for teen rebels (I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOL!), and mid-life crisis rebels (I CAN FUCK TEENS WHO DON'T WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL!), who dream of a place where they could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted--without realizing that this involves being stressed out of your mind while you're trying to avoid the shit end of a semi-automatic.  i think the only person on this board who could manage it would be NickNJ.

This is quite frankly bollocks. A lot of grassroots political protest movements are built on anarchist principles. I know because I am involved with them. I have seen it work, and work well; everyone feels like they are being listened to and no individual can hijack the campaign. It has the added benefit that the police have a lot more trouble identifying the "organisers" they need to strategically target....

In simplest terms...  "wrong"...
Anarchy, by definition, is an absence of organized decision-making process.
Your organization (oops, "organization" is antithetical to anarchy...)...
Let's try that again:  The principals you call "anarchic" are actually just decentralized...
the political equivalent of bacteria.  Furthermore, even in your "non-hierarchical" structure,
there are a few leaders and a lot of followers.  The leaders simply try to retain some degree
of anonymity so as to avoid any sense of responsibility for the screw-ups of the whole, as
well as internal or external retribution.

Anarchism does not mean "everyone doing what the fuck they want",

Yes, actually, it does...

...it means "everyone participating in decision making in a non-hierarchical manner". Rules can and do exist,

No, actually, they don't...

...but they come from the collective interest rather than somebody's top-down influence.
For an example refer to the Peoples' Global Action network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_Global_Action - the PGA hallmarks are a general set of "rules", which were agreed on by people from all over the planet who shared a common interest.

This is an obscure form of governance called "democracy"...  It has problems when instituted
on a large scale, often requiring layers of "bureaucracy", and eventually devolving to "plutocracy"
or "oligarchy"...

Note I said "common interest". I'm not sure how this works if there is no common interest, which is why I said I don't know how anarchism would work on a global scale.

It doesn't.  People form groups.  Groups band together into larger groups.  Each level of group
has its own rules and mores. As long as the individuals and smaller groups can live within the
constraints of the larger group, all is well.  Once they can't, fighting breaks out, whether it's
a brawl with the bouncers who say you've had enough to drink, or an assault by columns of
tanks and APCs to secure the rights of the oppressed minorities (and the petroleum) of other
countries.

(Don't worry, if true anarchy broke out, a young physically-fit idealist like yourself would
make a fine foot-soldier for someone's gang.  See?  A gang...  safety in numbers...
The end of that anarchy is already in sight.)

[dontgoogleme]

I guess it's worth first stating that there are many different takes on anarchy...

In simplest terms...  "wrong"...
Anarchy, by definition, is an absence of organized decision-making process.
Your organization (oops, "organization" is antithetical to anarchy...)...
Let's try that again:  The principals you call "anarchic" are actually just decentralized...
the political equivalent of bacteria.  Furthermore, even in your "non-hierarchical" structure,
there are a few leaders and a lot of followers.  The leaders simply try to retain some degree
of anonymity so as to avoid any sense of responsibility for the screw-ups of the whole, as
well as internal or external retribution.

I would refer you to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism):

'It is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state."'

This is interesting because it using the word 'organized', which you claim is somewhat taboo to suggest in the context of anarchy. This isn't the case - anarchy can be organised, but just not via a hierarchical power structure.

I'd like to see a definition of anarchy which includes the words "absence of organized decision-making process" - the anarchist groups I've been involved in have a very clear process (based on consensus decision making), but that still doesn't imply having leaders. I'm also not sure how you can claim "The leaders simply try to retain some degree of anonymity so as to avoid any sense of responsibility for the screw-ups of the whole, as well as internal or external retribution" without knowing which groups I am involved in... (I don't agree with this anyway)

...but they come from the collective interest rather than somebody's top-down influence.
For an example refer to the Peoples' Global Action network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_Global_Action - the PGA hallmarks are a general set of "rules", which were agreed on by people from all over the planet who shared a common interest.

This is an obscure form of governance called "democracy"...  It has problems when instituted
on a large scale, often requiring layers of "bureaucracy", and eventually devolving to "plutocracy"
or "oligarchy"...

Democracy relies on the "people" electing a set of "leaders" who then make decisions on their behalf. It does not provide for the "people" having equal say in decisions as the "leaders". In anarchism the people *are* the leaders. (Yes, in democracy an individual can theoretically rise to power. I would suggest this system is pretty broken in today's society.) (Yes, I know your comments on plutocracy and oligarchy as basically agreeing with me on this.)

Note I said "common interest". I'm not sure how this works if there is no common interest, which is why I said I don't know how anarchism would work on a global scale.

It doesn't.  People form groups.  Groups band together into larger groups.  Each level of group
has its own rules and mores. As long as the individuals and smaller groups can live within the
constraints of the larger group, all is well.  Once they can't, fighting breaks out, whether it's
a brawl with the bouncers who say you've had enough to drink, or an assault by columns of
tanks and APCs to secure the rights of the oppressed minorities (and the petroleum) of other
countries.

No, maybe it doesn't... I don't know. I think it's a question worth asking though, rather than just dismissing on the basis that it hasn't worked so far.

Anyway, this is a fun discussion to have, but ultimately I'm not trying to convince anybody else to agree with me... y'all believe what you want and be happy.

[CeeGBee]

Well...  I really don't like to argue semantics...
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that
what you heard is not what I meant...

...but (and I'll absolutely agree to your right to try to create a world-system that
better responds to what people actually want, while still providing what they actually
need...  whatever you call your system...)

...at their theoretical ideals:
In a Democracy - ALL CITIZENS gather to debate and vote upon issues of consequence to
the state, and arrive at a collective decision on a directly expressed one-man-one-vote basis.

When that's too complicated (say, when your Greek polis grows beyond a thousand "citizens"
or so), the evolutionary step is to...

...a Republic - the spirit is the same, in that each citizen's will is considered equal, but instead
of having EVERYONE get together at once, the citizens subdivide into smaller groups and select
representatives who they feel share their values and beliefs, and those representatives gather
to make direct policy decisions.  (Check out the link, Plato online...  )

[caddy]

This is quite frankly bollocks. A lot of grassroots political protest movements are built on anarchist principles. I know because I am involved with them. I have seen it work, and work well; everyone feels like they are being listened to and no individual can hijack the campaign. It has the added benefit that the police have a lot more trouble identifying the "organisers" they need to strategically target....

Anarchism does not mean "everyone doing what the fuck they want", it means "everyone participating in decision making in a non-hierarchical manner". Rules can and do exist, but they come from the collective interest rather than somebody's top-down influence. For an example refer to the Peoples' Global Action network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_Global_Action - the PGA hallmarks are a general set of "rules", which were agreed on by people from all over the planet who shared a common interest.

Note I said "common interest". I'm not sure how this works if there is no common interest, which is why I said I don't know how anarchism would work on a global scale.

congrats, you basically described Populism, which is just a watered down form of Socialism.  now, back to the conversation of Anarchy...

...wait.  *ha*  you're a teenager, aren't you?  no, i'm not "Ageist", i just think that considering my first post about this...it's funny.

[CeeGBee]

...wait.  *ha*  you're a teenager, aren't you?  no, i'm not "Ageist", i just think that considering my first post about this...it's funny.

Are you old enough to have heard...?

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you're not a Conservative at 50,
you have no brain...

...and that was the saying before the internet made Libertarians, Anarchists, and Ralph Nader
seem "acceptable"...  Well, Nader's still kinda out-there...  but the point is, we shouldn't hold
their youthful naiivete against naiive younger people.  We should take advantage of it for our
own fun and profit, maybe, but never ridicule.  They'll get cynical like us.

[caddy]

...wait.  *ha*  you're a teenager, aren't you?  no, i'm not "Ageist", i just think that considering my first post about this...it's funny.

Are you old enough to have heard...?

If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart.  If you're not a Conservative at 50,
you have no brain...

...and that was the saying before the internet made Libertarians, Anarchists, and Ralph Nader
seem "acceptable"...  Well, Nader's still kinda out-there...  but the point is, we shouldn't hold
their youthful naiivete against naiive younger people.  We should take advantage of it for our
own fun and profit, maybe, but never ridicule.  They'll get cynical like us.

god forbid they ever become cynical like me.  and i'm stealing that quote.

[dontgoogleme]

...wait.  *ha*  you're a teenager, aren't you?  no, i'm not "Ageist", i just think that considering my first post about this...it's funny.

Well I guess yes, I am a teenager for all of 5 months longer, because that makes all the difference! I didn't really consider myself encompassed by your comment about teens though given that I have been in education of my own free will for the last 3 years...

Anyway, I've defined what I consider a good political system, call it what you will, I agree about not arguing semantics.

Also, I really do think I need to read more about these things, as I said in my very first post...

[dontgoogleme]

One more thing... The response about the difference between a democracy and a republic is a good one. The difference between democracy and consensus decision making is that CDM strives for as near as possible complete agreement on a decision within the group, whereas democracy only requires majority. Whether CDM implies anarchy, populism or whatever is semantics.

[caddy]

like i said, i only think that it's funny how you're arguing Anarchy (while using a rather non-anarchist system), and you're a teen.  i never said you were stupid.  ignorant, maybe, but i don't know you well enough to measure your intellect.  it would be nice if all teenagers could get politically involved as teenagers (without having to resort to desiring Anarchy).

then again, i only know what i know about this crap because at the age of 19 i was all like, "MARXISM!  FUCK YEAH!  COMMUNISM!  SOCIALISM!  RISE, PROLETARIAT, RISE!  WOOOOHOOOO!"

*gags*

[caddy]

One more thing... The response about the difference between a democracy and a republic is a good one. The difference between democracy and consensus decision making is that CDM strives for as near as possible complete agreement on a decision within the group, whereas democracy only requires majority. Whether CDM implies anarchy, populism or whatever is semantics.

CDM would only ever be different from Democracy, if it started with the word Compromise.

[Oskarr Najh]

...wait.  *ha*  you're a teenager, aren't you?  no, i'm not "Ageist", i just think that considering my first post about this...it's funny.

Well I guess yes, I am a teenager for all of 5 months longer, because that makes all the difference! I didn't really consider myself encompassed by your comment about teens though given that I have been in education of my own free will for the last 3 years...

Anyway, I've defined what I consider a good political system, call it what you will, I agree about not arguing semantics.

Also, I really do think I need to read more about these things, as I said in my very first post...

You should read "The Anarchist Morality" from Kropotkin...
And read Georges Darien or Zo D'Axa too. And Guy Debors as well.
And you should visit this :
http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/biblio/index-en.php

Anarchists ideas are made to be shared, not to make business. Pidgins buy the books : the fox read'em.

Your definition of anarchy is quiet just. The sense of the word, it's ethymological roots is the "-a" (privative) and "-archie", which mean "-chief".
So an anarchist is someone who decide to have no chief. To be autonomous and regain it's responsability : 'cause the real freedom is not to choose your master, but to have none. Being responsible, it's facing the consequences of it's acts.
The anarchist "large" method would be to raise logical interactive micro-society, ruled by direct democracy.
It can works only with people that realize the importance of being independant, autonomous and responsible.
For brainless zombies, there are republics and dictatorship...

[dontgoogleme]

And you should visit this :
http://www.theyliewedie.org/ressources/biblio/index-en.php

Oooh, now that is pretty fucking awesome, I hadn't come across it before.

We have a little anarchisty "library" in the action resource centre in my city, from which I have been slowly making my way through "SchNEWS at Ten" (http://www.amazon.com/Schnews-at-Ten/dp/0952974886/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224623313&sr=1-4) recently, but I am both a slow reader and always busy, which is a shame. (Okay, well maybe I don't make the time often enough but still.) There are loads of interesting looking books there.

[caddy]

an·ar·chy        /ˈænərki/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-er-kee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   a state of society without government or law.
2.   political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3.   a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4.   confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.



you are proposing that people govern themselves, because if they are responsible, then that would be the right thing to do.  it is voluntary, y'know?  the problem with that is, the minute you get people governing themselves, you have something that, essentially, is no longer Anarchy.  it becomes something along the lines of Socialism, Communism (if they are still economically based) or Populism, because everybody (who is responsible, and not brainless, mind you!) has to agree.  they all, also, have to be working (to circulate money, and keep your economy going, or else you go back to a trade and barter system, and nobody wants to harvest shit these days).  if you have a direct democracy (where people gather together to make decisions, instead of voting for others to do so), then you get people trying to all agree on the same thing.  when a group of people start agreeing on how to run things, then immediately comes a group of people who don't agree, and eventually they become dissenters.  now you have two parties all over again.

soon, the dissenters are causing havoc, and now you need somebody to protect those who are responsible.  you get policies having to be enforced all over again.

the circle of life.

[Brittany]

One more thing... The response about the difference between a democracy and a republic is a good one. The difference between democracy and consensus decision making is that CDM strives for as near as possible complete agreement on a decision within the group, whereas democracy only requires majority. Whether CDM implies anarchy, populism or whatever is semantics.

I am confused by this "Consensus Decision Making" of yours.  Are you suggesting that this can be part of reality? 

[CeeGBee]

It's funny how you never hear farmers (the only people who could ever begin to live a life
that's "independent, autonomous, and responsible") spouting this kinda crap.  No, it
seems like it's always "students"...  with no useful skills beyond socio-academic masturbation.
Sure, sometimes they're students who've elected to get a job, but always studying ways
to defy human nature and the simple fact that there are far too many people for "simple"
forms of government to work, independent of a larger structure.  It's good to have a dream,
but if you dream of making people's lives better, you have to remember that you are dealing
with people...  flaws and all.

Compromise = possible

Universal Consensus =  I'll tell ya what.  Get ten people, any ten people, and find ten things
that they all agree upon.  Heck, they don't even need to be "important" things.  Then
we can talk about consensus building for millions.