Are You An Anarchist?

Posted by JacobSloan on November 4, 2011

Regardless of what your answer is, David Graeber’s classic essay “Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You” is food for thought regarding what is possible. Via the Anarchist Library:

Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life:

If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?

If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent – which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society – at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others …” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no’, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles-which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

Posted in: Activism, Alternatives, Anarchy, Counterculture, Ethics, Government, Philosophy, Politics, Society

decentralizedimproviser

Big L, little a
Mamagriff50

Really broad statement……Most people are antarchists. They just choose to conform to what society expects, until conforming really affects them in a bad way. Then they try the proper route, paper chase. When that doesn’t work they become real anarchists. They fight dirty. An eye for an eye, as the saying goes. Anarchy! Anarchists can and do topple governments and greedy corporations. Remember, they’re people too. The U.S. Supreme court says so. If standing up for your rights means anarchy then so be it. We need anarchists!
Tio Holtzman

I enjoyed this. Thanks, disinfo.
Tio Holtzman

I enjoyed this. Thanks, disinfo.
Mr Willow

Why, yes. Yes I am.

Fantastic summary and.or introduction, particularly “Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?” section.

One point I would ever so slightly disagree with, however:

anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Not so much ‘stupid and irresponsible’ as paranoid and selfish. People with power automatically assume their power is threatened by someöne else who wants the the power the have for themselves. Ergo, they imagine vast conspiracies plotted against them, and in general the same could be said for individuals who lust after power, in that they imagine others are after the same power they are after, thus, they are unwilling to trust others because they always presume an ulterior motive—like they always visualize a knife in the hand obscured by the one extended in friendship. In doing so, they always conceal their own blade, for when the time comes for this (presumed and in all likelihood in a majority of cases fabricated) inevitable betrayal.

Of course, these things only apply to those who cannot tolerate sharing power. Either they control the system, or the system will burn. Generally, I think, the system could benefit from a bit more participation in its workings—and by ‘a bit’, I mean a tremendous amount.
Mr Willow

Why, yes. Yes I am.

Fantastic summary and.or introduction, particularly “Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?” section.

One point I would ever so slightly disagree with, however:

anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Not so much ‘stupid and irresponsible’ as paranoid and selfish. People with power automatically assume their power is threatened by someöne else who wants the the power the have for themselves. Ergo, they imagine vast conspiracies plotted against them, and in general the same could be said for individuals who lust after power, in that they imagine others are after the same power they are after, thus, they are unwilling to trust others because they always presume an ulterior motive—like they always visualize a knife in the hand obscured by the one extended in friendship. In doing so, they always conceal their own blade, for when the time comes for this (presumed and in all likelihood in a majority of cases fabricated) inevitable betrayal.

Of course, these things only apply to those who cannot tolerate sharing power. Either they control the system, or the system will burn. Generally, I think, the system could benefit from a bit more participation in its workings—and by ‘a bit’, I mean a tremendous amount.
Mr Willow

Why, yes. Yes I am.

Fantastic summary and.or introduction, particularly “Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?” section.

One point I would ever so slightly disagree with, however:

anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

Not so much ‘stupid and irresponsible’ as paranoid and selfish. People with power automatically assume their power is threatened by someöne else who wants the the power the have for themselves. Ergo, they imagine vast conspiracies plotted against them, and in general the same could be said for individuals who lust after power, in that they imagine others are after the same power they are after, thus, they are unwilling to trust others because they always presume an ulterior motive—like they always visualize a knife in the hand obscured by the one extended in friendship. In doing so, they always conceal their own blade, for when the time comes for this (presumed and in all likelihood in a majority of cases fabricated) inevitable betrayal.

Of course, these things only apply to those who cannot tolerate sharing power. Either they control the system, or the system will burn. Generally, I think, the system could benefit from a bit more participation in its workings—and by ‘a bit’, I mean a tremendous amount.
http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

Anarchy usually gets a bad rap
when all it really is
is a desire to live unmolested
by the warlords who masquerade as government.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

There is another history to anarchism…which unfortunately tarnishes the entire concept. No small number of the classical anarchist cells of the previous couple centuries broke down and spiraled into violence…among the most famous incidents being the one in which a French anarchist bombed his own cell…because they became bogged down in parliamentary procedure…which he considered antithetical to the purpose of anarchism.

I could never be characterized as anarchistic…even though I’d ideally love a world where consensus ruled peacefully…because I possess either an excess of cynicism or a dearth of naivete…depending on how people view it. Human nature does not allow for such a non-system system to thrive on any scale but the tiny. What might work in a single mellow commune of like minded individuals…inevitably fails everywhere else.

As horrifying as ‘the rule of law’ often is…in the sense that it becomes easily corrupted and transforms from a protection of individuals against predation by the unethical…INTO a form of predation BY the unethical…the best system seen yet is that in which checks and balances are placed upon the enforcement and enforcers of law. If our society is faced with a current crisis of confidence in the rule of law…at the root of that crisis is the slow removal of checks and balances that once guarded people from abuse by their so-called protectors…(or as I’ve said so often before…it isn’t the metaphorical car’s fault…its that we’ve let maniacs do the driving.)
http://twitter.com/HooTsH Hesham Mohsen

I agree with most of the principles, and I have some very positive views on anarchism from the philosophical point of view.

But to speak practically, some places in Egypt (where I live), were EXACT applications of what you said here during the 25 Jan revolution….let’s just say it was a bit ugly, it is true that a lot of people were astonished that Egyptians could be so well organized during chaos…some formed checkpoints and others local police groups…etc.
However in some places gunfire was going on non-stop for days.
Also people could not go to work for days, they had to stay in their neighborhood because they knew no “organization” was protecting their families while they were away.

It is also a fact of today’s world that there are guns involved in the equation, and lots of people have guns, to speak for myself, some places in Egypt had kids running around playing football while holding local-made handguns in their hands, during local policing activities after the revolution.

If policing was restricted to voluntary organizations there will be a huge number of problems involved with it, like in the places that I just mentioned (where guns are everywhere) one fight between two families turns really ugly really fast.

An idea of a law is that it benefits the society as a whole by protecting it from any individual’s carelessness or evilness, if it was up to people to stop people from doing bad things we will see many many bad things happen around us where people will just be indifferent because they don’t want to get hurt themselves.

Also armed gangs would be easier than ever to make now. And what comes next? Voluntary armed policing units? How will they conduct investigations, how will they conduct interrogations, what if some people within the armed policing units decide to turn evil? (which DID happen in Egypt) More and more blood everywhere. Until you reach the point where people will be stopped in the middle of the street and frisked just for going to work. It is also worth noting that the voluntary policing units I assumed will not be able to exist everywhere, some of the simplest factories contain millions of dollars worth of machinery and products.

Also in the few places in Egypt that does not have any sort of governmental presence, laws are gradually substituted with common law, and a form of dictatorship of those that are considered “wise”.

I believe policing should be decentralized, as in police stations everywhere should be publicly monitored and managed by the people whom the station covers, that would solve many problems. And the same with all the other organizations.
But the idea of a society without laws have been tried and tested many times before, and people get tired quickly, so they seeks laws one more time, they will not wait it out till solutions are figured out, they will just demand that laws are made and enforced.

So even if the people wanted such an anarchist system, their children will demand the restoration of law enforcement. Even if that system was applied anywhere, its end is inevitably close in time to its beginning, it will not live for more than a couple of decades.

In conclusion, unless public CONTROL of ORGANIZATIONS is considered a branch of anarchism, I say I believe anarchism is both impractical and impossible.
Dane Collins

I was annoyed by this just the other day, when I saw Kieth Olbermann (who it seems would know better) discussing the guys in Oakland who started the bonfires, and he kept asking if they were just a group of anarchist. It seems to me like this entire movement is based on anarchistic principles, whether people know it or not. But his implication was that the protesters are capitalists with minor grievances, while the people who turn violent are anarchists.
Shanxonvox

I’m a little concerned with your views on a “democratically run scoiety” free from centralization. Democracy is antithetical to anarchism. It’s still majority rule, which allows for the oppression of a less populated volutary class. But, all oin all, you hit the nail on the head!
Anonymous

No, actually DEMOCRACY (as in ‘direct’ or ‘consensus’) is inherently anarchist.

The minority protections in the US constitution, as i’ve noted in the past, were primarily to protect the landowning aristocratic class(es) from an overly democratic egalitarian society.

check out this link and the one after for a great overview/analysis of anarchism in politics.

http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

or

http://propertyistheft.wordpress.com/
Anonymous

If not for the fear of the government, people would swallow each other alive. You think they’re bad with rules? Just wait till you get humanity without rules.
Anonymous

If not for the fear of the government, people would swallow each other alive. You think they’re bad with rules? Just wait till you get humanity without rules.
Anonymous

If not for the fear of the government, people would swallow each other alive. You think they’re bad with rules? Just wait till you get humanity without rules.
Anonymous

If not for the fear of the government, people would swallow each other alive. You think they’re bad with rules? Just wait till you get humanity without rules.
Anonymous

Anarchism is not a society without rules…
Anonymous

Well it is without government, which is the main point. People will act nice standing in line because it doesn’t take much to do so, although it’s really just a small social construction. It gets a lot more complicated as the article mentions when you start dealing with all the bigger issues that the government exists to address.
Anonymous

Your main point is moot, if you don’t properly characterise the system you are critiquing. Anarchism has ‘gov’t’ it is a society ruled by democracy and consensus making. including a judicial system (vastly different than now) a set of codified laws, and even a mutualist or participatory economy (or others depending on who you read). It does not have a state or hierarchichal institutions which is the difference between anarchism and what we have now. Many societies in history have been anachronistically ‘anarchist’ and several short instances of modern history have had society organised in an anarchist way.

Anarchism does not claim to be a blueprint to utopia, and any anarchist that claims it is- is lying outrightly. However, it is a way forward to an egalitarian democratic society.
http://twitter.com/janachristy jana christy

Hey Anarchists! the book “A Child’s Guide To Anarchy” is available for free download in honor of the Occupy movement! Enjoy! http://www.flotsamandjetpacks.com/auntieuncle/occupy-us/
http://twitter.com/janachristy jana christy

Hey Anarchists! the book “A Child’s Guide To Anarchy” is available for free download in honor of the Occupy movement! Enjoy! http://www.flotsamandjetpacks.com/auntieuncle/occupy-us/
http://twitter.com/janachristy jana christy

Hey Anarchists! the book “A Child’s Guide To Anarchy” is available for free download in honor of the Occupy movement! Enjoy! http://www.flotsamandjetpacks.com/auntieuncle/occupy-us/
Carla

How can you possibly know what people who have never been allowed to will do when left to act on their own. Most of your citizens do not know what free thinking is. I went to school in the states for quite a few years and it was hard to take all the fairy tale versions I was being fed of world events that they said was history. I,m not saying that my country is perfect but I know that in a squeeze you can rely on a kiwi to muck in and most of us can still figure things out. People have a way of sorting out the bad eggs if they are allowed to
Anonymous

Democracy is antithetical to anarchism? I don’t follow.
Anonymous

exactly…sensing a troll- the sort whom shows up when certain keywords are in a specific story…
Anonymous

Seriously? People have been around for a lot longer than government has, and some societies still do live in such a way. Some ancient governments more or less fit the bill of what this article calls anarchy, but I still wouldn’t want to live amongst them.
Slickie

STFU Jinny, your condescension makes me want to puke.
BAM

Anarchy is a lack of government. Democracy is a form of government.
An anarchist democracy is an impossibility.

This article must have been written by a christian athiest.
BAMmer

You know it’s a sad state of affairs when the grim reaper makes the most sense.

Anarchy, aka lawlessness, would allow those who don’t care about the well being of others (today’s and tomorrow’s criminals) to do anything they wanted without repercussions.

It sounds all nice and good when you try to alter the definition of anarchy to make it smell like a rose, but the reality is the current systems of government (as corrupt as they are) provide value to society.

We can talk about changing our current systems to be truly democratic, but this is not what anarchy is.
BAMmer

Anarchy deserves a bad rap
because by definition it is
a lawless “wild west” where criminals could get away with murder

Not everyone in government is a warlord.
Anonymous

Well at least my writing has largesse enough to provoke a reaction:P
Anonymous

Incorrect. Direct Democracy or Consensus Democracy is at the heart of any anarchist society.

It is not only possible, but historically demonstrable.

click the links i provided above-specifically the FAQ- it uses the academic tradition of anarchism to provide a theoretical outline of an anarchist society.
BAMmer

Incorrect. From Merriam Webster:
Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government Definition of DEMOCRACY1a : government by the peopleName one anarchist “democracy”.
BAMmer

Yeah sorry I overreacted a bit.
Largesse?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
BAMmer

Funny how the anarchists in the Occupy movements seem to be the ones who are on video breaking windows and vandalizing things.

This is what anarchy offers.
Anonymous

Incorrect again. It is not the wild west, it is a voluntary union of distinct peoples who form a society based on direct democracy without hierarchichal institutions such as capitalism or republicanism.
An anarchist society would have: free healthcare, free education, trade unions, organic/local food production among other things.

Anarcho-Capitalism or American Libertarianism- now that IS the wild west. crazed profit seeking zombies slowly urbaning entire continents in search of mineral, timber, air, and water. I imagine enormous slums and a military police. Perhaps Walled techno city states?
BAMmer

Incorrect. From Merriam Webster:
Definition of ANARCHY
1a : absence of government.

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1a : government by the people.

Name one anarchist “democracy”.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Go visit Wikipedia and educate yourself on the topic. If you can take the time to look up the definition of a single word…you can take the time to look up a political movement that has a long history of democratic principles of inclusion and governing by consensus. It isn’t as simple as a one word definition…and a great deal has been written on overcoming exactly the issue you mentioned.

I still don’t think a government based on modern anarchist theory is capable of thriving…so in a way I agree with you…but I formed that opinion after reading their proposals, critiques, essays, ideas and theories…not after reading the definition of the word anarchy in a dictionary. Basically…what I’m saying is…if we’re going to be on the same side of this debate…please don’t make the rest of us look ignorant.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Go visit Wikipedia and educate yourself on the topic. If you can take the time to look up the definition of a single word…you can take the time to look up a political movement that has a long history of democratic principles of inclusion and governing by consensus. It isn’t as simple as a one word definition…and a great deal has been written on overcoming exactly the issue you mentioned.

I still don’t think a government based on modern anarchist theory is capable of thriving…so in a way I agree with you…but I formed that opinion after reading their proposals, critiques, essays, ideas and theories…not after reading the definition of the word anarchy in a dictionary. Basically…what I’m saying is…if we’re going to be on the same side of this debate…please don’t make the rest of us look ignorant.
Anonymous

Incorrigible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

A definition of “Anarchy” is not the same as the defintion of the political-philosophy of “Anarchism.”

Anachronistic anarchisms include: The Pre-Roman Celtic Nations, Haida, Cree, Metis, Onaida, Plains Sioux, Hmong, Minangbakau, San Peoples, Inuit, Kuna People of Panama. Among many others.

Modern Anarchist Societies: Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, Shinmin Autonymous Region, Free Territory of the Ukraine, Any number of voluntary and intentional communities including Quakers and Diggers.

Daoism, Liberation Theology, Christian Pacificism, Islamic Banking, Ancient Christianity, Engaged Buddhism, Kibbutzim among many other practices/ideologies incorporate anarchist tendencies.
Anonymous

Incorrigible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

A definition of “Anarchy” is not the same as the defintion of the political-philosophy of “Anarchism.”

Anachronistic anarchisms include: The Pre-Roman Celtic Nations, Haida, Cree, Metis, Onaida, Plains Sioux, Hmong, Minangbakau, San Peoples, Inuit, Kuna People of Panama. Among many others.

Modern Anarchist Societies: Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, Shinmin Autonymous Region, Free Territory of the Ukraine, Any number of voluntary and intentional communities including Quakers and Diggers.

Daoism, Liberation Theology, Christian Pacificism, Islamic Banking, Ancient Christianity, Engaged Buddhism, Kibbutzim among many other practices/ideologies incorporate anarchist tendencies.
Anonymous

Incorrigible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

A definition of “Anarchy” is not the same as the defintion of the political-philosophy of “Anarchism.”

Anachronistic anarchisms include: The Pre-Roman Celtic Nations, Haida, Cree, Metis, Onaida, Plains Sioux, Hmong, Minangbakau, San Peoples, Inuit, Kuna People of Panama. Among many others.

Modern Anarchist Societies: Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, Shinmin Autonymous Region, Free Territory of the Ukraine, Any number of voluntary and intentional communities including Quakers and Diggers.

Daoism, Liberation Theology, Christian Pacificism, Islamic Banking, Ancient Christianity, Engaged Buddhism, Kibbutzim among many other practices/ideologies incorporate anarchist tendencies.
Anonymous

Incorrigible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

A definition of “Anarchy” is not the same as the defintion of the political-philosophy of “Anarchism.”

Anachronistic anarchisms include: The Pre-Roman Celtic Nations, Haida, Cree, Metis, Onaida, Plains Sioux, Hmong, Minangbakau, San Peoples, Inuit, Kuna People of Panama. Among many others.

Modern Anarchist Societies: Paris Commune, Anarchist Catalonia, Shinmin Autonymous Region, Free Territory of the Ukraine, Any number of voluntary and intentional communities including Quakers and Diggers.

Daoism, Liberation Theology, Christian Pacificism, Islamic Banking, Ancient Christianity, Engaged Buddhism, Kibbutzim among many other practices/ideologies incorporate anarchist tendencies.
Anonymous

“Generosity in bestowing money or gifts upon others.”

The ‘gift’ in this instance, was knowledge-inflected of course with condescension (part of the DEFINTION of ‘largesse’);)
Anonymous

“Generosity in bestowing money or gifts upon others.”

The ‘gift’ in this instance, was knowledge-inflected of course with condescension (part of the DEFINTION of ‘largesse’);)
Anonymous

“Generosity in bestowing money or gifts upon others.”

The ‘gift’ in this instance, was knowledge-inflected of course with condescension (part of the DEFINTION of ‘largesse’);)
Anonymous

“Generosity in bestowing money or gifts upon others.”

The ‘gift’ in this instance, was knowledge-inflected of course with condescension (part of the DEFINTION of ‘largesse’);)
BAMmer

Citing the dictionary in order to correctly define a word (that some want to change the meaning of) is not a demonstration of ignorance.

Citing wikipedia in order to claim anarchy and democracy are complimentary is disingenuous at best. The wikipedia article on anarchy doesn’t even mention the words “democracy” or “democratic”.

I’m not looking for you or anyone else to be on my side. Anarchy is well defined in the dictionary. Go and take your argument to Merriam Webster if you wish to change/distort the definition.
BAMmer

Definition of an ANARCHIST DEMOCRACY
1a: absence of government by the people.
BAMmer

Yes, yes, very impressive. Isn’t it amazing how these great “anarchist” societies have grown to be the most efficient, longest lasting, and largest democracies of all time?

Paris Commune: March 1871-May 1871
Anarchist Catalonia: 1936-1939
Free Territory of the Ukraine: 1918 – 1921

True anarchy is unsustainable.
Anonymous

It’s not ‘anarchy’ it is ‘anarchism.’ an important distinction. Many of the indigenous civs i listed have history in excess of 5 thousand years.

seems to have a longevity to it, no?
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Okay…at least we’re clear.

You really are that ignorant. The definition of a single word is sufficient for you to define a hundreds of years long historical political movement. Okay…run with that. Hope it works out for you.

I’m glad you want no one on your side…its a wish that will probably stay true without much effort.
BAMmer

Accusations of ignorance will not do anything to win others over onto your side, although it does demonstrate a level of maturity that seems consistent with all the masked black hooded anarchists we’ve seen vandalizing property in the streets lately.

It is beyond sane to attempt to argue the definition of a word that is so clearly defined. Please provide a reputable source that backs up your claim that anarchy consists of “democratic principles of inclusion”.

Please enlighten us, oh wise one.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Okay…heres some enlightenment.

No one is debating the word’s dictionary meaning…except you. Everyone else is talking about the actual ‘real world’ meaning of anarchistic political systems…except you. You’re all by yourself…making an argument that because the dictionary defines the use of the lone word one way…that the same definition automatically applies to the entire history of anarchism as a political movement. Do you realize how foolish that really looks? Hanging your whole contribution on the difference between the dictionary approved use of the word and the real world application of it? Seriously? No one is debating the definition of the word…its ironclad. Its also irrelevant to the centuries of evolving political discussion of anarchism as politics. Totally unrelated.

I should apologize though. I’m sorry…I didn’t use the word ignorant as a personal insult…it was meant as a literal fact. There isn’t a better word for such a situation. Even Mirriam Webster would approve of my use of it in this case.

Noun: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning,information, etc.

The sad part is I’m generously assuming you aren’t trolling…mostly because if you were…you’d be failing at even that.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Still…I’ll be extra generous just in case you might actually be interested in reading. You probably aren’t…but if you are…some of this will help you to get onto the same page as the rest of the class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anarchist_Congress_of_Amsterdam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_anarchists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselme_Bellegarrigue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus
Anonymous

“Citing wikipedia in order to claim anarchy and democracy are
complimentary is disingenuous at best. The wikipedia article on anarchy
doesn’t even mention the words “democracy” or “democratic”.

OH really?

“Social anarchism calls for a system with public ownership of means of
production and democratic control of all organizations, without any
government authority or coercion. It is the largest school of thought in anarchism.”
Anonymous

“Social anarchism calls for a system with public ownership of means of
production and DEMOCRATIC control of all organizations.”

Just thought i’d doubly emphasis that citation for you.
Anonymous

Much obliged, Vox!
Anonymous

Much obliged, Vox!
Anonymous

On the right hand sub menu of the anarchism wiki entry, under the heading of “theory practice” lies this entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

wikipedia offers cursory and accessible definitions- if you can’t even be bothered to READ it, then what is the point of trolling- unless simply to spam my posts, a seemingly favoured past time of yours.

I am flattered though, that you consider me a rival, even if intellectually, you are (by far) the inferior opponent;)
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

It’s a fine state of affairs when two people with opposite viewpoints have more in common. What I like about discussing/debating things with you…is that we both know what we’re dealing with…for better or worse, opposed or agreed.

But this train wreck on this page today…makes me despair of the internet. Say for instance…you say “Let’s drive over the curb.”…and I respond “Let’s not drive over the curb.” We enter into the debate aware of the curb, the curb’s location, its consistence, its legal ramifications, its history, and its context in our society…

…and then a third voice chimes in and says “It’s not a real curb because the paint isn’t the right shade of yellow.”

Facepalm…here I come.
Anonymous

lol, i totally agree.

but seriously you and i DO have a lot philosophically in common, while we may have disagreements, I can respect your opinion because you can always describe WHY you feel a certain way. It’s the same with several other posters. I know i am a bit radical, so i always factor that into my level of tolerance for dissenting opinion. I do NOT expect everyone to be as radical as i. Temperance was a theme of catholic school i actually took to heart lol!
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Likewise. I must admit…those Jesuits do a fine job teaching debate and logic. I didn’t enjoy Catholic school the one year I went there (my parents hoped it would improve my temperament if I was in a more polished environment…unfortunately my problem was a short fuse when people tried to intimidate me…and since social bullying is universal…it ended about the same as anywhere else. Someone’s attitude ran into my temper…and their face ran into my fist. Thus ended my stint at St. Josephs.)

I had a few years of forensic debate in school…but most of the serious reading came after I was off to college and had access to a university library. (That and being blessed with friends who include a military historian, an anthropologist, a philosophy professor, a forensic anthropologist…it gives a fellow a nice wide range of interesting topics and kind of forces you to work to keep up with the conversation!)

If your ideas and ideals are perhaps a little more radically left than most…I have to admit that mine are probably tainted by my excessive cynicism about human nature. Just the same, at least we both want a world where justice isn’t measured out according to the size of cash contributions…and where people are actually free to live to their potential…not crushed underfoot while struggling just to survive.
Slick Rick

VoxMagi, no need to be a dick.
Slick Ricky

This article does its best to portray the a beautiful picture of anarchy that is inconsistent with reality.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right” is a simple rule that is easy for children to understand. The real world is more complex.
Should we not take away a rapist’s freedom?
Should we not execute a genocidal maniac?

Lack of government is a recipe for chaos.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Okay…I have to admit that I was harsh…but let’s face it man…if something gentler would have made a dent…it would have already done so by now. The faint of heart should not rage against the Internet Hate Machine. I got compared to a black bloc anarchist and sarcastically referred to as wise for not being clear enough the first time…so I let the good times roll and the hate flowed forth. I have no regrets.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Okay…I have to admit that I was harsh…but let’s face it man…if something gentler would have made a dent…it would have already done so by now. The faint of heart should not rage against the Internet Hate Machine. I got compared to a black bloc anarchist and sarcastically referred to as wise for not being clear enough the first time…so I let the good times roll and the hate flowed forth. I have no regrets.
Slick Ricky

Finally a voice of reason! Anarchists are notorious for their destructive ways. They don’t want to be democratic, they want to abolish all order.
Slick Ricky

Finally a voice of reason! Anarchists are notorious for their destructive ways. They don’t want to be democratic, they want to abolish all order.
Slick Ricky

What curb? There is no curb. You’ve both been drinking, especially if you consider this page a train wreck.

Welcome to democracy, where everyone has a voice. That is the great thing about the internet. Why does this give you cause for despair? Cheer up, it’ll all get better once you realize that you don’t know everything.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

Hey champ..I was nice up above…but if we’re gonna get like this…

…No one suggested an absence of voice. He used his…we used ours…he came to the gunfight carrying a spoon…it ended predictably. Democracy and free speech worked. If you’re unhappy with the outcome…you’re entitled to that opinion, but if you take the light-hearted chatter as seriously as the hard info…you may run into problems.

And no one here thinks they know ‘everything’. Coming into a discussion on anarchism in politics…is only helped by at least knowing a little about anarchism in politics. Kind of like coming to dig a ditch and remembering to bring a shovel. It isn’t a matter of knowing everything…but showing up with an intact clue is helpful.

If it was discussion of particle physics…I wouldn’t be here because I’d have nothing to say on a topic where I’m uninformed…I might read it to inform myself better…but I’d also have the good sense to STFU when I’m intellectually outgunned.

…knowing that much…is half the battle.
Anonymous

I like your new screen name ‘Bam.’
Anonymous

Echo Chamber. I like that you made yourself out to be so reasonable:P
JoeThePlumber

Too funny. You guys… no need to be childish.
JoeThePlumper

Although this is quite comical, I must say. Please continue this lovely debacle.
JoeThePlumper

Although this is quite comical, I must say. Please continue this lovely debacle.
JoeThePlumper

Although this is quite comical, I must say. Please continue this lovely debacle.
JoeThePlumper

Although this is quite comical, I must say. Please continue this lovely debacle.
JoeThePlumper

This is a test, this is only a test, please delete
JoeThePlumper

this is only another test, please delete
Anonymous

Actually that is exactly what ‘Anarchism’ is, and it is has nothing to do with lawlessness. Good ole’ try Bam, but fail. massive fail;)
JoeThePlumper

For real the Final last test please delete
JoeThePlumper

this text is squished off the page. please delete
Anonymous

Rick, Bam and Joe. It’s quite apparent you are multiple personalities of the same person….
Anonymous

‘Anarchism,’ as a political philosophy, does not specifically encourage the use of those tactics, although most anarchists debate and encourage a DIVERSITY of tactics.

That is not to say the ones whom appear on video are not agent provocateurs. Do you understand what that word means?
Anonymous

If you want to debate, pick a personality, and read something so we can debate- it is obvious you are being reactionary and choosing to troll this page.
http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

If you can name one leader of any country
that does not have an army or police force
at his/her command
I will concede the war lord part.

It is possible to have rules, guide lines and even laws
without needing a government to make them work.
Humans have spent more time existing without governance than with it.
Anarchy is not always orderly
but neither is the slavery of government.
Anonymous

This Anarchist is very Dangerous for the Country Security.The Government Must always to action against Anarchist to Protect the Country law and Order.

http://overstockcouponcode1.tumblr.com/post/12319113631/fragrances-everlasting-gifts-for-men-and-women
BAMmer

Unproven accusations don’t do much to help your argument. But I couldn’t help but notice you avoiding answering the real debatable questions.
Nicky

The above read is big pile of poppy cock stupidity. Grow a brain.
mayday

Bammer did You actually read the article??
BAMmer

Of course I read the propaganda you refer to as an article above, it makes anarchy sound like the solution to all life’s woes. “The most basic anarchist principle is … the assumption
that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order
to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other”

If that is the case, then the most basic anarchist principle is flawed. The problem is, some (probably the majority of) human beings do need the threat of consequence because we are animals. We all have the capability and the tendency to act in selfish and destructive ways. In an anarchist society, we’ve eliminated the military, police and the courts. When the selfish inflict harm on others to benefit themselves, are there no repercussions?

What this loveletter to anarchy describes is not true anarchy, at least not by what the majority of the populace considers anarchy. For this reason the movement will gain no traction. I will say that many of the principles it describes I agree with, but to label them anarchist guarantees they will fail to be adopted by the majority.
BAMmer

The non-existence of a country
without an army or police force
should itself demonstrate that the anarchy experiment
is not sustainable
or desired by the majority.

Laws without government are not laws
unless they can be enforced by an authority.
Humans have spent more time struggling for basic necessities of survival
than living in our modern industrial complex.
I doubt most people would choose to go back to the way things were pre-govt.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_76KIB6NCYIJYOSBNC267HHVPLY Tristan M

the wild west barely existed, has very little to do with anarchy (sheriffs existed) and basically..look up the wild west…what people think is not what happened. hell here you go
http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf *very long*
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0717hill0717.html

you could even just read the wiki.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_76KIB6NCYIJYOSBNC267HHVPLY Tristan M

the wild west barely existed, has very little to do with anarchy (sheriffs existed) and basically..look up the wild west…what people think is not what happened. hell here you go
http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf *very long*
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0717hill0717.html

you could even just read the wiki.
Jman

Silly anarchists… you really need to rebrand yourselves.
Anonymous

Such as? it’s you who is afraid of debate. Unable to pick a screen name, and unable to respond with substance to my or anyone else’s posts. If you do not bother to engage with the original source material and continuously refer (incorrectly) to the topic with such a limited sphere of knowledge- the terms of the debate are made impossible. I sure you are well aware of this.
Mr Willow

Somebody tried that already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

Interestingly, that form of anarchism has caught on quite well in the US. Go figure.
Hanzo

Indeed.
Anonymous

Nicky= Ricky. 1 post troll.
Anonymous

I doubt we need silly cogs like you to lend us advice on how to create a discussion of our practices.
BAMmer

Careful, Nicky. Dissent will get you labelled an ignorant schizophrenic reactionary troll by the regulars.

But at least that demonstrates the true nature of said regulars and their inability to engage in a real debate without resorting to childish insults and erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity.
BAMmer

Careful, Nicky. Dissent will get you labelled an ignorant schizophrenic reactionary troll by the regulars.

But at least that demonstrates the true nature of said regulars and their inability to engage in a real debate without resorting to childish insults and erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity.
BAMmer

Careful, Nicky. Dissent will get you labelled an ignorant schizophrenic reactionary troll by the regulars.

But at least that demonstrates the true nature of said regulars and their inability to engage in a real debate without resorting to childish insults and erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity.
BAMmer

Careful, Nicky. Dissent will get you labelled an ignorant schizophrenic reactionary troll by the regulars.

But at least that demonstrates the true nature of said regulars and their inability to engage in a real debate without resorting to childish insults and erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity.
BAMmer

Careful, Nicky. Dissent will get you labelled an ignorant schizophrenic reactionary troll by the regulars.

But at least that demonstrates the true nature of said regulars and their inability to engage in a real debate without resorting to childish insults and erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity.
Anonymous

Debate?

You are incapable of it.
Anonymous

Debate?

You are incapable of it.
BAMmer

Yeah thanks. I added “mer”.
BAMmer

Yeah thanks. I added “mer”.
Anonymous

I also like ‘Ricky’ and ‘Joe’.
http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

BAMmer : The non-existence of a country
without an army or police force
should itself demonstrate that the anarchy experiment

What it clearly demonstrates is
that it takes force to rule people and
that people do not submit to that rule without force.

BAMmer : Laws without government are not laws
unless they can be enforced by an authority.

Nonsense,
the golden rule was in existence long before “legal authorities;”
the war lords have only been in power for the last 5,000 years
humans go back a little further than that.

BAMmer :I doubt most people would choose to go back to the way things were pre-govt.

Just because many people are dull witted and compliant
doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should be compelled
to follow their lead.
This was Thoreau’s main point in “Civil Disobedience.”
Anonymous

I like anarchism. Just like every other political ideology, it has its pros and cons. What i like best about it is the idea of creating ways to live in solidarity and freedom. My one complaint is, that no two anarchists can agree on what anarchism is. Then again, the same could be said for any political party.
Anonymous

I like anarchism. Just like every other political ideology, it has its pros and cons. What i like best about it is the idea of creating ways to live in solidarity and freedom. My one complaint is, that no two anarchists can agree on what anarchism is. Then again, the same could be said for any political party.
http://www.gunnook.com Cbirdsell

anarchy helps the world go round
Anonymous

dissent and discussion are two important features of democracy. i think we forget sometimes.
Mr Willow

I always considered that to be the beauty of it, myself: that we would have a continuous conversation about some aspect or another that was working, or wasn’t working, and how things could be changed on a whim. The spontaneity would keep things from anything becoming too dogmatised.

In keeping with Sartre’s idea of a perpetual revolution.
Mr Willow

From Merriam Webster:

Definition of 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 anarchist principles

Suffixes, in some cases, count for quite a lot.
Mr Willow

The Paris Commune technically was not an anarchist society as they still retained a representative democracy—the same system we currently suffer, though admittedly more vague—in the form of an elected council. Predictably, the longer that council was in place, the more isolated from the remainder of the population, and thus began to protect itself from ‘the revolutionaries’. The reason it failed, however, was that the French Army marched through the area and slaughtered 30,000 people, forcibly reïnstating government. (http://libcom.org/history/1871-the-paris-commune)

Anarchist Catalonia suffered from propaganda from Communists and liberal Republicans, who accused them of not fighting hard enough, during the Civil War that was occurring at the time, against the Nationalists. Their slander including labeling anarchists (and, interestingly, Marxists) as fascists, in the tradition of war-mongers being single-minded and prone to using scare tactics, the same way Republicans in the US keep calling Obama a socialist/communist/fascist. Again, the people ate up the lies and mischaracterisations and governmental rule was begrudgingly restored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia)

Finally, the Free Territory of the Ukraine was defeated by the Bolshevik propaganda machine (and the Red Army), which claimed it to be a warlord regime, that those elected within the territory were secretly appointed by Nestor Makhno, who was largely responsible for the Free Territory’s establishment, and that Makhnovist militias were responsible for various terrorist attacks on Soviet convoys and cities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory)

In all cases, the ‘anarchist societies’ did not dissolve naturally, nor were they proved to be impractical. Rather, they were the victims of the propaganda and massacres perpetrated by (surprise, surprise) outside groups vying for power and influence, the exact antithesis of anarchist theory. Go figure.
Ian Galope

Oh man are you one of those anarchists that hates anarcho-capitalists?
Ian Galope

So dictionarys can always provide objective meanings is what you’re implying…
Mr Willow

There’s quite a lot of those, actually.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/docs/aboutus.html (scroll down to the paragraph headed by broad does not mean infinite)

Besides, in America at least, they just call themselves Libertarians.
Anonymous

Of course, there is no other kind of anarchist.

Anarcho-capitalism is a perversion of the individualist strain of european anarchism mixed with american homesteader-ism. It is not a ‘real’ ideology- it is rather some kind of strange mental illness cum minor political philosophy.
Anonymous

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

democratic control of any ‘institution’ is a key princple of social anarchism.
Anonymous

To add on to Mr. Willow’s very informative below post,

The Shinmin Autonomous Region, fell due to the very similiar problems Mr Willow outlined for the Ukraine Free Territory. They had to simultaneously engage both Japanese Imperialist saboteurs from within and the Stalinist invasion from Russia. It did not “fail” organically.

http://anticafta.tripod.com/id344.html

I should also included the Zapatista Movement in Mexico under the subheading of modern anarchisms. althought technically they are council communist, they adhere to the same de centralised democratic principles of anarchism.
Anonymous

Great post. You may have already read this link, but if you haven’t it’s excellent!

http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragments_%20Anarchist_Anthropology.pdf

Very much in line with what you wrote (exploring external problems of anarchist democracies) as well as including several large segments on ‘indigenous’ anarchism.
chaote

BAMmer you’re simply being stubborn. Power corrupts. You know the rest. Even if “anarchy” isn’t the exact “solution”, the current system of every government at the moment isn’t quite doing it for me either. A democracy as described in Chris Hyatt’s “Undoing Yourself” would be a nice spin on things, but with technology these days it could all still be easily rigged. Anyway though I disagree with what you say I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.

(also this whole argument reminds me of something:
“Honey, come to bed…”
“I can’t; This is important.”
“What?”
“Somebody is WRONG on the internet!”
Just respect each other’s opinions and get on with your lives!)
Anonymous

No I am not Anarchist but People are More struggle to fight against their own right.what is the main reason for expand a anarchist in the country?when People are not satisfy their own government then People are raise the step to Protest against government.
http://acailipo.org/cheapoair-coupon-codes-cheapoair-promo-codes.html
http://twitter.com/HooTsH Hesham Mohsen

I see.

Thanks for the informative read.
JoeThePlumper

BlackMask anarchists = police agent provocateurs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-h-YIj4jRw
Rob

Definition of Anarchist:2.a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.What you’re describing in this post isn’t an anarchist. It’s a person. And your examples don’t make sense. The first example is common morals; the second is a democratic decision. Neither of these examples illustrate your point at all.Saying that anarchists aren’t violent is the same as saying atheists don’t believe that there is no good. You can call yourself by that title all you want, but that doesn’t mean it applies to you. In this case, you can call yourself an anarchist all you want, but that doesn’t mean the definition of anarchist suddenly changes to apply to you. You are not an anarchist. You are something else similar to an anarchist, only without the violence, that has no name as of yet.
sxfxhxcx

Anarchist idiots are a police force’s dream. Causing crime doesn’t
deter the police, if there isn’t enough crime the police break the law
themselves! Crime keeps the cops in business, if everything’s peaceful the
police become obsolete. No wonder the cops love these guys, they dress up like
them and cause as much chaos as they do, they support the media/public’s opinion
that all protesters are like this, so the average person is actually glad to
hear when protesters’ rights are abused.
Anonymous

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

i don’t what article you read, but completely and patently false- pretty much all of what you said.

check out the link above for some clarity.

Anarchism is a long running and anachronistic political philosophy. Democracy is inherent within said philosophy.

I’d also recommend some paragraph breaks…
Anonymous

WTF are you on about?
Anonymous

Oh Bam.
sxfxhxcx

Indeed. Supposedly the cops have admitted to this as well.
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/9047-police-provocateurs-at-toronto-g20-revealed.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeuV2RNL3o&feature=related
Jin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeuV2RNL3o&feature=related
Jin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeuV2RNL3o&feature=related
Anonymous

Well said.
Anonymous

Right- so the police are corrupt. this is not new news. how does this have anything to do with anarchists?

not all anarchists are black bloc, and IF the police engage in being agent provocateurs- that is even more explicit evidence of police /state corruption- not of a de-legitimisation of anarchism as a political philosophy.
Anonymous

Anarchy is the major Problem in the Every country.How to avoid the anarchy by the government?
http://goarticles.com/article/What-Sorts-of-Options-Available-for-Cheap-Flights-to-Orlando/5631507/
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773433966 Rus Archer

i like anarchy to much to buy into anarchismor any -ism for that matter
well, except maybe the one that starts with a j
Anonymous

I thought about this article when in line at the Post Office and feeling the impatient vibes, hearing a couple of moans and seeing a face or two glare. I thought about this piece and the rhetorical questions it asks
while in traffic and at work.
I confess I do not believe in people enough to be a true anarchist. I hope I am wrong our species.
Slick Ricky

Well as it’s been stated already there is a difference between Anarchy and Anarchism.

But the word “objective” can have multiple meanings. I assume you mean “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts” (full disclosure: that came from a dictionary). Are you really asking if dictionaries provide fact based meanings of words?
Slick Ricky

1. Who compared you to a black bloc anarchist?
2. What’s so bad about black bloc anarchists?
Slick Ricky

Aw thanks, I like you too.
Not in a gay way.
Slick Ricky

Reactionary? How so? It is obvious you are attempting to change the subject and hurling insults without reason. How do you say… ” the terms of the debate are made impossible. I sure you are well aware of this. “
Slick Ricky

Echo chamber. Jin = chaote. Jin the Ninja you fail. It is you who cannot let it go, you always have to have the last word! Oh now it makes sense, Jin the Ninja has no wife.
Anonymous

You completely mischaracterise the article. If you want to discuss ‘anarchism’ as a political philosophy i’m open to discuss. YOU change the subject, divert, and disseminate misinformation. Using multiple screen names doesn’t help your case.
Anonymous

lol.
Anonymous

Actually I ALWAYS use my own screen name “Jin”- i thought me told you i was too prolific on this site! lol.

And i am married, but not to a “wife” but thanks for your concern.

And who is trolling this article? AGAIN 1409 comments to your 10 and most made on this article. Whom is the troll? You Bam, you are the troll.
http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

lawl…technically…I’m not sure I’m capable of any other kind of ‘liking.’ Which kinda raises the question…since I’m gay…if I like someone…not matter how much or how little…isn’t it always in a ‘gay way’ by default?
Anonymous

that’s what i thought…lol
Missa

Actually, earlier forms of subsistence offer people the most amount of leisure time and the best diet with the least amount of work. It’s not until we get to horticulture and agriculture that things begin to change and that forms of government come into play.

Foraging cultures who are forced into a more structured form of society fare much worse than they did before.

I’m not saying that there can be no merit to government, but this “struggling to survive” view is not all that accurate. We have never seen a large population without a governing body. We wouldn’t know what it would be like.
Anonymous

Actually ‘horticulture’ as the practice of the growing of diverse wild crops was practiced by nearly all north american aboriginal and many asian and south east asian cultures well beyond 5000 years ago. And in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest MANY cultures who did become settled and agricultural in nature remained highly egalitarian. I am not an anarcho-primitivist in the least, but i do agree with several of your points other than those i mention.

http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragments_%20Anarchist_Anthropology.pdf
Anonymous

Actually ‘horticulture’ as the practice of the growing of diverse wild crops was practiced by nearly all north american aboriginal and many asian and south east asian cultures well beyond 5000 years ago. And in fact there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest MANY cultures who did become settled and agricultural in nature remained highly egalitarian. I am not an anarcho-primitivist in the least, but i do agree with several of your points other than those i mention.

http://www.eleuthera.it/files/materiali/David_Graeber_Fragments_%20Anarchist_Anthropology.pdf
hmmmm…

that was somewhat uncalled for…
Jin Onikoroshi

Not really. It’s true. and you should know 1 post wonder.
Jlkirschner

No, I am not. This article is more optimistic than I am regarding how self-policing humans can be. How shall we go about the utopian wealth-redistribution mentioned in the article if we abolish all forms of authority through which to enact those reforms? Surely not the free market. Likewise, if we got rid of police, lawyers, etc., how would we ensure the protection of anyone? The article describes politicians as “selfish, egotistical swine”, yet proposes that no one would dare elbow their way to the front of a bus line (let alone more serious societal offences that would go unchecked in an anarchistic society).
To conclude, I would like to address one more quote from the article:
“In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. ”
This seems quite contrary to both history and our present global reality. What would the author say about Somalia? While it is true that an authoritarian government can also have negative consequences, democracy and its variants provide alternatives that balance control and safety with freedom.
Jlkirschner

No, I am not. This article is more optimistic than I am regarding how self-policing humans can be. How shall we go about the utopian wealth-redistribution mentioned in the article if we abolish all forms of authority through which to enact those reforms? Surely not the free market. Likewise, if we got rid of police, lawyers, etc., how would we ensure the protection of anyone? The article describes politicians as “selfish, egotistical swine”, yet proposes that no one would dare elbow their way to the front of a bus line (let alone more serious societal offences that would go unchecked in an anarchistic society).
To conclude, I would like to address one more quote from the article:
“In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. ”
This seems quite contrary to both history and our present global reality. What would the author say about Somalia? While it is true that an authoritarian government can also have negative consequences, democracy and its variants provide alternatives that balance control and safety with freedom.
Jin Onikoroshi

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

the free market has nothing (underline) to do with it, and democracy EVERYTHING to do with it.
Bruce Wayne

An anarchic society sounds a bit like pure Communism… particularly the parts where everyone gets along and free health care aspects.
Josh

This is all great. Until someone violates the non-agression principle. Until someone decides to game the system, because there’s no institutional structure in place to prevent them from doing so. Yes, living under a state of coercion, mercantalist oligarchs, warlords, inequality, and corrupt officials sucks. But on the other hand, living in a stateless state of anarchy would invite rotten individuals to institute new forms of tyranny, anyway. Not everyone wants to play by the rules. And I don’t buy the argument that the reason this is the case is because of the fact that there are rules.

The reason people break rules is because some people are just going to be rotten human beings, no matter what.
Bambambam

God thats a depressing view. In reply it seems that many of the selfish do get away with being selfish to benefit themselves in this western-capitalism system, (also many fair people are locked up). Have you considered that there is reason to why you associate negative connotations to “Anarchy”? Not the fact that every single system is against it (due to a loss of power) and have raised their populace to believe that its a bad thing, where bad things happen and anything good you ever had would be lost. (you clearly don’t think to highly of the populace anyway, such social control shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand).
BLAMEHEURISTIC

So everyone is going to create public goods out of the goodness of their hearts are they? I really see that happening.
Anonymous

I think that Anarchy is the major cause for expand the Violence in the country.
http://www.etrebon.com/forum/member.php?446589-Lanserti
Ibileconfirm

Am rita 27years old , i meet a professor infect is a great and is power work for me, if you need any type of spell caster contact him with is private email address on professorpelleribi@gmail.com for more conversation and for him to tell you what to do to overcome your problem..

Good lock.
Yodamac892

I’m just waiting for Muad’Dib and his son the Tyrant Man-that-is-Worm God-Emperor to put in place a 3000 year omnipotent Empire.
Fred

The problem with anarchism, and psuedo anarchism like Libertarianism, is that it provides no defence against systemic problems or an aggressor with superior organisation. Both problems require an anarchistic society to organise, and stay organised, in a manner that might as well be called a government, as a successful defence requires the use of greater-than-personal force (wether military, judicial or social).

Anarchism assumes that, to paraphrase mencken, the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Do you really think that anybody truly knows what IS ‘good’ for them? Or just what they Want? It further assumes people know what is good for each other, AND care enough to provide that good to them at an equitable rate. Alot of people THINK they know what is good for others, but they are often wrong; is this not extremely caustic to an anarchistic society? It is bad enough in representative democracies where only a tiny percentage of those who think they know get any real power, AND they can be voted out. How would it work in an anarchistic society?

This is not a death knell to anarchism, that mencken quote applies to democracy (and representative democracy) as well. Indeed many nominally anarchistic societies have and do exist, but it is telling that they tend to be small and that they are often attacked or destroyed by those societies around them that are larger and more organised (wether thay be statist, corporate or themselves anarchistic) such as christiania which survives only because to some degree it is tolerated by the danish government, and yet it is plagued by social problems; by people moving in who dont care one bit for the survival and unity of christiania, they just want access to what it provides (drugs and a hippy-ish lifestyle).

Christiania has 350 residents, what happens when you have 1 million residents? Or when your residents are split across, say, 700 square miles? Technology helps with these problems, but central organisation helps more.
Fred

The problem with anarchism, and psuedo anarchism like Libertarianism, is that it provides no defence against systemic problems or an aggressor with superior organisation. Both problems require an anarchistic society to organise, and stay organised, in a manner that might as well be called a government, as a successful defence requires the use of greater-than-personal force (wether military, judicial or social).

Anarchism assumes that, to paraphrase mencken, the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Do you really think that anybody truly knows what IS ‘good’ for them? Or just what they Want? It further assumes people know what is good for each other, AND care enough to provide that good to them at an equitable rate. Alot of people THINK they know what is good for others, but they are often wrong; is this not extremely caustic to an anarchistic society? It is bad enough in representative democracies where only a tiny percentage of those who think they know get any real power, AND they can be voted out. How would it work in an anarchistic society?

This is not a death knell to anarchism, that mencken quote applies to democracy (and representative democracy) as well. Indeed many nominally anarchistic societies have and do exist, but it is telling that they tend to be small and that they are often attacked or destroyed by those societies around them that are larger and more organised (wether thay be statist, corporate or themselves anarchistic) such as christiania which survives only because to some degree it is tolerated by the danish government, and yet it is plagued by social problems; by people moving in who dont care one bit for the survival and unity of christiania, they just want access to what it provides (drugs and a hippy-ish lifestyle).

Christiania has 350 residents, what happens when you have 1 million residents? Or when your residents are split across, say, 700 square miles? Technology helps with these problems, but central organisation helps more.
Fred

The problem with anarchism, and psuedo anarchism like Libertarianism, is that it provides no defence against systemic problems or an aggressor with superior organisation. Both problems require an anarchistic society to organise, and stay organised, in a manner that might as well be called a government, as a successful defence requires the use of greater-than-personal force (wether military, judicial or social).

Anarchism assumes that, to paraphrase mencken, the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. Do you really think that anybody truly knows what IS ‘good’ for them? Or just what they Want? It further assumes people know what is good for each other, AND care enough to provide that good to them at an equitable rate. Alot of people THINK they know what is good for others, but they are often wrong; is this not extremely caustic to an anarchistic society? It is bad enough in representative democracies where only a tiny percentage of those who think they know get any real power, AND they can be voted out. How would it work in an anarchistic society?

This is not a death knell to anarchism, that mencken quote applies to democracy (and representative democracy) as well. Indeed many nominally anarchistic societies have and do exist, but it is telling that they tend to be small and that they are often attacked or destroyed by those societies around them that are larger and more organised (wether thay be statist, corporate or themselves anarchistic) such as christiania which survives only because to some degree it is tolerated by the danish government, and yet it is plagued by social problems; by people moving in who dont care one bit for the survival and unity of christiania, they just want access to what it provides (drugs and a hippy-ish lifestyle).

Christiania has 350 residents, what happens when you have 1 million residents? Or when your residents are split across, say, 700 square miles? Technology helps with these problems, but central organisation helps more.

Are You An Anarchist?

more disinformation

more disinformation