Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anarchism and the individual

the button said:
OK then. Have a serious post. :rolleyes:

Anarchism is pretty much a balancing act between two tendencies of nineteenth century political thought. This is well-expressed by Rudolph Rocker, who writes: -

Anarchism has in common with Liberalism the idea that the happiness and prosperity of the individual must be the standard of all social matters. And, in common with the great representatives of Liberal thought, it has also the idea of limiting the functions of government to a minimum. Its supporters have followed this thought to its ultimate logical consequences, and wish to eliminate every institution of political power from the life of society. When Jefferson clothes the basic concept of Liberalism in the words: "that government is best which governs least," then Anarchists say with Thoreau: "That government is best which governs not at all."

In common with the founders of socialism, Anarchists demand the abolition of all economic monopolies and the common ownership of the soil and all other means of production, the use of which must be available for all without distinction; for personal and social freedom is conceivable only on the basis of equal economic advantages for everybody. Within the socialist movement itself the Anarchists represent the viewpoint that the war against capitalism must be at the same time a war against all institutions of political power, for in history economic exploitation has always gone hand in hand with political and social oppression. The exploitation of man by man and the dominion of man over man are inseparable, and each is the condition of the other.
Click to expand...


http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/rocker/sp001495/rocker_as1.html
Click to expand...

This is as good a place as any to restart the conversation.
 
max_freakout said:
that is exactly my point, the 'majority of anarchists' don't even seem to understand what 'anarchy' actually means
Click to expand...

I'd love to live in a world where everyone else was wrong but never me.

I'm seriously considering putting you on ignore now, I'm spending too much time being distracted by your nonsense.
 
max_freakout said:
they wouldnt be very good anarchists if they didnt!!!
Click to expand...
You're making the awfully big assumption that the "cause" of anarchism results in the "effect" of anarchy, or even seeks it.
Please provide some substantive basis for your assumption.
"i am an anarchist but i vote Labour because i want politicians to control the country"

:confused:

in what *sense* is such a person an anarchist?
Click to expand...
That would depend on the intention of the individual in carrying out such an action. A fine point maybe, but one that appears to have evaded you.
 
max_freakout said:
anarchy is, very simply, a state with no government, no rules, and no coercion



but try telling that to an 'anarchist' and then asking them how they would deal with paedophiles
Click to expand...

Yet again you miss the point that anarchists may not be in pursuit of a "state of anarchy", but rather in pursuit of the best functioning compromise between absolutes.

It's not a difficult point to grasp, max. The Rocker quote earlier makes the point simply but emphatically.
 
cesare said:
You've come up with your own definition of 'anarchy', refuse to understand what 'anarchism' means - and then wonder why the majority of anarchists will just look at you in a bemused manner.
Click to expand...

He can't understand what "anarchism" means and/or is, because he's tied his thinking to a dictionary definition of "anarchy" that he's conflating with/mistaking for the precepts of an anarchism (even though such an anarchism would share very little with the anarchism that is the over-arching ideological and/or philosophical principles to which most "self-defined" anarchists subscribe to some or other degree).
 
ViolentPanda said:
Yet again you miss the point that anarchists may not be in pursuit of a "state of anarchy", but rather in pursuit of the best functioning compromise between absolutes.
Click to expand...


right, ^ this is exactly what i mean when i say most 'anarchists' are totally clueless, they don't even know what they want, they certainly don't want anarchy, they never change anything, all they are good for is giving the police truncheon-practise
 
max_freakout said:
right, ^ this is exactly what i mean when i say most 'anarchists' are totally clueless, they don't even know what they want, they certainly don't want anarchy, they never change anything, all they are good for is giving the police truncheon-practise
Click to expand...


Did you even read the Rocker quote :confused:
 
ViolentPanda said:
You're making the awfully big assumption that the "cause" of anarchism results in the "effect" of anarchy, or even seeks it..
Click to expand...



anarchism never results in anything, least of all a state of anarchy

i think most anarchists dont even know what they are seeking, and they certainly never have any actual effect in the real world
 
max_freakout said:
anarchism never results in anything, least of all a state of anarchy

i think most anarchists dont even know what they are seeking, and they certainly never have any actual effect in the real world
Click to expand...

You are ignorant and form opinions based in ignorance that you present as fact.
 
ViolentPanda said:
He can't understand what "anarchism" means and/or is, because he's tied his thinking to a dictionary definition of "anarchy" that he's conflating with/mistaking for the precepts of an anarchism (even though such an anarchism would share very little with the anarchism that is the over-arching ideological and/or philosophical principles to which most "self-defined" anarchists subscribe to some or other degree).
Click to expand...


in other words, you are saying anarchists don't want anarchy, which perfectly sums up my opinions about anarchists, a bunch of clueless ineffective wastes of time
 
max_freakout said:
right, ^ this is exactly what i mean when i say most 'anarchists' are totally clueless, they don't even know what they want, they certainly don't want anarchy, they never change anything, all they are good for is giving the police truncheon-practise
Click to expand...

Whoosh.
That's the sound of the point going over your head, as usual.

You appear to labour under (as I've said to you before on the same subject) the delusion that "anarchism" is a homogeneous set of principles, and that "anarchists" are partisan ideologues committed to the execution of that fixed set of principles (in your fantasy this is the achievement of a state of anarchy, with the added auto-erotic thrill of fantasising about the police beating people).

Until you've shed that particular delusion, you really can't grasp the subject you're (very badly) attempting to discourse upon.
 
max_freakout said:
anarchism never results in anything, least of all a state of anarchy.
Click to expand...
Your most ignorant contention yet, and one not borne out by any reading (however conservative) of political history
i think most anarchists dont even know what they are seeking, and they certainly never have any actual effect in the real world
Click to expand...
More clear messages that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Well done.
 
ViolentPanda said:
More aptly, if he did, did he understand it?
Click to expand...

An anarchist thoughtfully provides a neat illustration of anarchist thought - and max prefers to take the anarchist's pisstake as gospel because the pisstake reinforces his own ignorant prejudice.

Oh, hang on. That's how prejudice works isn't it?

No, I don't think he'd understand it even if he read it.
 
cesare said:
An anarchist thoughtfully provides a neat illustration of anarchist thought - and max prefers to take the anarchist's pisstake as gospel because the pisstake reinforces his own ignorant prejudice.
Click to expand...
As I'm fairly sure "the anarchist" knew max would when he posted said pisstake. :)
Oh, hang on. That's how prejudice works isn't it?
Click to expand...
Yes-indeedy! :D
No, I don't think he'd understand it even if he read it.
Click to expand...
I don't think he'd wish to understand it either, wilful ignorance being another characteristic of those who prefer to rely on their own prejudices over fact.
 
butchersapron said:
It's amazing how your philosophical scepticism stops dead at the doors of the dictionary publishers isn't it?
Click to expand...

i am speaking english, the english dictionary says what english word mean

if you are defining words differently from how the english dictionary defines them, then you are not speaking english, and there is no point having a philosophical discussion if you just make up your own language


what the word 'anarchist' means in the english language, is what the english dictionary says it means
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yugoslav
Anarchism - Petty Utopianism
2 3 4 5
Replies
144
Views
4K
hitmouse
hitmouse
PTK
The Concept of “Forgiveness” Employed by Nominal Christians in Contemporary European and North American Culture
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Flavour
Flavour
YouSir
Anarchism for Dummies
Replies
20
Views
1K
Gramsci
Gramsci
dshl
Gödel's Theorem and Roger Penrose
Replies
21
Views
303
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
Kate Sharpley
Decades in the Struggle: Interviewing older anarchists
Replies
7
Views
398
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Back
Top Bottom