Anarchy - can someone explain the basics to me?

[DotCommunist]

I've managed to go all day so far without fucking another person over, is there something unnatural about me?

You simply are not trying hard enough.

 

[Thora]

I've managed to go all day so far without fucking another person over, is there something unnatural about me?

I've fucked over three people already and it's not even tea time yet

 

[8den]

everyone seeks to fuck everyone over. It's been that way for a tiny fraction of human history so it must be true.

Could you perhaps point out the huge swaths of human history where we all behaved like the fucking brady bunch?

 

[butchersapron]

I used to help run indymedia Ireland and you don't get more left wing than that

Quite right, your word is law.

 

[butchersapron]

Could you perhaps point out the huge swaths of human history where we all behaved like the fucking brady bunch?

You, as ever, miss the point. What do changing behaviours tell you?

 

[8den]

You, as ever, miss the point. What do changing behaviours tell you?

Oh goody goody gum drops, Butchers is here trying to drag up a 2 1/2 year old thread.

Well done that man.

 

[DotCommunist]

Could you perhaps point out the huge swaths of human history where we all behaved like the fucking brady bunch?

swathes.


I could rant about the promotion of the individual, societal atomisation and the rise of anomie as direct response to this. I'm not going to though. Today I am in a warm glow, and nothing shall pierce that.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh goody goody gum drops, Butchers is here trying to drag up a 2 1/2 year old thread.

Well done that man.

Weird that you chasing me around for a few years, including jibes about my cat dying appears as this in your mind.

 

[8den]

Weird that you chasing me around for a few years, including jibes about my cat dying appears as this is your mind.

Butchers bless. You start the fights. Like you're trying to do on this thread. Not me. It's blatantly obvious. We can see it here.

Did you get chucked out of the pub earlier than usual today?

 

[butchersapron]

Ah bless wee innocent big booted 8den. It was the others, always them.

 

[8den]

Ah bless wee innocent big booted 8den. It was the others, always them.

butchers have you gotten at the furniture polish again?

 

[isvicthere?]

I've tried to understand anarachy, and read a few websites which were mostly academic or ranty. I haven't found anything that isn't aimed towards people who are already anarchists and seem to have some shared beliefs.

I did find and read a small book a while back call an introduction to anarchy (or something) but it just had case studies and went on a bit. Not a good intro at all.

I've realised there are many different kinds but it seems to me that there are some common principles and the best summary of these I can find is this
http://mises.org/journals/jls/8_2/8_2_4.pdf

I still dont 'get it'.

I assume that anarchists might want some authority???
I like being able to call the police and ambulance etc. And road rules are nice if we are going to drive. I expect that people will tell me that they just want less state interference.
But how much do you imagine as the right balance? And if you don't want authority fully removed, maybe libertarian is a better word?

So does anarchy and ludditism go together? And it must oppose capitalism, right?
I think that this whole age of technology and capitalism and globalisation has brought some massive benefits. Like the internet and public transport and human rights laws and I could go on and on. If it's all going to be local style self rule then we're not going to 'progress' anymore are we? And we couldn't probably travel to faraway lands? There'd probably be no planes, passports etc. Maybe there wouldn't even be borders?

Does an anarchist not want to send their kids to school? What about home schooling?

And what would you with people who commit serious crimes? There must be some laws?

Are you totally opposed to nuclear families?

I know I'm asking questions about it in it's most extreme form, but I really just want to know what people imagine. What kind of balance would you propose between personal freedom and laws/ instutions for the greater good?

I've asked some anarchists about how they see things staying "in order" and theyve just said "increased personal responsibility". Which is extremely vague to me and also hugely idealistic about how good natured people are. I asked questions but they didn't answer or elaborate.


Is this not ridiculously naive?

Is there an anarchist that could answer my questions, or better still give me an outline of how they see their utopian anarchist society? What would 'society' and how would it deal with the big challenges?

"An anarchist reader" by George Woodcock (if it's still in print) will help to clarify things.

 

[Fictionist]

That said, the minute an anarchist society fails to collect my rubbish on time I will go bolshevik on their arses

 

[FridgeMagnet]

moved and retitled

also, who's going to clean the toilets and what would we do without the police etc etc

 

[Clint Iguana]

Anarchism, socialism communism and other half baked ideologies do not work.

It is rather like the animal rights lunatics, they are opposed to testing drugs on animals, yet I have not read of a single one who has died because they refused medical treatment. I suppose that they justify their hypocrisy on the grounds that they need to survive to further the ' cause '.

Like the animal rights arseholes, I have not heard of a single ' anarchist ' who has refused the largess of the state that they purport to hate; indeed, on these boards there have been incidences of people boasting about how well they leech from those that work to provide the money that they siphon off.

Perhaps you ought to get out a bit more before you start ranting, cos i am aware of quite a few.

' Anarchists ' and other malcontents who cause havoc on the streets periodically, are simply hooligans who justify their disgraceful behaviour in the name of creating a fairer and more just society. Phenomenally fair and just for the individual whose car or business has been trashed by those morons.

I think you will find that is is multi national corporations that get trashed.

 

[Sasaferrato]

a) tax money isn't yours. That's why it's tax.

b) Did the impoverished enemy ever take the humanitarian efforts of the occupier? Do afghani farmers take money not to grow poppies and grow them on the sly anyway? Ker-Ching!

I'm not trying to suggest claiming the rock is a revolutionary act. Just pointing out that taking what you can from something you oppose is not inherently hypocritical, unless you do what the opposition asks of you while showing a different face to the rest of the world.

That said, the minute an anarchist society fails to collect my rubbish on time I will go bolshevik on their arses

 

[Sasaferrato]

Perhaps you ought to get out a bit more before you start ranting, cos i am aware of quite a few.



I think you will find that is is multi national corporations that get trashed.

Perhaps you have; I haven't. A fairly non controversial point one would have thought.

 

[Sasaferrato]

moved and retitled

also, who's going to clean the toilets and what would we do without the police etc etc

Quite. The reason society exists in its current form is that it is the way of life acceptable to the vast majority.

 

[Sasaferrato]

ignore sas he's completely ignorant about politics

I've been taking the piss out of the socialist rabble for four decades or so.

It simply does not work. Life needs structure.

 

[Blagsta]

I've been taking the piss out of the socialist rabble for four decades or so.

It simply does not work. Life needs structure.

Case rests m'lud.

 

[Clint Iguana]

Perhaps you have; I haven't. A fairly non controversial point one would have thought.

But if you are going to rant about it as if it were fact, i would have thought you would have checked first.

 

[soulfulofsoul]

OK, thanks will read (or skim) the small books and website. I am genuinely interested but skeptical as usual

But in the meanwhile could someone here please answer my questions about whether there would be police, whether there would be schools, would there be doctors (wouldn't there be exams for that)?

There's lots of anarchists on here it, and it'd be great to hear some straightforward answers to these questions.

 

[isvicthere?]

I've been taking the piss out of the socialist rabble for four decades or so.

It simply does not work. Life needs structure.

Anarchism posits a world without direct centralised tyrannical government. How this becomes a world without structure in the minds of the unreflective has always amused me.

It's like the Jo Brand joke about her holiday in rural Ireland. In the pub someone asks her where she's from, "And between leaving my mouth and arriving in their ears, the word 'London' became 'I am Oliver Cromwell'."

 

[Thora]

But in the meanwhile could someone here please answer my questions about whether there would be police, whether there would be schools, would there be doctors (wouldn't there be exams for that)?

I don't see why not, though they'd be organised differently. What makes you think anarchism would mean no education, no medicine, no structure, no organisation?

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, thanks will read (or skim) the small books and website. I am genuinely interested but skeptical as usual

But in the meanwhile could someone here please answer my questions about whether there would be police, whether there would be schools, would there be doctors (wouldn't there be exams for that)?

There's lots of anarchists on here it, and it'd be great to hear some straightforward answers to these questions.

Hi, SoS. I've just skimmed the thread so far. There are many other threads on the boards addressing the issues: here's a couple of examples -

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=281943&highlight=anarchism

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=256503&highlight=anarchism

Would there be police? In my view, if there is a police force it would no longer be an anarchist society. The community would police itself. (More detail can be found on the second of the threads above, for example: my post here, and here).

Would there be schools and doctors? Yes. Why would you think not? Education would be run differently (to perpetuate learning, not wealth and privilege), as would health care. But both would still exist.

 

[danny la rouge]

I assume that anarchists might want some authority???
I like being able to call the police and ambulance etc. And road rules are nice if we are going to drive. I expect that people will tell me that they just want less state interference.
But how much do you imagine as the right balance? And if you don't want authority fully removed, maybe libertarian is a better word?

I'm not sure how you're defining "authority", but it's not the same way as me if it includes calling out ambulances. There's no reason at all why an ambulance service can't be run on anarchist principles. Paramedics don't carry out the will of the state and privilege the way police do, for example.

So does anarchy and ludditism go together? No, it doesn't. (If you mean by Luddism, opposition to technology). That would be primitivism.

Does an anarchist not want to send their kids to school? What about home schooling?

Parents and communities will decide on how schools are to be run. It may well include home schooling for some, but there is no necessity for anarchists to oppose schools.

And what would you with people who commit serious crimes? There must be some laws?

See my post above.

Are you totally opposed to nuclear families?

No.

I've asked some anarchists about how they see things staying "in order" and theyve just said "increased personal responsibility". Which is extremely vague to me and also hugely idealistic about how good natured people are. I asked questions but they didn't answer or elaborate.


Is this not ridiculously naive?

See the threads I've linked to. I've addressed this question there, but feel free to come back to me if you still have queries.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, thanks will read (or skim) the small books and website. I am genuinely interested but skeptical as usual

But in the meanwhile could someone here please answer my questions about whether there would be police, whether there would be schools, would there be doctors (wouldn't there be exams for that)?

There's lots of anarchists on here it, and it'd be great to hear some straightforward answers to these questions.

The problem with this question is that it's posited from the position of someone who has only ever known externally realised authority, and who has only ever read/seen/ heard of the history of societies where authority is external (parents, teachers, police, 'bosses').

Anarchism fundamentally alters that relationship, by making every individual responsible for ordering themselves - and ideally provides the social environment where it's possible for individuals to recognise the benefits of authority coming from within.

Indeed, Sass' comment about structure is a perfect example of this - his argument (which is essentially religious in nature) is that people need an external structure to keep them in line, keep them happy. Anarchists would argue that the individual needs to provide their own 'structure' of behaviour, rather than it being imposed from the outside.

Would there be schools? Yes. Would they be the same as today? No. Would there be Doctors - yes. Would there be exams - I have no idea. I suspect that yes there would, however the way medcine was structured would be different.

If you think at it long enough you, maybe, will have the 'Ah-ha' moment, when you at least accept the idea that self-organisation on a large scale is possible (it happened to me when I was thinking about snow gritting)...

 

[Blagsta]

You're arguing quite an individualist anarchist line kyser. Personally I'm a social anarchist, structures and institutions in an anarchist society would be socially and democratically decided. Bottom up rather than top down.

 

[kyser_soze]

That's my line on anarchism tho - the individual being the most bottom part of the bottom up idea. It's still 'social', but it's about individuals recognising that they can best be individuals when they come together with a shared purpose they work out themselves. End result is basically the same tho...

 

[Red Cat]

You're arguing quite an individualist anarchist line kyser. Personally I'm a social anarchist, structures and institutions in an anarchist society would be socially and democratically decided. Bottom up rather than top down.

Is he? I don't see that. Isn't he talking about how self-organisation would encourage changes in the individual that would result in not projecting authority, confidence in ones ability etc. out there into experts or powerful people in a hierarchy?