Educate me about Anarchism.

[Shevek]

I thought Butchersapron was an anarchist?

 

[bluestreak]

Cheers for the uploads butchers, good stuff.

 

[danny la rouge]

I thought Butchersapron was an anarchist?

He is.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Whilts i'm at it here's a copy of Peter Marshall's Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism as well.

Same rules apply.

Started reading that. Very interesting.

Just a couple of questions that have sprung to mind.

Do you think it right for Anarchists to accept welfare state benefits ?

And does being an Anarchist mean that you place notions such as personal responsibility for ones actions higher than say social liberals who place a lot of emphasis on things such as enviroment or education ?

 

[Fruitloop]

Anarchism isn't really a system of ethics in my opinion, it's a political philosophy and a political programme. The ethical questions are pretty much the same for an anarchist as for anyone else; can you actually find work or are you are you a victim of the way that a degree of unemployment is built into capitalism (the 'reserve army of labour'). Also, what are you doing while not working? If people are organising and helping out others then great; sitting in your pants watching the telly less so. In capitalism I definitely support the existence of benefits per se, because they are socially beneficial and keep a lot of vulnerable people from harm.

People are products of history and environment in profound ways - more so than is generally accepted I think. But we have this gift of communication and symbolisation which allows us a potential degree of freedom that we should undoubtedly cultivate. 'Responsibility' I would say is
a political idea and it depends what you mean by it exactly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I thought Butchersapron was an anarchist?

You still appear to be hung up on the idea that anarchism is some kind of monolithic, homogeneous philosophy. It isn't. There are as many (or, more probably, more!) different permutations as there are anarchists.

 

[danny la rouge]

Do you think it right for Anarchists to accept welfare state benefits ?

I'm genuinely puzzled by this sort of question. It comes up from time to time. But I'm at a loss to know why. What is it about your conception of anarchists that makes you think that it is less right for them to take benefits than other varieties of socialist, or anyone else for that matter? In fact, surely the only people who might be hypocritical to accept benefits are laissez faire capitalists and varieties of Tory?

 

[Stoat Boy]

I'm genuinely puzzled by this sort of question. It comes up from time to time. But I'm at a loss to know why. What is it about your conception of anarchists that makes you think that it is less right for them to take benefits than other varieties of socialist, or anyone else for that matter? In fact, surely the only people who might be hypocritical to accept benefits are laissez faire capitalists and varieties of Tory?

I think my reasoning probably lays in the last part of your response. My own political views tend towards the libertarian Conservative and as you quite rightly say I think that people of that persuasion should look to the 'state' for as little as possible along with trying to give it as little as possible in the way of taxes. I am not saying that people should not contribute towards the 'greater good' but that the system of statehood is plainly the wrong way of doing so.

But if you are against the existance of the state, and are campaigning against it, then surely it follows that you must be looking to support yourself and your family by independant means as a matter of principle ?

I would have thought that any self-respecting Anarchist would have baulked at the idea of the state giving them anything or being reliant in any way,shape or form on it ?

 

[danny la rouge]

I would have thought that any self-respecting Anarchist would have baulked at the idea of the state giving them anything or being reliant in any way,shape or form on it ?

There is a difference: laissez faire capitalists support capitalism. Anarchists don't. But since we all live within a capitalist society, if we want to eat, we pretty much have to take part. Getting a job means you become a cog in the wheel of capital. The social revolution hasn't happened, so we just have to.

But what we can and do, and have done, is to work to improve the lot of working people. That's how the welfare state came about in the first place: it wasn't a gift, it was hard-won. It was a compromise between capital and labour. One of a series of compromises capital has been forced to concede. Why, then, would we forgo benefits hard-won? Only a fool would do so.

Lest you still misunderstand, the social revolution will not be Walden in the woods. Not even Walden was - wider society was always beyond the trees.

 

[Stoat Boy]

But what we can and do, and have done, is to work to improve the lot of working people. That's how the welfare state came about in the first place: it wasn't a gift, it was hard-won. It was a compromise between capital and labour. One of a series of compromises capital has been forced to concede. Why, then, would we forgo benefits hard-won? Only a fool would do so.

Lest you still misunderstand, the social revolution will not be Walden in the woods. Not even Walden was - wider society was always beyond the trees.

But surely the welfare 'state' has been one of the institutions that makes the notion of the state even stronger ? Now I am willing to be put right on this but I would assume, and it is an assumption, that those who can be credited with creating the welfare state believed in the idea of strong central government. They wanted to reinforce the idea of the state, place it at the centre of how people were cared for and so on. Surely they would be the very antithesis of how Anarchists should feel ?

But this Walden stuff has totally lost me. However I am all ears. Thankfully my midlife crisis seems to be more about a sudden desire to learn new things rather than sports cars and young scantily dressed bints with credit card statements instead of hearts.

 

[danny la rouge]

But surely the welfare 'state' has been one of the institutions that makes the notion of the state even stronger ? Now I am willing to be put right on this but I would assume, and it is an assumption, that those who can be credited with creating the welfare state believed in the idea of strong central government. They wanted to reinforce the idea of the state, place it at the centre of how people were cared for and so on. Surely they would be the very antithesis of how Anarchists should feel ?

Anarchists oppose states, but only stupid people turn away health care.

But this Walden stuff has totally lost me.

"Walden; or, Life in the Woods", by Henry David Thoreau.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WALDEN/toc.html

 

[bluestreak]

There are anarchists who say that almost everyone is capable of some sort of work, in some way or other, and that, except in extreme cases of ill health everyone should be able to contribute in some way, even if it isn;t e.g. a full time job.

 

[danny la rouge]

There are anarchists who say that almost everyone is capable of some sort of work, in some way or other, and that, except in extreme cases of ill health everyone should be able to contribute in some way, even if it isn;t e.g. a full time job.

Under capitalism?

This is where stoat is coming unstuck: the conditions of capitalism versus the social revolution.

 

[bluestreak]

No, in a post-capitalist society. I haven't yet heard the arguement that capitalism allows everyone to work.

 

[danny la rouge]

No, in a post-capitalist society.

Exactly.

 

[Stoat Boy]

Anarchists oppose states, but only stupid people turn away health care.

I am not saying that Anarchists should not use hospitals, just trying to get my head around how they would maintain a health care system without having a 'state' to administer it and collect the money for it. To me something like that NHS has come about because of a political will that strongly believed in the idea of strong state control.

Now I am broadly in favour of the NHS but am just interested in how Anarchists would propose to run such a thing (if at all).

 

[danny la rouge]

I am not saying that Anarchists should not use hospitals, just trying to get my head around how they would maintain a health care system without having a 'state' to administer it and collect the money for it. To me something like that NHS has come about because of a political will that strongly believed in the idea of strong state control.

Now I am broadly in favour of the NHS but am just interested in how Anarchists would propose to run such a thing (if at all).

That's a completely different question.

There's no reason why a health service could not be run on anarchist principles: self-managed, federated, and so on.

 

[kyser_soze]

I am not saying that Anarchists should not use hospitals, just trying to get my head around how they would maintain a health care system without having a 'state' to administer it and collect the money for it. To me something like that NHS has come about because of a political will that strongly believed in the idea of strong state control.

Now I am broadly in favour of the NHS but am just interested in how Anarchists would propose to run such a thing (if at all).

In terms of management it'd be a piece of piss, altho technical stuff like ensuring clinical standards were maintained might require more national and less federated stuff.

Tax is an interesting question - you're making the assumption there'd be some kind of money in an anarchism...altho that discussion might be a bit too early...