how many people find the concept of anarchism appealing but...
- Thread starter nightowl
- Start date
Went from a totallitarian state capitalist country to being run by workers councils (albiet very briefly) within an astonishingly short period of time. The point being that you can never be sure just what people are capable of, effects of living in a hierarchical society all their lives or no.LLETSA said:
Fruitloop said:
Kilroy was clearly a class struggle anarchist as well, well done. A good point well made.
Hawkeye Pearce
We're your friends man...
The concept of class war works both ways. The ruling class wages a class war every day and has the state machine behind them to do it you see it every day in the workplace with new directives from management being handed down as dictats, wage structures being changed (usually a cutback) and working practices changed with absolutely no regard for the workers. Try to go against them and the company can use anyone of a myriad of laws and call on the state to to arrest (if it comes to that or they could just sack you).
The selfishness argument comes up every time people question me about my beliefs and it simply does not stand up. Yes it is true that people do incredibly stupid often cruel things. Humanity is a flawed species it is true but it is equally true that without a large degree of co-operation even societies ruled by Leviathan like states would simply collapse. The way society is structured has, it is true, produced a situation where we are encouraged to think that accumulation is everything "greed is good" so to speak, butmany examples of horrendous greed are actually carried out by people at the very top of the ladder so it can be argued that those at the top are the worst of all.
I would also say that even in a society which encourages division and ceaseless competition there are a myriad of examples of people doing alturistic things. Remove the capitalist mania for accumulation and I believe that human beings are capable of pretty much anything including a truly democratic society based on co-operation and equality.
I don't believe that this neccessarily involves violence, it all depends really on how the ruling class responds when it is threatened. I am by no means a pacifist and if attacked you should always be ready to strike back but celebration of violence for its own sake is just nihilism.
Writers who can explain far better than I can
The selfishness argument comes up every time people question me about my beliefs and it simply does not stand up. Yes it is true that people do incredibly stupid often cruel things. Humanity is a flawed species it is true but it is equally true that without a large degree of co-operation even societies ruled by Leviathan like states would simply collapse. The way society is structured has, it is true, produced a situation where we are encouraged to think that accumulation is everything "greed is good" so to speak, butmany examples of horrendous greed are actually carried out by people at the very top of the ladder so it can be argued that those at the top are the worst of all.
I would also say that even in a society which encourages division and ceaseless competition there are a myriad of examples of people doing alturistic things. Remove the capitalist mania for accumulation and I believe that human beings are capable of pretty much anything including a truly democratic society based on co-operation and equality.
I don't believe that this neccessarily involves violence, it all depends really on how the ruling class responds when it is threatened. I am by no means a pacifist and if attacked you should always be ready to strike back but celebration of violence for its own sake is just nihilism.
Writers who can explain far better than I can
Hawkeye Pearce
We're your friends man...
Fruitloop said:
The important thing to remember about the whole "no borders" thing is that it is just a cheap slogan coined by the SWP leadership as part of their usual logic of "right wing say A i shout B". The point about this is that it is both totally unrealistic and is not going to win you any arguments outside of the union bar. Most anarchists on here have aruged for a classist approach which strives to point out what the motivations of the CBI/government are and how the immigration issue is linked the bosses desire to suppress wages. It doesn't mean "darkies out" or calling for a barbed wire fence all the way around the coast but simply analysing things through a class analysis.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I think it's a deeply flawed concept (if you can get two anarchists to ever agree to what exactly they want in the first place). It's impractical and fails to take into effect human nature and the state of the world at the moment.
A nice idea, although not a good one.
A nice idea, although not a good one.
Hawkeye Pearce
We're your friends man...
What is human nature though?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
In short; Some people are natural leaders and some natural followers, the anarchist ideas floated past me have never dealt with this to my satisfaction, then again i'm not an expert on the topic by a long, long way.Hawkeye Pearce said:
There's more (Edit: such as those in lyra_k's post), but i don't see it as a stable form of society.
I like the idea of anarchism, but...
and my but is nothing to do with human nature, but population sizes, cities, and the actual logistics of producing enough food etc, the real basics of survival and infrastructure, without any kind of hierarchy in place to organise it.
I think (as and as our anarchists point out there are plenty of examples of) anarchism can work on a small scale, in small communities, but to think it could ever be a real alternative for entire countries (sorry, forgot that countries were a false construct) is pie in the sky.
and my but is nothing to do with human nature, but population sizes, cities, and the actual logistics of producing enough food etc, the real basics of survival and infrastructure, without any kind of hierarchy in place to organise it.
I think (as and as our anarchists point out there are plenty of examples of) anarchism can work on a small scale, in small communities, but to think it could ever be a real alternative for entire countries (sorry, forgot that countries were a false construct) is pie in the sky.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Dhimmi said:
I think the clamp may well represent the state in that analogy dhimmi.
p.s I believe human flaws negate the possibility of a really fair future society, but that does not mean there could not be great deal more progress though, than thus far there has been.
Class conflict always exists - it's simply a fact of life that those who depend upon profits and rents for their living have a natural and inalienable conflict of interest with those who depend upon wages. Whatever you want to call it, it always exist.
The confusion arises from equating "class war" with violent acts carried out by groups of workers against capitalists. Such acts are practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and are rarely more than an expression of alienation and machismo on behalf of isolated radicals searching for a simplistic physical battle. In reality the class war is just something that happens. Unfortunately, in the last few decades only one side knows that it's going on and is organised and they're kicking our butts.
In those times when our side has had some sort of realisation of what's going on there really isn't that much violence. We win by weight of numbers easily and they can't shoot us all. For example the Russian revolution was accomplished with only a trifling amoung of violence - it was the subsequent battle between the emerging ruling class and the old one that saw all the killing (as effing usual).
On the main point, the best thing about anarchism is that the ends and the means are virtually the same. That means that, even if you don't get there, any steps along the way are worthwhile in themselves. You're not trying to get to position A before you can do the good stuff which leads to your ultimate goal of position B. The leninists, for example have a position A which is to get into control, before they even think about doing any of the good stuff of position B (communism). Which is the reason that it makes sense to be an anarchist - even if you don't get there, any step along the way is an achievement, whereas with leninism if you don't get the whole way, you just end up with a few different fuckwits in positions of power.
The confusion arises from equating "class war" with violent acts carried out by groups of workers against capitalists. Such acts are practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and are rarely more than an expression of alienation and machismo on behalf of isolated radicals searching for a simplistic physical battle. In reality the class war is just something that happens. Unfortunately, in the last few decades only one side knows that it's going on and is organised and they're kicking our butts.
In those times when our side has had some sort of realisation of what's going on there really isn't that much violence. We win by weight of numbers easily and they can't shoot us all. For example the Russian revolution was accomplished with only a trifling amoung of violence - it was the subsequent battle between the emerging ruling class and the old one that saw all the killing (as effing usual).
On the main point, the best thing about anarchism is that the ends and the means are virtually the same. That means that, even if you don't get there, any steps along the way are worthwhile in themselves. You're not trying to get to position A before you can do the good stuff which leads to your ultimate goal of position B. The leninists, for example have a position A which is to get into control, before they even think about doing any of the good stuff of position B (communism). Which is the reason that it makes sense to be an anarchist - even if you don't get there, any step along the way is an achievement, whereas with leninism if you don't get the whole way, you just end up with a few different fuckwits in positions of power.
soulman said:
OK, take me from where we are now, to that...seriously, it's interesting. I'm not saying that a network of small communities couldn't or wouldn't work. I'm trying to establish how, on this day, in the real world, one would go about even starting to achieve that.
What would you do - send out pamphlets and ask for volunteers to leave their half-paid for flats and their jobs and go and live in the woods?
Good luck
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
soulman said:
There might be limited resources of something in a particular area. Maybe the spud crop fails or something. Instinctivley, human beings are relentless, competitive predators who will never value the wellbeing of someone else's family equal with their own. The more aggressive and capable individuals in a society will always rise to postions of wealth and power no matter what system (or lack of a system) is used to organize them.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Where do you get the idea that this is an exclusively capitalist mania? It's been the mania of elites since agriculture first gave human beings material surplus and freedom from immediate surivival concerns over food; same thing goes for 'class war' - this notion that capitalism is some kind of 'different' society rather than simply a hugely complex reiteration of previous societies is guff - there have always been elite minorities who have gained some kind of monopoly of power, usually based around a combination of religion, force of arms and land ownership, and then used it to keep the rest of society in a state of docility using that control, there have always been people who aid the running of that apparatus and there have always been some poor bastards at the bottom who get shat on by everyone.
And the solutions have always been the same - that a 'better' world can be built on the principles of mutual respect and support and the removal of these power structures - while the actors and stage have changed, the basic story doesn't. And so far as a species we've had about 5000 years to change that and we still haven't.
lyra_k said:OK, take me from where we are now, to that...seriously, it's interesting. I'm not saying that a network of small communities couldn't or wouldn't work. I'm trying to establish how, on this day, in the real world, one would go about even starting to achieve that.
What would you do - send out pamphlets and ask for volunteers to leave their half-paid for flats and their jobs and go and live in the woods?
Good luck
I wouldn't do anything different to what I do now. Like most people I already surround myself with a smallish group of people who I negotiate and discuss things with on a daily basis, in turn all of us do the same within other groups we choose to be part of. Sometimes we argue and disagree about things but mostly we cooperate, often without giving too much thought to the process, it seems a natural way of doing things.
Sometimes it's difficult to see the woods for the trees
Good luck to you as well. Hope you have a pleasant day
The Black Hand
Unclean
Not anarchism BUT anarchisms
Here is a good book for you all to buy;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/.../026-0767973-0618850?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books
I am referencing it btw (NOT ADVERTISING IT)
This is a good analytical effort at mapping comtemporary British class struggle anarchism over the past decade.
It shows that the intent and practice of the class struggle libertarians is worth serious consideration, and not as some reactionary and lazy Marxists do, which is to write it off (such as but not limited too SWP, WP, RA, SP, SPGB, ICC, etc______ space to add your own to list)
Here is a good book for you all to buy;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/.../026-0767973-0618850?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books
I am referencing it btw (NOT ADVERTISING IT)
This is a good analytical effort at mapping comtemporary British class struggle anarchism over the past decade.
It shows that the intent and practice of the class struggle libertarians is worth serious consideration, and not as some reactionary and lazy Marxists do, which is to write it off (such as but not limited too SWP, WP, RA, SP, SPGB, ICC, etc______ space to add your own to list)
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
kyser_soze said:
Yep, what he said (especially that part about religion). /\
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hmm, that actually looks quite good...(BTW, I was taking a wee widdle with the ads for yr t-shirts )
)
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
For what it's worth my view is that Anarchism will only happen when individuals come to realise that the current system cannot continue to work and that they themselves have to be repsonsible for their society, countries and planet. Anarchism in my view relies massively on personal responsibility and personal action and most importantly knowledge about how these all effect us.
It cannot take hold when the prevailing notions are that of self interest and selfish personal gain, where money is king and politics and policy is dictated by the elite few and everyone else passively goes along with their 'rules and regulations'.
Anarchism to me is more than anything a state of mind first and a idea second. All ideology (if you can call Anarchism that in the loose sense of the word) is dangerous unless its grounded in reality and in series of steps that will lead to a final goal. I think that modern society and capitalism will suffer an economic, environmental and social meltdown way before Anarchism ever gets chance to take hold on a large enough scale for it to stop any of this happening.
The closer these events come to taking place the more people will surely question the system and possibly look for alternatives. It's possibly here that Anarchism has, ironically, the best chance to take root in larger numbers of people and affect people directly. Surely its time Anarchism came out of the 'woodwork' and began to speak to people on a larger level about its ideas and view of the world. Maybe Anarchists should think about standing on mainstream political platforms such as local elections with the direct intention of handing power back to people and letting them make some decisions on their own?
Just random thoughts that have been buzzing around my head - please feel free to dismiss as nonsense
It cannot take hold when the prevailing notions are that of self interest and selfish personal gain, where money is king and politics and policy is dictated by the elite few and everyone else passively goes along with their 'rules and regulations'.
Anarchism to me is more than anything a state of mind first and a idea second. All ideology (if you can call Anarchism that in the loose sense of the word) is dangerous unless its grounded in reality and in series of steps that will lead to a final goal. I think that modern society and capitalism will suffer an economic, environmental and social meltdown way before Anarchism ever gets chance to take hold on a large enough scale for it to stop any of this happening.
The closer these events come to taking place the more people will surely question the system and possibly look for alternatives. It's possibly here that Anarchism has, ironically, the best chance to take root in larger numbers of people and affect people directly. Surely its time Anarchism came out of the 'woodwork' and began to speak to people on a larger level about its ideas and view of the world. Maybe Anarchists should think about standing on mainstream political platforms such as local elections with the direct intention of handing power back to people and letting them make some decisions on their own?
Just random thoughts that have been buzzing around my head - please feel free to dismiss as nonsense
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
nightowl said:
selfishness is just one part of human behaviour. It's a part of human behaviour that has been used by the current capitalist system to make lots of people very rich and others very poor. To wholesale decide that "this is the way we are and we cannot change" is to me a total condemnation of humanity, one which frankly I find absolute garbage. To quote Ghandi,
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Bang on - agreed with everything in your post there.
Crispy said:Then your natural place is in the stomach of one. Have a nice day!
They're thin on the ground in Cambridge, I can assure you!
The way some people talk you'd think we were descended from sabre-toothed tigers or something, rather than funny little over-sexed monkeys with big brains.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Barking_Mad said:
Good post however I'm deeply cynical that one) this is likely anytime soon (as in the next 500 years) and two) we will survive in a form that allows for that type of society...
Similar threads
- Poll
