Anarchy Primer
ta
social movements that advocate the elimination of imposed social hierarchy,
including the state. These philosophies use 'anarchy' to mean a society
based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist
thought does not advocate chaos or anomie - it intends "anarchy" to refer to
a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and
maintained.
While individual freedom and opposition to the state are primary tenets of
anarchism, most anarchists insist that anarchism is much more than that.
There is also considerable variation between the anarchist political
philosophies, to the point that groups with radically different views may
consider themselves anarchist, at the same time denying that other points of
view should be called anarchist. Two areas where opinions vary widely are
the role of violence in society, and the role of property and/or economics.
Egalitarianism is a present, but lesser subject of debate.
As Benjamin Tucker put it, anarchism is the philosophy that "all the affairs
of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that
the state should be abolished".
For entire discussion, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Table of contents [showhide]
1 Anarchy
2 History of anarchism
2.1 Precursors of anarchism
2.2 Modern anarchism
2.3 Anarchism today
2.4 Historical examples of "successful" anarchies
2.4.1 Christiania
2.4.2 Argentina (2001-2002)
2.4.3 Hungarian Revolution (1956)
2.4.4 Spanish revolution (1936-1939)
2.4.5 Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities
3 Schools of anarchist thought
3.1 Anarcho-syndicalism
3.2 Ecological anarchism
3.3 Technological anarchism
3.4 Feminist anarchism
4 Conceptions of an anarchist society
4.1 Anarchist social organization
4.2 Anarchist economic organization
5 Anarchism and Marxism
5.1 Arguments surrounding the issue of the state
5.2 Arguments concerning the method of historical materialism
5.3 Points of political commonality
6 Anarchism and the arts
6.1 Surrealism
6.2 Music
7 Major conflicts within anarchist thought
7.1 Private property
7.1.1 The libertarian socialist perspective
7.1.2 The anarcho-capitalist perspective
7.1.3 Other anarchist traditions with respect to private property
7.2 Wage labor
7.2.1 The libertarian socialist perspective
7.2.2 The anarcho-capitalist perspective
7.3 Violence and non-violence
7.4 Pacifism
7.5 Sexual relations
8 See also
8.1 Historical events
8.2 Books
8.3 Publications
8.4 Theoretical concepts
8.5 Anarchist organizations
8.6 Anarchism by region/culture
9 External links
Immortalist
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:D8qwc.12452$Iu6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and
> social movements that advocate the elimination of imposed social hierarchy,
> including the state. These philosophies use 'anarchy' to mean a society
> based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist
> thought does not advocate chaos or anomie - it intends "anarchy" to refer to
> a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and
> maintained.
>
The Marxist Criticism of Anarchism
The Social-Democratic Critique of Anarchism
The Liberal-Democratic Objection to Anarchism
The Fascist Objection to Anarchism
The Average Person's Objection to Anarchism
-------------------------------------
The Marxist Criticism of Anarchism
The Marxist criticism of Anarchism is the first with which most people with a
serious interest in politics come in contact. There follows from it the
Marxist-Leninist critique and the Social-Democratic objections.
vMarxist-Leninists, faced with Anarchism, find that by its nature it undermines
all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be the basic
working-class philosophy (a belief which has utterly ruined the working-class
movement everywhere). It holds in theory that the industrial proletariat cannot
owe its emancipation to anyone but themselves alone, It is hard to go back on
that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority
placed over it by someone outside the class.
Marxism normally tries to refrain from criticising Anarchism as such -- unless
driven to doing so, when it exposes its own authoritarianism ( "how can the
workers run the railways, for instance, without direction -- that is to say,
without authority?") and concentrates its attack not on Anarchism, but on
Anarchists. This is based on a double standard: Anarchists are held responsible
for the thought and actions of all persons, live or dead, calling themselves
Anarchists, even only temporarily, or persons referred to as Anarchists by
others, even if they disagree, or whose actions could be held to be Anarchistic
by non-Anarchists. even on a faulty premise, or are referred to by others as
Anarchists. Marxists take responsibility for Marxists holding their particular
party card at the time.
Marxism has -- whether one agrees with it or not -- a valid criticism of the
Anarchists in asking how one can (now) dispense with political action -- or
whether one should throw away so vital a weapon. But this criticism varies
between the schools of Marxism, since some have used it to justify complete
participation in the whole capitalist power structure, while others talk vaguely
only of "using Parliament as a platform". Lenin recognised the shortcomings of
Marxism in this respect and insisted that the anarchist workers could not be
criticised for rejecting so Philistine a Marxism that it used political
participation for its own sake and expected the capitalist state to let itself be
voted out of existence peacefully. He therefore concentrated on another aspect,
which Marx pioneered, viz. criticism of particular Anarchists, and this has
dominated all Leninist thinking ever since.
Because of the lack of any other criticism of the Anarchists, Leninists --
especially Trotskyists -- to this day use the personal criticism method. But as
Lenin selected only a few well-known personalities who for a few years fell short
of the ideas they preached, the latter-day Leninists have to hold that all
Anarchists are responsible for everyone who calls himself or herself an
Anarchist -- or even, such as the Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia,
were only called such (if indeed so) by others.
This wrinkle in Leninism has produced another criticism of Anarchism (usually
confined to Trots and Maoists); Anarchists are responsible not only for all
referred to as Anarchists, but for all workers influenced by Anarchist ideas. The
C.N.T. is always quoted here, but significantly its whole history before and
after the civil war is never mentioned, solely the period of participation in the
Government. For this, the Anarchists must for ever accept responsibility! But the
Trots may back the reformist union U.G.T. without accepting any period in its
entire history. In all countries (if workers), they presumably join or (if
students) accept the reformist trade unions. That is all right. But a
revolutionary trade union must for ever be condemned for any one deviation.
Moreover, if broken it must never be rebuilt; the reformist union must be rebuilt
in preference. This is the logical consequence of all Trot thinking on Spain or
other countries where such unions exist, proving their preference for reformist
unions' negative character, which lends itself to a leadership they may capture;
as against a decentralised union which a leadership cannot capture.
Petty Bourgeois
Notwithstanding this preference for non-revolutionary unions, and condemnation of
Anarchists for unions built from the bottom up, all Marxist-Leninists have a
seemingly contradictory criticism of Anarchists, namely "they are petty
bourgeois".
This leads them into another difficulty -- how can one reconcile the existence of
anarcho-syndicalist unions with "petty-bourgeois" origins -- and how does one get
over the fact that most Marxist-Leninists of today are professional ladies and
gentlemen studying for or belonging to the conservative professions? The answer
is usually given that because anarchism is "petty bourgeois" those embracing it
"whatever their occupation or social origins" must also be "petty bourgeois"; and
because Marxism is working class, its adherents must be working class "at least
subjectively". This is a sociological absurdity, as if "working class" meant an
ideological viewpoint. It is also a built-in escape clause.
Yet Marx was not such a fool as his followers. "Petty bourgeois" in his day did
not mean a solicitor or an accountant, a factory manager, sociologist ,or
anything of that sort (they were "bourgeois" -- the term was "petit" or small not
"petty" that qualified the adjective -- and meant precisely that these were not
the same as bourgeoisie). The small burgher was one who had less privileges,
economically, than the wealthy but had some privileges by virtue of his craft.
Anarchism, said Marx, was the movement of the artisan worker -- that is to say,
the self-employed craftsman with some leisure to think and talk, not subject to
factory hours and discipline, independently-minded and difficult to threaten, not
backward like the peasantry. In England, these people tended to become Radicals,
perhaps because the State was less oppressive and less obviously unnecessary. In
many countries, however, they were much more extreme in their Radicalism and in
the Swiss Jura the clockmakers' Anarchism prospered. It spread to Paris -- and
the Paris Commune was, above all, a rising of the artisans who had been reduced
to penury by Napoleon III and his war. As the capitalist technique spread
throughout the world, the artisans were ruined and driven into the factories. It
is these individual craftsmen entering industrialisation who became Anarchists,
pointed out successive Marxists. They are not conditioned to factory discipline
which produces good order, unlike a proletariat prepared to accept a leadership
and a party, and to work for ever in the factory provided it comes under State
control.
That this observation was true is seen by the crushing of the commune in Paris
and in Spain and throughout the world, especially in places like Italy, Bulgaria,
in the Jewish pale of settlement in Russia, and so on. It should be the task of
an Anarchist union movement to seize the factories, but only in order to break
down mass production and get back to craftsmanship. This is what Marx meant by a
"petit bourgeois" outlook and the term having changed its meaning totally, the
Marxists -- like believers accepting Holy Writ --misunderstood him totally.
Vanguards
The reluctance of Marxist-Leninists to accept change is, however, above all seen
in the acceptance of Lenin's conception of the Party. (It is not that of Marx.)
Lenin saw that Russia was a huge mass of inertia, with a peasantry that would not
budge but took all its suffering with "Asiatic" patience. He looked to the
"proletariat" to push it. But the "proletariat" was only a small part of the
Russia of his day. Still he recognised it as the one class with an interest in
progress -- provided, he felt, it was led by shrewd, calculating, ruthless, and
highly-educated people (who could only come from the upper classes in the Russia
of the time). The party they created should become, as much as possible, the
party of the proletariat in which that class could organise and seize power. It
had then the right and the duty to wipe out all other parties.
The idiocy of applying this today in, say, a country like Britain is incredible.
One has only to look at the parties which offer themselves as the various parties
of the proletariat of which, incidentally, there could be only one. Compare them
with the people around. The parties' memberships are far behind in political
intelligence and understanding. They are largely composed of shallow and
inexperienced enthusiasts who understand far less about class struggle than the
average worker.
Having translated the Russian Revolution into a mythology which places great
stress on the qualities possessed by its leadership, they then pretend to possess
that leadership charisma. But as they don't have it, there is a total divorce
between the working class and the so-called New Left which has, therefore, to
cover itself up with long-winded phrases in the hope that this will pass for
learning. In the wider "Movement" with the definitions at second hand from
Marxist-Leninism, they scratch around to find someone really as backward and
dispossessed as the moujik, and fall back on the "Third World" mythology.
The one criticism, applied by Marxist-Leninists, of Anarchism with any serious
claim to be considered is, therefore, solely that of whether political action
should be considered or not. Whenever it has been undertaken outside the class it
has proved of benefit only to leaders from outside the class.
The Social-Democratic Critique of Anarchism
The early Socialists did not understand that there would be necessarily a
difference between Anarchism and Socialism. Both were socialist, but whereas the
latter hoped to achieve socialism by Parliamentary means, the latter felt that
revolutionary means were necessary. As a result many early Anarchist and
socialist groups (especially in Britain) were interchangeable in working-class
membership. Something might come from political action; something by industrial
methods; the Revolution had to be fought as soon as possible; the one therefore
was complementary to the other though it was recognised that they might have to
follow separate paths. At least. so it was thought.
This, however, changed because the face of socialism changed. It dropped its
libertarian ideas for Statism. "Socialism" gradually came to mean State Control
of everything and, therefore, so far from being another face of Anarchism, was
its direct opposite. From saying originally that "the Anarchists were too
impatient", therefore, the parliamentary Socialists turned to a criticism of the
Anarchists leveled at them by people who had no desire to change society at all,
whether sooner or later. They picked up what is essentially the conservative
criticism of Anarchism which is essentially that the State is the arbiter of all
legality and the present economic order is the only established legal order. A
Stateless society -- or even its advocacy -- is thus regarded as criminal in
itself! It is not, as a law, but to this day a police constable in court -- or a
journalist -- will for this reason refer to Anarchism as if it were
self-evidently criminal.
Most upholders of any parliamentary system deliberately confuse parliamentarism
with democracy as an ideal system of equal representation, as if it already
existed. Thus ultra-parliamentarism is "undemocratic, suggesting that a few
hundred men and a few dozen women selected at random and alone had the right of
exercising control over the rest of the country.
Since the Russianisation of "Communism", turning away from both parliamentarism
and democracy, it has suited the Social-Democrat to speak of criticism from the
revolutionary side as being necessarily from those wanting dictatorship. The
Anarchists, who can hardly be accused of dictatorship -- except by politically
illiterate journalists who do not understand the differences between parties --
must therefore be "criminal" and whole labour movements have been so stigmatised
by the Second International. This was picked up by the U.S. Government with its
"criminal-syndicalism" legislation which was similar to that in more openly
fascist countries.
No more than the Marxist-Leninists, the Social-Democrats (in the sense of
orthodox Labourites) are unable to state that their real objection to Anarchism
is that fact that it is against power and privilege and so undermines their whole
case. They bring up, if challenged, the objection that it is "impossible". If
"impossible", what have they to fear from it? Why, in countries like Spain and
Portugal, where the only chance of resisting tyranny was the Anarchist Movement,
did Social-Democrats prefer to help the Communist Party? In Spain, up to the
appearance of the Socialist Party when it was politically profitable to switch,
the British Labour Party helped the Communist-led factions but did nothing for
the Anarchist resistance.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is "possible", only too much so. When it comes it
will sweep the socialists away. But if the Anarchists resist, the Socialists will
at least survive to put forward their alternative. They fear only the
consequences of that alternative being decisively rejected -- for who would
choose State Socialism out of the ashcan for nothing if they could have Stateless
Socialism instead?
In the capitalist world, the Social Democrat objects to revolutionary methods,
the "impatient" and alleged "criminality" of the Anarchists. But in the Communist
world, social-democracy was by the same conservative token equally "criminal"
(indeed more so) since it presumably postulated connection with enemy powers, as
is now proved. The charge of "impatience" could hardly be leveled when there was
no way of effecting a change legally and the whole idea of change by
parliamentary methods was a dream. Social-democracy, in the sense of Labourism,
gives up the fight without hope when tyranny triumphs (unless it can call on
foreign intervention, as in occupied war-time Europe). It has nothing to offer.
There is no struggle against fascism or Leninism from social-democracy because no
constitutional methods offer themselves. In the former Soviet Union and its
satellites, they had no ideas on how to change and hoped that nationalists and
religious dissidents would put through a bit of liberalism to ease the pressure.
We know now how disastrous that policy has been. Yet anarchism offers a
revolutionary attack upon the communist countries that is not only rejected by
the Social-Democrats; powerful, they unite with other capitalist powers to harass
and suppress that attack.
The Liberal-Democratic Objection to Anarchism
Liberal-Democracy, or non-fascist conservatism, is afraid to make direct
criticisms of Anarchism because to do so undermines the whole reasoning of
Liberal-Democracy. It therefore resorts to falsification: Anarchists are equated
with Marxists (and thereby the whole Marxist criticism of anarchism ignored). The
most frequent target of attack is to suggest that Anarchism is some form of
Marxism plus violence, or some extreme form of Marxism.
The reason Liberal-Democracy has no defence to offer against real Anarchist
argument is because Liberal-Democracy is using it as its apologia, in the defence
of "freedom", yet placing circumscribing walls around it. It pretends that
parliamentarism is some form of democracy, but though sometimes prepared to admit
(under pressure) that parliamentarism is no form of democracy at all,
occasionally seeks to find ways of further democratising it. The undoubtedly
dictatorial process that a few people, once elected by fair means or foul, have a
right to make decisions for a majority, is covered up by a defence of the
constitutional rights or even the individual liberty of members of Parliament
only. Burke's dictum that they are representatives, not delegates, is quoted ad
nauseam (as if this reactionary politician had bound the British people for ever,
though he as himself admitted, did not seek to ask their opinions of the matter
once).
Liberal economics are almost as dead as the dodo. What rules is either the
monopoly of the big firms, or of the State. Yet laissez-faire economics remain
embodied aspirations of the Tory Party which they never implement. They object to
the intervention of the State in business, but they never care to carry the
spirit of competition too far. There is no logical reason why there should be any
restriction on the movement of currency -- and this is good Tory policy (though
never implemented! Not until the crisis, any crisis, is over!). From this point
of view, why should we not be able to deal in gold pieces or U.S. dollars, or
Maria Theresa tales, or Francs, or Deutschmarks, or even devalued Deutschmarks?
The pound sterling would soon find its own level, and if it were devalued, so
much the worse for it. But why stop there? If we can choose any currency we like,
free socialism could coexist with capitalism and it would drive capitalism out.
Once free socialism competes with capitalism -- as it would if we would choose to
ignore the State's symbolic money and deal in one of our own choosing, which
reflected real work values -- who would choose to be exploited? Quite clearly no
laissez-faire economist who had to combine his role with that of party politician
would allow things to go that far.
Liberal-Democracy picks up one of the normal arguments against Anarchism which
begin on the right wing: namely, it begins with the objections against
socialism -- that is Statism -- but if there is an anti-Statist socialism that is
in fact more liberal than itself, then it is "criminal". If it is not, then it
seeks law to make it so.
This argument is in fact beneath contempt, yet it is one that influences the
press, police, and judiciary to a surprising extent. In fact Anarchism as such
(as distinct from specific Anarchist organisations) could never be illegal,
because no laws can make people love the State. It is only done by false ideals
such as describing the State as "country".
The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against Anarchism
as such -- other than relying on prejudice -- because its objections are purely
authoritarian and unmask the innate Statism and authoritarianism of liberalism.
Nowadays conservatives like to appropriate the name "liberalism" to describe
themselves as if they were more receptive to freedom than socialists. But their
liberalism is confined to keeping the State out of interfering in their business
affairs. Once anarchism makes it plain that it is possible to have both social
justice and to dispense with the Statethey are shown in their true colours. Their
arguments against State socialism and Communism may sound "libertarian", but
their arguments against Anarchism reveal that they are essentially authoritarian.
That is why they prefer to rely upon innuendo, slanders. and false reporting,
which is part of the establishment anti-anarchism, faithfully supported by the
media.
The Fascist Objection to Anarchism
The fascist objection to Anarchism is, curiously enough, more honest than that of
the Marxist, the liberal or the Social-Democrat. Most of these will say, if
pressed, that Anarchism is an ideal, perhaps imperfectly understood, but either
impossible of achievement or possible only in the distant future. The fascist, on
the contrary, admits its possibility; What is denied is its desirability.
The right-wing authoritarian (which term includes many beyond those naming
themselves fascists) worships the very things which are anathema to Anarchists,
especially the State. Though the conception of the State is idealised in fascist
theory, it is not denied that one could do without it. But the "first duty of the
citizen is to defend the State" and it is high treason to oppose it or advocate
its abolition.
Sometimes the State is disguised as the "corporate people" or the "nation,"
giving a mystical idea of the State beyond the mere bureaucratic apparatus of
rule. The forces of militarism and oppression are idealised (after the German
emperor who said that universal peace was "only a dream and not even a good
dream"). Running throughout right-wing patriotism is a mystical feeling about the
"country", but though Nazis in particular sometimes have recourse to an
idealisation of the "people" (this has more of a racial than popular connotation
in German), it is really the actual soil that is held sacred, thus taking the
State myth to its logical conclusion. For the Anarchist this, of course, is
nonsense. The nonsense can be seen in its starkest form with the followers of
Franco who killed off so many Spaniards even after the Civil War was ended, while
hankering for the barren rock of Gibraltar: especially in General Milan de
Astrray, who wanted to kill off "bad Spaniards" and eradicate Catalans and
Basques in the name of unitary Spain, thus (as Unamuno pointed out) making Spain
as "one-armed and one-eyed, as the General was himself".
Anarchism is clearly seen by fascists as a direct menace and not a purely
philosophical one. It is not merely the direct action of Anarchists but the thing
itself which represents the evil. The "democratic" media finally got around to
picking up these strands in fascist thinking, ironing them out nicely, and
presenting them in the "news" stories. Hitler regarded the Authoritarian State he
had built as millennial (the thousand-year state) but he knew it could be
dismembered and rejected. His constant theme was the danger of this and while he
concentrated (for political reasons) attacks on a totalitarian rival, State
Communism (since Russia presented a military menace), his attacks on
"cosmopolitanism" have the reiterated theme of anti-Anarchism.
"Cosmopolitanism" and "Statelessness" are the "crimes" Nazism associated with
Jews, though since Hitler's day large numbers of them have reverted to
nationalism and a strong state. The theme of "Jewish domination" goes hand in
hand with "anarchist destruction of authority, morals, and discipline", since
fascism regards personal freedom as bad in itself and only national freedom
permissible. Insofar as one can make any sense of Hitler's speeches (which are
sometimes deceptive since he followed different strands of thought according to
the way he could sway an audience), he believed "plunging into Anarchy" of a
country (abolition of State restraints) will lead to chaos, which will make it
possible for a dictatorship other than the one in the people's interests to
succeed.
Hitler did not confuse State Communism with Anarchism (as Franco did
deliberately) for propaganda purposes, to try to eradicate Anarchism from
history. He equated Communism with "Jewish domination", and the case against the
Jews (in original Nazi thinking) that they are a racially-pure people who will
gain conquest over helots like the Germans.
A "Master Race" must control the Germans to keep the rival State out. In a
condition of freedom the German "helots" would revert to Anarchy, just as the
racially "inferior" Celts of France threw out the Norman Nordic overlords (the
Houston Chamberlain version of the French Revolution). Later, of course, when
Nazism became a mass Party it was expedient to amend this to saying the Germans
were the Master Race, but this was not the original Nazi philosophy, nor was it
privately accepted by the Nazi leaders ("the German people were not worthy of
me"). But they could hardly tell mass meetings that they were all "helots". At
least not until their power was complete. This idea that a whole people
(whichever it was) can be born "helots" could not be better expressed as the
contrary opposite of Anarchism, since in this case it would indeed be impossible.
This Nazi propaganda is echoed by the media today; "plunging the country into
Anarchy would be followed by a Communist or extreme right-wing dictatorship" is
current newspaper jargon.
To sum up the fascist objection to Anarchism: It is not denied the abolition of
the State can come about, but if so, given economic, social, and political
freedom, the "helots" -- who are "naturally inclined" to accept subjection from
superior races -- will seek for masters. They will have a nostalgia for "strong
rule".
In Nazi thinking, strong rule can only come from (in theory) racially-pure
members of the "Master Race" (something a little more than a class and less than
a people), which can be constructive masters (i.e., the "Aryans"), or a race
which has had no contact with the "soil" and will be thus destructive.
In other types of fascist thinking, given freedom, the people will throw off all
patriotic and nationalistic allegiances and so the "country" will cease to be
great. This is the basis of Mussolini's fascism, and, of course, it is perfectly
true, bearing in mind that "the country" is his synonym for the State and his
only conception of greatness is militaristic. The frankest of all is the Spanish
type of fascism which sought to impose class domination of the most brutal kind
and make it plain that its opposition to Anarchism was simply in order to keep
the working class down. If necessary, the working class may be, and was,
decimated in order to crush Anarchism.
It is true of all political philosophies and blatant with the fascist one, that
its relationship to Anarchism throws as clear light upon itself!
The Average Person's Objection to Anarchism
Generally speaking, the ordinary people pick up their objection to Anarchism from
the press, which in turn is influenced by what the establishment wants. For many
years there was a press conspiracy of silence against Anarchism, followed in the
1960 by a ruling on transcribing Anarchism and Marxism, or Anarchism and
nationalism, so that the one must be referred to the other, in order to confuse.
This was bourn out in many exposures in Black Flag showing where avowed Marxists
were in the turbulent Sixties described in the press as "Anarchists" while avowed
Anarchists were described as "Marxists" or "nationalists". On some occasions
nationalists were called "Anarchists," but usually when the word "Anarchist" was
being used as if to describe oneself as an Anarchist, it was to make a confession
of guilt. This, as we have seen, is picked up from the Liberal-Democratic
attitude to Anarchism. But it is flavoured strongly with the fascist attitude,
too. Because of it, the phrase "self-confessed Anarchist" came to be used by the
Press to describe a person who is an Anarchist as opposed to someone who they
have merely labeled Anarchist in order to confuse.
This has altered somewhat with the commercial exploitation of Anarchism by
commercial exploitation of music and academic exploitation of philosophy, giving
rise to a middle-class liberal version of an Anarchist as a liberal-minded
philosopher, a harmless eccentric, a drop out, or a person wearing fashionably
unfashionable clothes.
As opposed to this increasingly popular misconception, the average person takes
the fascist view of anarchism -- as picked up in its entirety by police officers
and others -- as genuine, but tempered with the fact that they do not take it
quite seriously. Sometimes they confuse the word "revolutionary", and assume all
who protest are thereby Anarchist. This ignorance, however, is more often
displayed by journalists than it is by the general public.
When it comes down to an objection to Anarchism as it is, as distinct from
objections to a mythological Anarchism as imagined or caricatured by the
authoritarian Parties or establishment, or practised by the alternative
establishment, there are not many serious objections from the general public.
They may not think it practical of realisation if presented in a positive way to
them, but they usually do so if presented in a negative way -- i.e. describing
the tyranny of the State. The fact that we could dispense with authoritarian
parties, the worthlessness of politicians, and so on is generally agreed. The
sole main objection is perhaps the feeling that they want to make the best out of
life as it is: and they do not feel strong enough to challenge the State or to
face the struggle involved in bringing about a Free Society, or put up with the
many vicissitudes (major and minor) that make up the life of a militant or
someone reasonably committed to an ideal. The temptations are greatto conform and
to accept the bribes which the capitalist class can now hold out. Only when the
State wants its last ounce of blood do people wake up to the need for resistance,
but then it is too late and also, of course, the State then takes on the pretence
of being "the country", in order to be loved instead of hated or disliked.
The Reduction of Anarchism to Marginalisation
By crafty methods, not used against other political theories, it is endeavoured
by Statist propaganda to marginalise Anarchism to nothing. It is confused by
journalists, professors, and subsidised "researchers" to show that Anarchists are
identical to dropouts, drug-takers, nationalist assassins, New-Age travelers,
political dissidents, militant trade unionists, young rebels, middle-class
theorists, dreamers, plotters, comedians, frustrated reformers, extreme
pacifists, murderers, schoolboy rebels, and criminals. Some Anarchists, one
supposes, could be any but hardly all of these -- as could members of all
political persuasions -- but none could be descriptive of the cause. By misuse of
the word "Anarchist", or by added "alleged" or "self-confessed" Anarchist; or by
conjoining the word with an obvious contradiction, Anarchism can be marginalised
and, by implication, Statist theories made to seem the norm.
-- Albert Meltzer
http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html
Edgar Svendsen
> As Benjamin Tucker put it, anarchism is the philosophy that "all the
affairs
> of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and
that
> the state should be abolished".
>
voluntary and the abolition of the state.
Dealing only with the second issue for now, are anarchists in general
agreement about how the state should be abolished? Not in detail but on
whether or not the abolition itself should be accomplished only by voluntary
means? That is, do anarchists agree that the state should only abolished
when everyone living in it voluntarily agrees to abolish it?
Ed
Dr. Zarkov
No. And no government was established that way either; in fact, governments
were generally established by force. If 90 of 100 people had enslaved the
other 10, would it require a unanimous decision to free them?
ta
Most anarchists are against violence except in matters of self-defense.
There are certain factions lumped in with anarchism who argue that violence
is necessary to achieve one's goals (Bakunin, I believe is one).
I certainly won't speak for "anarchists in general", but my feeling is that
the answer to your question would be "yes", it would have to happen
voluntarily. This would not imply sitting on one's hands twiddling thumbs
waiting for it to happen though, of course.
Edgar Svendsen
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
news:40c35412$0$2914$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
established. I have difficulty seeing how an anarchy could maintain itself
without the potential to do the same. And yet, a volunteer organization
that uses violence on other members of the society in order to maintain the
anarchy sounds a lot like a government.
Ed
Dr. Zarkov
> "Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote...
In any realistic scenario, I also don't see how an anarchy could function
without the potential for violence. I do see a difference between that and
a government. A government is an organization that claims a monopoly on the
use of force in a region, whether or not everyone in that region consents to
it. There is no such organization in an anarchy. In individualistic or
anarcho-capitalist setups, individuals or private protection services may
use force, and no one claims a unique right to it. (The left-anarchists ten
d to be a bit vague about how they would use force.) There is a potential
problem with powerful organizations trying to establish themselves as de
facto governments (or other states in the world attacking the stateless
territory). But if individuals want to band together and call their pieces
of property a state (or establish some other kind of anarchy), that's
perfectly OK as long as they don't try to force it on everyone else.
But there's nothing that can *guarantee* the maintenance of an anarchy any
more than anything can guarantee the maintenance of a particular government.
BuddhaThu
Anarchy should be distinguished from nihilism. Although, anarchism is
self-equated with the ego, nihilism means even the elimination of it.
Although, there is a rich history relating these two, my understanding
is more in terms of the Young Hegelians, or the radical left
Hegelians. While Hegel believed in historical change, he believed that
there was an unchanging law that controlled the change. This is the
dialectic.
(It maps onto the Newtonian culture of the period and that search for
that all consuming universal law of change.)
But to some people, the institution of the dialectical law must itself
be met with its opposite in order for it to be self-consistent, case
in point, Karl Marx and his dialectical materialism. Therefore, it is
Dialectic Idealism vs. Dialectic Materialism.
It was thought that by seeing social histories and their institutions
in terms of opposites, one could, (like algebra), isolate the terms
and see what is most important, i.e. the final historical "reality."
To some people, it is the ego, the individual and hence, the
annihilation of political institutions both ideal and material in
order for the individual will to be fully exercised. While others
believe that even the individual ego must also be nullified.
My interest in them is purely linguistics and the way we use the word
"and" to conflate things together.
"And" is a powerful tool. It allows us to train and to use concepts.
One cannot learn concepts in isolation. They must be linked together
in order for the concept to be ***"coherent."*** It is like "equality
and liberty." The words do not necessarily self-equate to each other.
They do not have to go together. It may just be a random relationship.
In fact, they can butt up against each other that it would seem
ludicrous even to link them together, but we pull them together so
that we may ***train*** in how to use these words in the
Wittgensteinian sense.
In this, "Liberty and Equality" sometimes exist in dialectical
opposing constructs, much the same as Anarchy and Nihilism.
But if Anarchy and Nihilism exists in dialectical opposites to each
other, what then is left?
Ironically, they must hang together, even if they are opposing.
Without which, how am I to understand their grammatical rules? Such
that opposites make the rules, they do not annihilate them.
Hmmm... Never thought of this possibility before. ;-)
So I guess, screw the Young Hegelians.
I am sorry, I am just musing a little.
"ta" <ta...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<D8qwc.12452$Iu6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
BuddhaThu
In case you have not picked it up, I was being sarcastic in a friendly
manner, of course.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Your post helped me to
recall counseling a little 18 year old undergrad from joining a
radical left.
I don't mind if you join as long as you train and master your
concepts.
First, know how to master the proper grammar usage "nihilism" and
"anarchy" before you blow things up. If you don't know the rules of
grammar, how then can you recognize them for what they are and blow
things up. ;-)
Now, this is what you call an "anarchy primer." Anarchy and Nihilism
must pair properly in their binary and ordered relationships in order
for us to induce the meaningfulness of their proper usage.
***Therefore, they are generating the rules. They do not destroy them.
;-)***
They can never be paired together in an identical relationship, as in
A=A. It is more xRy, and further more the relationship just happened
purely by chance. This is what we call a "family resemblance," just
like "equality" and "liberty." I guess the chance relationship is a
bit Humean.
"Family resemblances" occur when words are paired together in a
similar fashion. Most metaphysics, esp. Hegel when thinking about
grand schemes, see these similarities as evidence of absolute terms.
"Similarity", (as a general term), is an intrinsic concept. It is
neither "different" nor "same." It is "similar." It exists in between
two absolutes, but is not self-identical to them.
(I realized this from sitting in a quantum physics lecture on symmetry
and gauge theory. I guess it applies here too.)
So this is important to remember. Do not conflate similar concepts
together. They exist in family relationships, but are not self-equated
to each other. They are neither "same" nor "different."
Anarchist and Nihilist must first graduate from the proper grammar
school before they go out and rig bombs.
So young Hegelians, meet the baby Hegelians. The truly young, young
Hegelians.
I for one as a Wittgensteinian am appalled with Hegel. All this
pairing of opposites is sometimes simply bad grammar usage.
Don't want to be nickpicky about it. It is my duty to get these kids
"right" or "left wing" to speak well. If you don't know what you
saying, how then can they know what is "right" or "left." ;-)
Grammar (as well as logic and rhetoric within the medieval trivium),
is all about exhibiting your intentions well. No democracy can be
without them. I wish secondary schools would recognize this.
Sorry for rambling again.
softspok...@yahoo.com (BuddhaThu) wrote in message news:<d984cfeb.04061...@posting.google.com>...
Edgar Svendsen
"Dr. Zarkov" <Mi...@Mongo.com> wrote in message
Governments do not alway claim a monopoly on violence. Governments often
allow local leaders to use violence (or not), the Turkish Empire was
notorious for this. Vigilanitsm was allowed, even encouraged, in the
Western US until the Government was ready to pick up the burden. In Feudal
Japan, bandits and gamblers were allowed to use violence (or not) so long as
they paid their taxes. Of course, no Government allows violence against the
Government.
Given that in an anarchy the vast majority will not live as solo
individualists, but band together in various ways, often in family groups,
the way you describe anarchy above sounds indistinguisable from tribalism.
Do some anarchists believe that tribalism as practiced by some indigenes in
the Amazon, for example, is anarchy?
Ed