Beginners Guide to Anarchism!

[Der Übermensch]

Not always, depends whose theory of Communism it is.

[TheNowhereman42]

thats the CPUSA's theory

[Anti-Prefix]

You forgot about peace-anarcho!!!!!!!!!!! :thumb:

[Anti-Prefix]

Conclusion
So, there you have it. Anarchism in a nut shell. It is not to be confused with Chaos, as you have seen. Although the movement has died down from the public eye, it still exists and smaller groups still exist in great number.


Isn't anarchism anti group? Is that not ironic?

[Der Übermensch]

Have you read the guide...? There is Individualist Anarchism, but mostly Anarchism is based on the communal group. Anarchism is anti-government/coercive rule.

Also, "Peace-Anarcho" isn't a type. There are pacifists Anarchists, but its not a group unto itself.

[Mr. Ron]

I was wondering if there can be a liberal or conservative anarchist?

[g0d_!d!0t!]

Isn't anarchism anti group? Is that not ironic?

anarchism isnt "anti group". its anti-leader? iuno, what to call it, but its (from what i understand) everybody is equal, and they are all a group. theres no group leader, they are all equal?

[siva_chair]

I was wondering if there can be a liberal or conservative anarchist?


Well, once a true anarchist system is in place, im sure there can only be conservative anarchists because they wish to conserve what is in place.

[veggie 3.14]

Well, once a true anarchist system is in place, im sure there can only be conservative anarchists because they wish to conserve what is in place.
Not necassarily. (Sp?)

[Mr. Ron]

I'm new to this whole concept of anarchy. So, is religion allowed in a anarchal society?

[Mega_Dave]

Depends what commune u decide to join.

[siva_chair]

Not necassarily. (Sp?)


If a truely anarchist system is in place, how could there be such a thing as a liberal? A true anarchy would be the most liberal system you could have, so how could there be a liberal in such a system.

[veggie 3.14]

I'm new to this whole concept of anarchy. So, is religion allowed in a anarchal society?
Well, I would think that hierarchical religion, religion with leaders, and people that have to be obeyed, would be... frowned upon, I suppose, as from talking with anarchists, they're against all forms of oppresion, and things like that.

NOFXFreak, can you give me any books that are essential reading about anarchy?

[veggie 3.14]

If a truely anarchist system is in place, how could there be such a thing as a liberal? A true anarchy would be the most liberal system you could have, so how could there be a liberal in such a system.
Presumably, there couldn't.

[Der Übermensch]

I was wondering if there can be a liberal or conservative anarchist?
Both, I guess. There are Anarchist type theorys all over the spectrum. The Libertarians can be considered mildley Anarchistic (Anarcho-Capitalist), and there are considered Conservative.

I'm new to this whole concept of anarchy. So, is religion allowed in a anarchal society? Heirarchal religions, such as Catholicism, are very incompatable with Anarchism. But that is not to say religion can't exist. Tolstoys entire theory of Anarchism is based on Christianity and the Bible.

NOFXFreak, can you give me any books that are essential reading about anarchy?
I think I listed a few in the Original Guide posts, but if not, Daniel Guerin's "Anarchism" is the best book out there. Great overview of the theoretical and practical.
He also edited a 2 volume series called "No Gods, No Masters", which is a collection of writings by principal theorists such as Proudhon, Stirner, and Bakunin, as well as other documents concerning the movement. Its translated from French, the the guy who did it did a wonderful job (His translation of What is Property is the best i've read).

[siva_chair]

Presumably, there couldn't.


Exactly, they would all be conservatives because they would wish to conserve their current state.

[Der Übermensch]

something like that... although Anarchists are considered LEftists, not Liberals ussualy.

[Piecewise]

Anarchy is a cool concept, but it has no real application; society can not exsist with out a governing body to regulate it (there is no such thing as an eutopia which is what anarchy is, to an extent).

Anarhcy as a society goes against einsteins theory of relativity, for every action there is a equal or less reaction(errr. im not sure if thats the theory of relativity, but you get my ideal) actually it doesn't contradict it, it confirms it. In anarchy if someone murders someone, its just going to start a blood feud,.... there is no punishment for injustice. It would send the society into chaos, thus the society would not be functional.

Anarchy, as you wrote about it, is a political idealogy. But in todays times, political ideals, are as dangerous as religous ideals - it becomes a way of life b/c it influences decessions of daily life, therefore Anarchy is directly related to society, which is a way of living.

Man really has no inherent right to tell another man what to do.

Deus ex Machina.

[Der Übermensch]

That would be Newtons theory of physics. All your points have already been extensivly covered, including the fact Anarchy has worked before (nor is it utopian.

[Piecewise]

The only place anarchy could have worked was in the neolithical era and maybee in a few medievil villages; Even on islands or in places where there is a tribal society where there is no centralized government, there is still a chief or circle of wise men smoknig a peace pipe or something.

[TheNowhereman42]

The only place anarchy could have worked was in the neolithical era and maybee in a few medievil villages; Even on islands or in places where there is a tribal society where there is no centralized government, there is still a chief or circle of wise men smoknig a peace pipe or something.

It worked in modern Spain, Mexico, and France, read the guide you dunce.

google something like "barcelona spanish civil war" and go educate yourself

[Piecewise]

If it worked then, then it means it's still in existance; I can very well be wrong, but I've haven't heard of any anarchy lately; ex: Communism didn't work even though it was in existance for like seventy something years, my interpretation. And isn't anarchy something of a paradox or a contradiction b/c in order for it to work, don't people have to organize themselves in order to execute it, thus putting someone in control, then again its not a govt. so i guess it doesn't matter.

[Der Übermensch]

O exaulted one! You intrepid insights have won me over and made me realize the folly of my ways!
Or not...
Seriously, you didn't read the guide obviously. I'm pretty sure everything there has been covered already... Understand, yes, Anarchist societys that existed were overrun by trechery and crushing outside force (Communists betrayed both Ukraine and Spain, and Spain was also crushed my the military might of germany, italy, and franco). However, all nations fall. Look at Greece, or Rome. Obviously with your logic, due to the fact both empires no longer exist, nothing of value must of come from them. I guess Democracy and Republicanism was a failure as well.
But enough rambling I guess.
Heres a point by point. If it worked then, then it means it's still in existance Like I said, just because its gone doesn't mean it worked. I assure you, I have read literally thousands of pages on anaylsis of both the Spanish Civil War as a whole, and the Anarchists in particular. It worked, failure was due to outside forces (I keep meaning to write a more extensive bit on that, I will when I get a chance i guess...)
Communism didn't work even though it was in existance for like seventy something years, For the record, Marxist Communism was dead in the USSR by 1921, when the Bolsheviks took consolidated control. And anyways, Authoratarian Fascists have nothing to do with Anarchism.
nd isn't anarchy something of a paradox or a contradiction b/c in order for it to work, don't people have to organize themselves in order to execute it,
In Spain alone, there were 2 Million Anarchists who were members of the CNT, + a few million more who identified with it (POUM or UGT left). Yes, there were people who made sure everything ran smooth, but they were communal represenatives, ussualy on a rotational basis. Anarchism is against coercive government, and authoritarian leadership. Yes, there were "leaders", but they had no power over anyone. They could suggest, but they couldn't make you do anything. (Note that this is Sydicalism, which is more "conservative?" than Anarcho-Communism, which is almost entirley committee based).

[Piecewise]

I didn't read the guide b/c im doing calc homework right now and this a lot easier way of cutting through all the bull, but this is very intriguing. So...if anarchy did function, how long did it last in its last..(we'll call it) dynasty, and can it really sustain itself, in particular b/c of the human nature to corrupt, and can it work for the present as for the future with regards to the technological age.

[Der Übermensch]

I dont have any homework today, so I'll try and right up a summary of spain in a little bit.

As for technology, if anything, world communications, like the internet, if anything, help, as they help bring down the national borders that used to keep people so seperate.

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, here's part one. It goes upto just before the Uprising of Franco. I'll finish it a little later.

Spain
Early Development

In the late 1860's, Giuseppi Fanelli, a disciple of Bakunin, traveled to Spain. Although small enclaves of Individualists existed, there was no Anarchist movement present at the time. Addressing a small group of workers in Italian, with his small amount of broken spanish, he nevertheless was able to jumpstart a movement in the city of Barcelona.
Originally modeled on Bakunin's Anarcho-Communism, around 1880's, as the movement started to grow, more Syndicalist influence came in, as well as a dose of Proudhon's Confederalism, and the Anarchists now numbered about 43,000 (although that is a very rough estimate), centered in the Catalonian (13,000) and Andalusian areas (30,000). It should also be noted that because of the immense popularity of Bakunin, he's disputes with Marx, and eventual expulsion from the 2nd International (or that might of been the 3rd) by Marx, stemmed the popularity of Marxism/Communism, who still only numbered less that 20,000 by the Civil War.
Every few years, a group of Anarchists in a town would come out, attack the civil guards, and collectivize a town. Usually the citizens were happy with this, as in Spain, the land was still owned in an almost feudal system by the Catholic Church (It is important to note, that while the upper-class were still friends with the church, letting it retain immense power, the lower classes, as a whole, despised it, church attendance averaging less than 5% in most areas), and peasants were forbidden from owning land. Usually this communes would last for a month or so before they would be dismantled by the government.

The Tragic Week and the CNT
In 1909, a massive strike occurred in Barcelona. The civil guard, and even the army were brought in, and it intensified into a virtual uprising. Eventually about 600 men on both sides were dead, and 100's of Anarchists were executed.
In response, the Anarchists decided that they needed a more unified approach, as singular actions were accomplishing little. This resulted in the merging of the Andalusian and Catalan Unions into the CNT, or National Confederation of Labor. The massacre of Anarchists, if anything, helped the cause, as it just created more distrust of the establishment in the eyes of the workers, and within ten years, membership exceeded 700,000 (This excluded Individualists, of whom a definite number is unknown).
Remaining neutral during the first world war, the industrial center of Spain, Barcelona, became even more essential to the economy, as exporting to the belligerents was a major trade. Due to the fact that close to 60% of the working class in the city were part of the CNT, the Union managed to win massive concessions from the factories, who didn't want to lose their working bodies at such a time. However, in 1919, with the war over, the factories stopped meeting workers demands (an 8 hour work day at the time). To stop the strike, privately hired pistoleros attacked strikers, escalating into a street war that lasted for five years.
Azana
Although stuff happened in the 20's, the only significant change that I will cover was the creation of the FAI, as it played an important role later on. It was a sub group of the CNT that was more militant, and had about 200,00 members.
Anyways, in 1931, now claiming a significant part of the Spanish Population, and almost all of the Catalan and Andalusian working class, the Anarchists numbered over 1.5 Million.
1931 is also important, as the Azana government, which was, importantly, elected, took over after the King left. Socialist influenced, the Anarchists viewed it as a possible improvement fro Monarchy, but still viewed it suspiciously and declined to have a part in it.
Mild suppressions of Anarchists continued, although with the now freer presses, pictured of Anarchist executions shocked the middle and lower classes in other regions, and may of led to the election of a more conservative cortes (congress) in 1933 when the Azana government crumbled.
Road to War
In 1936, a very left wing government regained power. Moving towards a very secular government, the Church, once the center of Spanish life, felt usurped. The Army as well, many owning their positions to upper-class influence (the army was very corrupt. In the early 1900's, there were 17,000 generals for 170,000 men, mostly due to political appointments), felt that the Socialist slide was very dangerous. I should also add the main Socialist party was the UGT Union. There was also the PSUC, which were the Communists, and the PSOE, which was also Communist, but only in Catalonia. In all, the overall numbers of the three were still short of equaling that of the CNT-FAI.
As I was saying though, the many of the generals say the new government as a threat, and so, a coup was planned.

---end part 1---

[Reaganista]

Mild suppressions of Anarchists continued, although with the now freer presses, pictured of Anarchist executions shocked the middle and lower classes in other regions, and may of led to the election of a more conservative cortes (congress) in 1933 when the Azana government crumbled.


This part confused me. Why?

[Der Übermensch]

Bad syntax on my part I think. The suppresions didn't lead to the election of a more conservative goverment, but it did lead to the crumbling of the Azana one, after which the Conservative partys won a major gain in the cortes. (unless you ment something else...)

[Reaganista]

Yeah, I got it now.

[TheNowhereman42]

and can it really sustain itself, in particular b/c of the human nature to corrupt

I'm pretty sure no Anarchist uprisings have been crushed from inside by corruption, unless you count the Paris Commune

[punkemohardcorekid]

What I don't get about anarchists is why they want no gov't. i get that some are corrupt, but if there is no gov't, there are no laws. that means you can get shot, rush down to the hospital and have a major case of malpractice against you by one of the doctors, and the most you could do is shoot those guys. that means everybody would be in constant danger all of the time... i personally think that people just like the concept of anarchism, because it is something different, and it just seems cool. no offense to anybody who believes that anarchism is rad, i just don't get it...

[Der Übermensch]

because you didn't read the **** guide.
I refuse to answer questions that have been clearly stated in the main guide from now on.

[Mega_Dave]

What I don't get about anarchists is why they want no gov't. i get that some are corrupt, but if there is no gov't, there are no laws. that means you can get shot, rush down to the hospital and have a major case of malpractice against you by one of the doctors, and the most you could do is shoot those guys. that means everybody would be in constant danger all of the time... i personally think that people just like the concept of anarchism, because it is something different, and it just seems cool. no offense to anybody who believes that anarchism is rad, i just don't get it...

Wow...read the guide, you might actually learn something.

[PacificDrumma]

DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM ARE THE WAY TO GO!! "Democracy is the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism is the equal sharing of suffering." I say that anarchy is dumb.

[Maveryck]

Blessing and suffering are relative to each other, and as such, they will always appear to exist in equal quantity overall; our world will always be half filled with blessings and half filled with sufferings.

So why not share our blessings and sufferings with each other equally? After all, blessings are best enjoyed, and sufferings are best borne, in the company of peers.



(oh look, the left can spin pithy sayings as well!)

[Der Übermensch]

Wow mr 2 posts, your insightful post has really made me think!

I'm pretty sure I've already talked at length on how Anarchism is easily comparable to a form of direct Democracy...

[TheNowhereman42]

DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM ARE THE WAY TO GO!! "Democracy is the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism is the equal sharing of suffering." I say that anarchy is dumb.

your my hero

[PacificDrumma]

ANARCHISM IS IGNORANT! Just becuase your messed up "guide" says that you can just govern yourself doesn't mean it's right. You have to realize that people aren't good deep down inside...we're all born sinners. O.k. another test...list 1 anarchy that has worked...1,2,3, GO! Our lives our made better by the government. Face the facts.

[Mr. Ron]

ANARCHISM IS IGNORANT! Just becuase your messed up "guide" says that you can just govern yourself doesn't mean it's right. You have to realize that people aren't good deep down inside...we're all born sinners. O.k. another test...list 1 anarchy that has worked...1,2,3, GO! Our lives our made better by the government. Face the facts.
/hands you flame retardent suit.

[SumDysturbedKid]

Just becuase your messed up "guide" says that you can just govern yourself doesn't mean it's right
So you don't believe in democracy?

You have to realize that people aren't good deep down inside...we're all born sinners
that's relative to who decides what is a sin

list 1 anarchy that has worked
They already have been listed...name one form of any government that has worked, it's all relative to time, eventually they all crumble. Anarchy may need refining, but it is possible. Just because things are around now doesn't mean they "worked," it just means that they are ripe for destruction.

Our lives our made better by the government.
Speak for yourself. There are many people's lives that have been made worse by the government. If you're gonna argue against anarchy, argue for something else...fascism is a form of government, and there are many who would say that it made lives worse. Even the most advanced form of government today, democracy/capitalsim, causes problems and makes many lives terrible. Besides, how would you know that your life is better with government if you have never tried it without it?

[Der Übermensch]

ANARCHISM IS IGNORANT! Just becuase your messed up "guide" says that you can just govern yourself doesn't mean it's right. You have to realize that people aren't good deep down inside...we're all born sinners. O.k. another test...list 1 anarchy that has worked...1,2,3, GO! Our lives our made better by the government. Face the facts.

1... Spain
2... Ukraine
3... The Krondstadt
want me to keep counting?

I already listed them in the guide you idiot, so you proved you obviously didn't read it.

[Mr. Ron]

1... Spain
2... Ukraine
3... The Krondstadt
want me to keep counting?

I already listed them in the guide you idiot, so you proved you obviously didn't read it.
Spain was a anarchy?

[Der Übermensch]

ya. I'm in the middle of writing up an appendix for the guide just on Spain. Part one is posted up it little further up, but that doesn't deal with the mass collectivization that occured in the 30's.

[veggie 3.14]

ANARCHISM IS IGNORANT! Just becuase your messed up "guide" says that you can just govern yourself doesn't mean it's right. You have to realize that people aren't good deep down inside...we're all born sinners. O.k. another test...list 1 anarchy that has worked...1,2,3, GO! Our lives our made better by the government. Face the facts.
Well, I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of governments.

I don't think that one person (or however many there are in power) can decide what is right for everyone; they are always going to favour people, to put it mildly.

[veggie 3.14]

Two things NOFX.

First up, what do you think of Malatesta?

And second, when he (and other anarchists) says the abolishment of private property, how would you interpret this?

[veggie 3.14]

Spain was a anarchy?
No, I think just certain parts, in the Spanish Civil War. (1935 kinda time, I think?)

[TheNowhereman42]

Two things NOFX.

First up, what do you think of Malatesta?

And second, when he (and other anarchists) says the abolishment of private property, how would you interpret this?

I'll let NOFX handle Malatesta, what they mean by the abolishment of private property is exactly what they say. Everything should be communal, no one should really own anything because property is theft.

[veggie 3.14]

I'll let NOFX handle Malatesta, what they mean by the abolishment of private property is exactly what they say. Everything should be communal, no one should really own anything because property is theft.
What about my guitar? Is that communally owned?

[Der Übermensch]

Sorry Nowhereman, but that is (generally) incorrect, but first, on Malatesta, to be honost I've read about 5 paragraphs of his writings. I have a signifigant enough amount in my possession, but havn't gotten to them yet, as I am currently working on the Spanish Civil War some more.
But on Private property. I'm going to work from Proudhon on this, as he is the guy who said 'Property is Theft'. The problom with that phrase is that he used it to shock people, not to be literal. By property, he means stuff that should be in the public domain, such as land, industry, and functions that are normally given to government. In his work, 'What is Property', he made it clear that there is a difference between possesions and excess. You posses your guitar, and no one is going to take it from you. Same with your house. Same with the stuff in your house (if you own multiple houses however, you would have to choose only one). You don't however get to own the factory in which 200 people work. The people who work in it own it.
Using Spain as an example, what was done in many collectives was that land was taken from the church and the large landowners, and it was divided up. Every farmer was given an amount of land that they were capable of working. They were able to keep any produce grown on it, but then gave what they didn't need to the commune, for the consumption of non-farmers, who then gave their own services. Small landholder were ussualy allowed to keep the amoun of their land they could work without hired help, the rest given to others. The land, for all intents and purposes, was the farmers. They were given the amount they needed, but not given an excess. Likewise they kept what they needed and handed out the excess.

[veggie 3.14]

Sorry Nowhereman, but that is (generally) incorrect, but first, on Malatesta, to be honost I've read about 5 paragraphs of his writings. I have a signifigant enough amount in my possession, but havn't gotten to them yet, as I am currently working on the Spanish Civil War some more.
But on Private property. I'm going to work from Proudhon on this, as he is the guy who said 'Property is Theft'. The problom with that phrase is that he used it to shock people, not to be literal. By property, he means stuff that should be in the public domain, such as land, industry, and functions that are normally given to government. In his work, 'What is Property', he made it clear that there is a difference between possesions and excess. You posses your guitar, and no one is going to take it from you. Same with your house. Same with the stuff in your house (if you own multiple houses however, you would have to choose only one). You don't however get to own the factory in which 200 people work. The people who work in it own it.
Using Spain as an example, what was done in many collectives was that land was taken from the church and the large landowners, and it was divided up. Every farmer was given an amount of land that they were capable of working. They were able to keep any produce grown on it, but then gave what they didn't need to the commune, for the consumption of non-farmers, who then gave their own services. Small landholder were ussualy allowed to keep the amoun of their land they could work without hired help, the rest given to others. The land, for all intents and purposes, was the farmers. They were given the amount they needed, but not given an excess. Likewise they kept what they needed and handed out the excess.

Ah, that makes sense now.

What about those incabable of providing for themselves? Would they be helped?

[lolrox0rz]

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons![quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]your All Morons!lolr0x0r

[Der Übermensch]

Would a Mod PLEASE delete that post? It is a real eyesore.

What about those incabable of providing for themselves? Would they be helped?
As long as they were once contibuting members, such as people who were injured on the job (although they could also be given a simpler one), and people who are old and retired.
As for people born with probloms, primary care would be from the family I would think, but the family would alsso be given extra help to accommodate the person.

[veggie 3.14]

Okies.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

Quote:
What about those incabable of providing for themselves? Would they be helped?

As long as they were once contibuting members, such as people who were injured on the job (although they could also be given a simpler one), and people who are old and retired.
As for people born with probloms, primary care would be from the family I would think, but the family would alsso be given extra help to accommodate the person.

hmmmm,..never heard of any anarcho-scheme that cared any differently for those who were once "contributing"....not in the case of disability at any rate.

keep it simple; ( from each according to ability, to each according to need. )

the whole notion of, and preparation/expectation of chistlers, grafters and the like seems to me a latent suspicion...the whole subject is clouded when framed in comparison with capitalist exploitive mechanisms.

whereas i think it would be much different in a syndical community, where the workers own thier own time, own the factory, own the machines they operate, and where no one works under command (rather, via participatory self management.)

the communities surrounding these workplaces would likewise operate via participatory schemes,...as i think not enough thought is offered to properly consider the broader differences between a culture of COOPERATION, as opposed to the current culture of competition,...culture of advantage.

no, indeed, our disabled brothers and sisters have always been quite few enough that the above boldface phrase, taken as creed, understood morally, and applied in daily life would solve for happiness for all those involved. especially as we all began to get better and better at cooperating via mutual aid, direct action, participatory democracy, etc

interesting conversation overall.
ABOLISH USURY!!
be well in peace.
ian

[falcone08]

i'm impressed.

[Der Übermensch]

hmmmm,..never heard of any anarcho-scheme that cared any differently for those who were once "contributing"....not in the case of disability at any rate.

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear they weren't going to be treated differently...

[WoodenShoeSolution]

a few pages back someone was asking of books on the subject;

for a starters guide to popular movement, for everyone;
"a Peoples History of the United States: 1492 - present" by howard zinn is an
indispensable reference for the tendencies discussed here, offered in a familiar context for U.S. readers in particular,...but interesting regardless of nation.

i would argue that most modern anarchist efforts tend toward principles generally outlined in the works of bakunin and kropotkin. for these i would recommend the largest collection of both/either that you can find.

another vital reference for left communism/anti-authority can be found throughout the work of noam chomsky,...a great starter book is "understanding power",...a large multi subject anthology that includes a VERY detailed footnote/source appendix online or available as pdf.

a curious person could find all of these and MUCH MUCH more at AK PRESS.
http://www.akpress.org/

also for those with p2p fileshare capability...(limewire, bearshare, giFt, etc...)
you should be aware that there is a heaping WEALTH of information available there...(i maintain sort of a e-infoshop myself)...thousands of hours of relevant audio and video, PDFs, etc...
search terms that will generate this;
"chomsky" "howard zinn" "arundhati roy" "ward churchill" "michael albert" "naomi klein" "parenti" (christian and michael) "unwelcome guests" "anarchism pdf" "gnn" (guerrilla news network http://www.guerrillanews.com/ )

right then.
cool.
be well in peace.
ian

[Der Übermensch]

Zinn, while Interessting, it sometimes a bit of a hack. Admittadly, due to the angle he was writing from in PHoUS, its hard to verify some sources, but still, he gets a lot wrong. Near the end of the book, he mentioned a group of protestors who were protesting a nuclear submarine docked in Bangor, Maine... I ****ing laughed my head off at it, as Bangor is not a coastal city, but is probobly about 50+ miles inland....
Its a good book, and I don't want to tottally discredit Zinn, but be wary of everything you read.
Modern Anarchism I wouldn't recommend Proudhon/Bakunin. Modern Arnarchists, (disavwoing punk/vandels) I would say are more Individualist. Max Stirner would be a much better representation thereof. Bakunin had more of an influence in the Anarco-Communists, and I would venture to say that place in modern movements has been taken over by the hippys (albeit from a different perspective).

As for Noam, hes a good writer, and I would recommend him for political diatribes against American Imperialism, I would not consider him much of a resource as far as Anarchist lit. goes, even though he may be Libertarian in affiliation (he does however have a great introduction in Guerins Anarchism). Guerin and Bookchin do a much better job, as they have devoted their primary focus to the movement, and it must be remembered Noam is famous because hes a Linguist...

I defintily agree on AK press though. Most of the books I listed in the guide are published by AK. They have made available a huge amount of 19th/early 20th century Anarchist writers.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

Zinn, while Interessting, it sometimes a bit of a hack.
opinions vary,..but an important note to remember is his direct action,..as
among the founders of SNCC as well as stressing the movement of NON
objective journalism and academia.
also curious to me; the example you site, re. 'bangor'....this is hardly a broad
example that would support a broad critique. Do you have an insight about
any aspect of his radicalism? is it somehow suspect?

also, referencing chomsky,..though he revolutionized linguistic study, he
would hardly be recognised apart from the linguistic sphere were it not for his agitation starting in 1964, his presence on nixon's 'enemies list', and his dissident activities for peace and justice thereafter. he has been an anarchist
since childhood and spoken unflinchingly for libertarian socialism throughout his life.

in general i consider individualist anarchism as overlooking the 'bargining
power' trap present in market systems. i am a market abolitionist, prefering
models that involve production for use and participatory institutions.

anarcho communist OR libertarian socialist OR syndicalist...dont really care
which title is applied....but usufruct and anti-market all the way...
"individualist anarchism" includes some pretty creepy characters...murry,
rothbard,...(yikes)... and while i am quite aware that they bestow this title
unto themselves,..still its creepy. kind of along the lines of including "anarcho-capitalism" among the forms presented in the introductory offering..
there is no such creature...it is a term used somewhat by the USA libertarian
party members, and if i were to take them at their analysis it couldn't be more
remote from an anarchist vision.

just my side....and anyway?? why so adversarial?? are you the self-appointed
commisar here?? i dont think i had even set out to contradict, rather to
include information otherwise occluded. so pardon if i have offended brother.

be well in peace,
ian

[Der Übermensch]

I didn't mean to come off as necessarily meaning to counter you, I just have a habit of confrontational debate, something I picked up from Debate club. I just find that its a good way to get answers.

Bangor is just the one that sticks in my mind, as I live in Maine. I listed a number mistakes in the book margins. I'll see if I can find my copy. Like I said though, its not always Zinns fault that he has mistakes. Since hes writing from a perspecitve that didn't really leave much in the way of written history (Winners write the books), it can be very hard to find multiple sources to verify information.
Have you read his play 'Marx in Soho'? I'm anything but a fan of Marx, but even so, I found it to be a nice look at the guy.

Also, while I'm not going to add Zin, if you do have any books specificly on Anarchism that you think should be noted, I'll add them to the appendix of the Guide.

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, here it is Part two of the Spanish appendix.
While I do have some stuff on the war itself, there is a lot I left out as well, since its mostly just on the Anarchists.

Uprising
In January, 1936, the Cortes again fell. Seeing the need to defeat the Right wing parties, the Popular Front was formed from Socialists, Communists, left-Republicans, Basque Nationalists (they were conservative Catholic, but wanted autonomy, which would be easier under the Left) and a number of smaller groups. At this point, the Anarchists abstained. A side effect of this was that the Catalan generalidad, a internal government, was reformed. The Catalans also wanted autonomy, and the generalidad had been a compromise, but taken down by the Dictator Primo. The Anarchists gave limited approval to this body, as they saw autonomy from Spain as a better situation for them.
As I said earlier though, overall, the army didn't like this, especially the older members. So on July 19th, a revolt started. At its head was Sajurjo, who was killed in a plane crash the next day. His second in Command was Franco, who commanded the Army of Africa, the only Spanish army unit with any combat experience, and composed mostly of foreign legion and Moors. North Africa fell almost immediately, and all over Spain, garrisons were forced to choose sides, usually those with younger officers remaining loyal. The Civil Guard units remained on the fence often, and would join the side that appeared to be winning in what ever town the fighting may be in. The moment the rising began, the Anarchists uncovered the weapon stashes kept by the Unions (estimated at 40,000 rifles, for about 400,000 would-be militia men). Barracks and armories were overran. In some places, including barcelona, local officials were willing to give arms to the Anarchists, as well as Communists and Socialists, although many refused as well.
The Militia and the Government
The Anarchists, already experienced in urban insurrections, proved to be the most important factor in defending Barcelona, as well as playing a major part in Madrid. Perhaps most importantly for future events, the telephone exchange's were captured by the CNT-FAI. Within days, the militias had reorganized into more effective units, usually assembled by sub-union. The FAI organized the Durruti column, which was named after its elected commander, Buenaventura Durruti, who was no doubt one of the best known men in all of Spain, famous both for his heroics in the revolts of '34, as well as his almost Robin Hood like exploits with the Nosotros, an FAI action group, which he had formed with Francisco Ascaso, who died leading the assault on the Atarazanas Barracks in Barcelona. An all women's unit of about 1000 militia women was also formed.
When it became apparent that the revolt had gained a foothold, the two sides started to settle down in more definable battle-lines. The CNT made the decision to agree to an alliance with the Popular Front, although they refused to allow total command of the militia. When Soviet advisor's started showing up in Spain, the ones assigned to Anarchist units were often appalled by the lack of respect for officers, since they themselves were used to the rigid discipline of the Red Army. Regardless of their level of discipline though, the Anarchists were considered the best urban units in the Loyalist army. They were also admired for their sometimes reckless bravery in battle. This however backfired later on, when the militias started fighting on the front lines in rural areas. Factory workers had little knowledge for this type of combat, and when combined with their bravado, the Militias often refused to build trenches, considering it cowardly. They eventually learned their mistake, but at first it cost major casualties.
By joining the Popular Front, the CNT suddenly became the majority member of the government, something they hadn't considered beforehand, and didn't know what to do with. The CNT accepted 4 cabinet posts; health, industry (one they especially wanted), commerce, and ironically, justice. Federica Montseny, the health minister, was the first female cabinet member in Spain. The CNT however was denied the positions of War and Finance, the two areas that they felt could threaten them later on, a thought that later proved true. The first action of the CNT was for the justice minister two abolish legal fees, and to also destroy all criminal records. However, within only days, with Madrid again looking threatened, the Cortes decided to move the government to Valencia, a move opposed only by the CNT ministers, who saw it as abandoning the defenders. One group of officials were even arrested by a CNT patrol on their way to Valencia, and charged with desertion in the face of the enemy. Only a call to the CNT Committee allowed them to pass. A byproduct of the government flight however was that the morale of the CNT militias soared.

Collectives
There were basically two kinds of collectives, rural and urban, both differing depending on where you were, so what I write is merely a generalization.
Urban
In the city, most collectives were union based, and focusing on the Factory, an area almost exclusive to the CNT. Overall petite bourgeoisie were left alone (as ordered by the Union), and any shopkeeper who experienced looting could easily ask for, and get militia protection.
Factories were taken over, and if the owners had fled, the entire system was usually reorganized. If the owner was still around, two things could happen. If he had a history of unfair treatment, he was often driven out, or sometimes even killed (usually for those who had hired pistoleros). A owner who was known to be fair, would usually be allowed to stay and help manage the factory, although merely on par with the other workers.
Rural
Rural areas weren't as CNT dominated, as the UGT (socialist) Union also had a large following, but the method of collectivizing was very similar. Most land had been owned by the Church before hand, and was hated for it, but most priests had fled to the Fascists before they could be arrested. Land was take over, and parcels given to farmers based on however much they could take care of, keeping what they needed, and giving the rest to the village, from where it could be used by others, or in some-cases sent to the front. By most accounts, farm production actually increased at this time, as well as quality of food supply, as the farmers were no longer bound to the feudal sharecropping that existed under the church and big landowners. Small landowners were mostly allowed to keep most of what they had, although excess land was also taken.

Backround
I'm not going to give the history of the whole war, but some quick information is needed on other factors that played a part here.
-The Communists, PSUC/PCE/PSOE, were one of the smallest groups at the beginning of the war.
-The POUM were Marxist revolutionaries. Accused of being Trotskyists (Andres Nin, the leader, had been friends with him), this wasn't really true, ad Trotsky had publicly condemned them. The POUM often would back the CNT in the Cortes.

The PCE, due to being Stalinist Communist, and connected to COMINTERN, secured aid from the USSR. Due to the neutrality of all but Mexico, this was the only real source of weaponry for the Republic. The Communist standing grew immediately as Russian Tanks and aircraft arrived, on the (unwritten) condition that only Communist units were getting them. Soon, the only way to advance in the Army was to join the party. Within a year, the Communists controlled the government, which leads us too...

[Der Übermensch]

and finally, part 3...

Road to a Fall
The Communists saw a major threat in the communes, the CNT, and the POUM. On May 1st, the UGT and the CNT, who had been running the Barcelona telephone exchange in joint, agreed not to hold a May Day rally, since the political tensions were high. On the 3rd, a truck of assault guards stormed the telephone exchange. The commander was a Communist, although it is unclear whether he had orders from COMINTERN, or was merely acting on local authority. Regardless, the City erupted again. The POUM, who was being persecuted and declared illegal, turned out in support of the CNT (knowing this was a matter of survival), and the CNT-UGT members started building barricades around the city. At the front, Anarchist units were on the verge of mutiny, wanting to return home to defend their city. Fighting with police and civil guard went on for a few days, but the Anarchist ministers managed to convince the militia to a ceasefire. After dismantling the barricades and returning to work, the Communist police swept in and arrested many union members. The 'May events' was the death of the POUM, whose members joined CNT and UGT units in fear of arrest by Communists. Although a shaky truce lasted for the war afterward, small eruptions of hostilities continued, the PCE continuing to gain power as the USSR's ammo and weapons became more and more the only available. The government declared any form of revolution to be Trotskyite-Fascist, and harmful to the war. The communes were forcefully dismantled by red units, although once the unit left the commune would usually reorganize. The continual interruption didn't help matters with food, already scarce, and civilian rations by 1938 were down to meager amounts, even while Communist officials wined and dined reporters with lavish meals to give the allusion of prosperity and imminent victory for the world to see.
Raw materials for the factories were also withheld, the Communists trying to prevent the Anarchists from continuing arms production. Ironically, while the Communist activities did pretty much doom the Anarchists, their actions hurt themselves just as much, as the Anarchists still made up a major part of the army, and without supplies, the Republican military effort was hampered immensely.

The End
In December of 1938, Spain was a lost cause, Catalonia, and the area around Madrid, being the only part in Loyalist hands. Thousands upon thousands were fleeing Barcelona for France, where years of refuge (internment) camps awaited them. The CNT, while still alive, was much smaller, starving under Communist oppression. Barcelona fell in January, the rest of Catalonia crumbling behind it.
In Madrid, the situation was all but dead. A mixture of troops from all areas were surrounded, including the Anarchist 70 Brigade. It was at this point that Communist power finally crumbled, albeit far to late to matter. Negrins government fell apart in March, and militias started mass arrests of Communist officials. Strangely enough, its thought the COMINTERN actually engineered it to happen, so that the Party would not be in control when Madrid fell, which would allow the Soviet propaganda machine to find someone else to blame for the loss. Regardless, communist officials were quickly tried in tribunal by and shot (a practice the Anarchist did often with criminals, not out of malice per se, but due to their mortal fear of prisons. They saw prisons as the worst manifestation of the state, and a punishment far worse than death).
Remaining Communist units around Madrid marched on the city, which for a time was defended only by the Anarchist 70 Brigade, until a mixed Corps came up in relief. Communist power was totally broken in Spain. It was all for nothing however, as on March 27th, the Republican lines started to crumble, Madrid falling the next day. On April 1st, Franco officially declared victory, even though guerilla activity, both from domestics, as well as refugees crossing over from France, continued into the 60's.

In Hindsight
The Spanish Anarchist movement was by no means perfect, and in the end, it was even destroyed. However, it is significant in that it proved spontaneous revolution was possible, millions of people collectivizing, and not only that, but that it could be done effectively. Although the CNT is often reprimanded for its involvement in government, which may be rightly so, as it did lead to some problems down the line, it must also be acknowledged for the fact that the CNT was all but the lone voice in the body against the Communists, and (putting aside the fact they were in a government), the ministers appointed never betrayed their Union, always sticking to the wish's of the CNT.
As for the eventual destruction, other factors need to be analyzed, such as the Communist betrayal, the lack of international support for Spain, as well as the German weaponry and men, and the 200,000 Italian Soldiers who were sent by Mussolini. The CNT, given the situation, did amazingly well, surviving well over two years in the face of overwhelming adversity.

Primary Sources were:
The Spanish Anarchists by Murray Bookchin
The Spanish Civil War by Antony Beevor
The Spanish Civil War by Hugh Thomas
No Gods No Master by Daniel Guerin

Robert Capa also took some amazing photographs, which are collected in the book 'Heart of Spain'.

I also used stuff from other sources, but nothing major.

I lefts out a LOT of information, such as the military campaigns, as well as a lot of the political aspects. If anything is unclear, just ask, and I'll try to clarify. Or just ask questions, as I find Q&A to be easier, since its kind of point by point.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

Have you read his play 'Marx in Soho'?
indeed, sometime ago,...and yes i think it a refreshing look at marx,..he maintains this appreciation of fellow travelers by continuing to be involved with the ISO,..and occasionaly appearing in the ISR despite his anarchism.

so many people who are unschooled in all of this seem to picture marx shoulder to shoulder with lenin and co....as opposed to picturing him writing in a london pub, arguing politics with dickens over a pint,..that sort of thing.

of course i have many criticisms of marx,...but MOST of my criticisms i reserve for marxISTS.

his biggest flaw,..and i think he has this in common with capitalists,..and (some) of the writing of individualist/egoist anarchists,...is a seeming tacit support for the idea of a "...more capable set of men." (j. madison)..and that this intellectual promotion assures, when promoted , a coordinator class...even post-capitalism,..where those with a monopoly on information tend to rule by maintainence of its privledges.

(great play though.)

also,..for a clear reading of zinn's opinion of authoritarian communism, seek out "communism and anti-communism"...an essay included in the anthology "passionate declarations".

be well in peace.
ian

[WoodenShoeSolution]

also? what and where is the "guide" you refer to?
thanks,
ian

[Der Übermensch]

lol....
The Guide is this thread... Or at least the first two posts + Spain Appendix. I made it awhile ago for what was supposed to be a series of 'Guides', but no one else followed through :p We used to have "aNarChY r0xs" threads everyone in awhile, but since this was stickied, they have stopped :)
The rest of this thread is mostly just Q&A.
You really should read the guide before posting in the thread... Kind of helps put stuff in perspective.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

lol...ok
yeah...i read all 13 pages thusfar posted..i think you are indicating that the guide was the initial post + the info you just posted on the SCW. quite comprehensive indeed, but i should point out that i am by no means new to libertarian socialism, as the guide would presume to suppose.

...and for the most part i have just the one criticism and that is the inclusion of "anarcho-capitalism" in the guide,...this is not just you ...ive seen many such lists which include this absurd oxymoron,..always with the notation that anarchist dont really consider it as anarchy....TRUE,..however why include it then? so as not to offend the pirates?

hehehe
i want to be clear that there is no confusion, i can see that you do not mean to validate "anarcho-capitalism" by its inclusion...but i think when anarchists continue to do so, they have the collective effect of validating the term, despite their individual reproach.

that is, anti-authoritarian capitalism..or anti authoritarian private property schemes....are only 'libertarian' it that they preserve the "freedom" to EXPLOIT!! quite a different approach to 'freedom' altogether.

be well,
ian

[Der Übermensch]

Anarchism = an archia = Without Government
Capitalism = Free Market Economy

Anarcho-Capitalism = Social theory based on the elimination of government, esp. in the area of buisness control. Comparable to Extreme (American) Libertarianism.

I included it because, by definition of Anarchism, it does fit. AnCaps advocate the elimination of government. Thats about it though. The evolution to the two is barely (if at all) related. AnCap is ussualy critizied because by allowing buisness to exist without government, you have eliminated the only thing preventing buisness from becoming government, a view I am in agreement with.
I do give AnCap vailidation in the sense that they exist, and that they are in the loosest sense of the word, connected to Anarchism, But I felt pretty sure that I had made it clear that my inclusion of it in the guide was to point out that it has little in commen.

[dustindow]

Hi NOFX good job with this! :thumb:

[WoodenShoeSolution]

But I felt pretty sure that I had made it clear that my inclusion of it in the guide was to point out that it has little in common.

indeed, that was clear.

but this allows the strictest definition from the root rather than anarchys' practical development.
from the dictionary;
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
...as you indicated,..but including as well;
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
my argument is inclined more toward the developmental definition of anarchism, that is as opposing power, opposing unaccountable structure and control, and prefering disclosure, diffusion and education.

that is, almost all embryonic tendancies of state are bound in capitalist economics...the only distinction would be that they would advocate dismissing politicians and monarchs and replacing them with tyrannical NEED.

(not really arguing at this point,...it is a rather nuanced distinction at best.)

another consideration for me is the degree to which this is USA centric...just about anywhere else in the world "libertarian" would be taken to mean 'anarchist',....all except a little enclave in southern california, and yet another still smaller subset which employs the word "anarcho-capitalist"...just seems like anarchist making lists like this will do far more to further this term than any of the very few who actually identify personally with it.

another argument for this broader definition of anarchism as opposing power rather than only "state".
kropotkin, from the revolutionary pamphlets;
"for their self-defence, both the citizen and group have a right to any violence [within individualist anarchy] . . . Violence is also justified for enforcing the duty of keeping an agreement. Tucker. . . opens. . . the way for reconstructing under the heading of the 'defence' all the functions of the State."


it really is a minor point i am making.
be well,
ian

[Der Übermensch]

Hi NOFX good job with this! :thumb:

thanks :)

When I'm bored enough, I'll probobly write up another appendix.

[veggie 3.14]

Like the avatar, NOFX?

[Der Übermensch]

Like the avatar, NOFX?

very much so
http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13915&stc=1
Thats what I have over my bed :p

[dustindow]

very much so
http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13915&stc=1
Thats what I have over my bed :p

You sick twisted little boy......you prolly masterbate to it don't ya!

Now i want a flag like that..........you should get the U.S.S.R. flag

[Der Übermensch]

or not...

[el dudarino]

I have read approximately half of this thread and am not sure if this question has already been asked. I'm assuming that anarchism relies on the good in all of us to correctly function, and i don't believe that greed is human nature but that it has been encouraged and we have been coerced to be greedy by totalitarian means. Taking this into account does anarchy rely on the premise that we would be able to un-teach the greed we have been taught? or is it believed that the greed would dissolve once we witness a society that isn't based on greed benefiting more people equally?

[Der Übermensch]

well, either one is an reasonable answer actually. As I said before, education is the most important part of achieving Anarchism, and part of that is learning cooexistance. How you view that in relation to human behavior is relative however.

[Noku]

I think the biggest problem is natural bias of human mind and that can't be dimmed by education. We could use some mental drugs to make everyone depressed since depressed people have lack of natural bias and they are always critisizing themselves about whatever they do. However, I guess this isn't a very sound solution. But human mind is a very tricky system and we aren't as mechanical as computers, in order to build our world view we can't be honest with our selves.

I see government as a body which purpose is to help us out of natural bias, while individuals view is always biased, the phenomenas caused by this bias in large scale can be eliminated by an objective body like government. This is what makes anarchism interestingly dilemmatic: While anarchists are against power over individuals they need something to restrict people from being blind to their natural bias. Of course while we have small amount of people there could be some kind of village counsil where people would be able to decide upon certain subjects to restrict the bias. However in a large scale this kind of system would be too ineffective and slow to react on certain things before it is too late.

In order to achieve desireable political strength the system would need representatives, protocols and all the stuff our current governments have. Natural bias is product of ignorance, to get rid of it we'd have to be all-knowing beings, which we aren't. We even aren't naturally interested about each side of the story since it would make the decission making too difficult, maybe even impossible. In order to make a decission we must believe we know enoug to be able to make the decission, even though that is never the case.

I am still very confused, what the anarchism is really about and how is it different from our current system?

In anarchism the people would be dominated by other people, if you want to be part of the society, you'd have to play by its rules or move away. How is that different to the current system? In my opinnion all this is about anarchists illusion of that the system is discriminating them, as individuals, and the illusion of people not having control of the government.

[el dudarino]

It's interesting what you say about using drugs to remove the natural bias. Thinking about it, if you were to use drugs that didn't depress a person, but allowed them to see more objectively and allowed them to remove the natural bias through understanding, then we could un-learn the traits we have been taught and learn more about our species and the world around us. Drugs such as MDMA, LSD and mescaline allow us, to some degree, to view things without the fears and unnatural emotions that we have learned in our time on this planet, and thus allow us to make clearer judgement. Maybe thats why all the above are illegal? :D

[AgrimXXXX]

Thanks for the info NOFX.

I agree with the basic principles of anarchism, but I don't think it can be applied to our modern world.

We would need the minds and cultures of the world to evolve a little bit more, I think.

[SumDysturbedKid]

i don't believe that greed is human nature but that it has been encouraged and we have been coerced to be greedy by totalitarian means.

it is not only human nature, but animal nature. All animals have greed, as it helps keep them alive. We all want what's best for ourselves. If you don't think people have this greed naturally, then look at little kids. Kids don't like to give up what they have, and when they get something they want more. They must be taught to share by their parents , but greed is not taught, it is part of nature. It is impossible to be objective and not care about yourself. There is no thing as an unselfish act. If we made everyone unselfish, then humanity would collapse. We'd be pushovers. The group thrives when the individual does that which is best for himself and the group. If they only do what is best for the group then they lose their identity. Greed is neccessary, and is only harmful when someone has too much of it. But nothing is good when you have too much of it.

[Der Übermensch]

we can argue this and that, but we can't prove anything, because regardless of whether it is inate, or if people are born as a blank slate, this world is so driven by greed, it would be impossible to ever find a real answer (there is stuff on stages of development, but I'm leaving that our for now). What is known however, is that because we have (apparent) freewill, we are able to go against instinct and instead substitute it for what we see to be right. Its what many people would say seperates man from beast. Just because a child grows up in a capitalist society and from in early age learns that greed and excess is to be admired, it doesn't mean he can't change that. So again, it comes back to education.
People, as a whole, are logical creatures, and if presented with an alternative that is better, even if counter to their current situation, are willing to accept it if they so choose.

[veggie 3.14]

very much so
http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13915&stc=1
Thats what I have over my bed :p
Cool, did you make it?

[Der Übermensch]

yep :)

Not that it was all that hard. I do plan on stiching CNT/FAI on at some point, but thats gonna be tougher.

[el dudarino]

it is not only human nature, but animal nature. All animals have greed, as it helps keep them alive. We all want what's best for ourselves.

It is not animal nature to be greedy, it is self preservation that keeps them alive. A lion, for example, would attack and kill a gazelle from a herd for food. However the other gazelle can stay near the lion without fear of being killed, because the lion isn't greedy and it only takes what it needs to sustain it. Humans however, slaughter an obscene amount of animals, many more than we need to sustain the population, so the animals can be frozen and packaged and placed in ready meals, sold in restaurants, etc. to provide people with profit.

Lion prides are very cooperative with each other. For example, healthier members often obtain food for old, sick or injured members of the pride. Does this suggest greed?


greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

[WoodenShoeSolution]

I have read approximately half of this thread and am not sure if this question has already been asked. I'm assuming that anarchism relies on the good in all of us to correctly function, and i don't believe that greed is human nature but that it has been encouraged and we have been coerced to be greedy by totalitarian means. Taking this into account does anarchy rely on the premise that we would be able to un-teach the greed we have been taught? or is it believed that the greed would dissolve once we witness a society that isn't based on greed benefiting more people equally?
NOFXFreak replies;
People, as a whole, are logical creatures, and if presented with an alternative that is better, even if counter to their current situation, are willing to accept it if they so choose.

quite so.
and i find that these distinctions take all the air out of the right wing argument.
they are invariably only prepared to argue about authoritarian socialism... and
usually have little or no education about 'a third way'..
i often find capitalists who will say; "you want to hold a gun to my head and force me to share!" ...and they really must be set straight on this point,...as it happens, that is NOT the case.

ALL i can do, is maintain my own vigilant effort to disseminate information to the people. information about the mechanisms of exploitation, information about social, economic, and political repression,..both foreign and domestic.
...and likewise postulate alternatives that require NO ONE to work under command, NO ONE to expect only tiresome and onerous work, and instead to consider a balanced work complex, where everyone does some of the crappy work AND some of the creative/empowering work....as well as speculating about the regressive dynamics of patiarchy, rascism, homo-hatred, legacy, borders, prisons, police, etc...

so the answer to the fella who suspects i will put a gun to his head?

WHAT i will hold to your head is a mirror, that you might see the devastation this scheme of capitalist thievery has wrought on your brothers and sisters.

really the larger mistake the capitalist makes is supposing that our stuggle MUST be a fight with them,...and while their coming to know solidarity and mutual aid is possible and preferable, it is not necessary by any means...because there are so very few of them.
no, as previously stated the majority of the organizing occurs among the people....and once they see and understand capitalism for the scam it is, they simply will not submit to such a ridiculously one-sided card game.

i usually start with an image capitalists often render,..that of the 'deadbeat' who lounges on your couch and lives as a parasite to your labor.
...ok, now take the same deadbeat,...give him a college degree and a million dollars and from his perch on the couch he will tell you that he is from among a special set of persons,...a set that neednt be concerned of the actual physical labor of existence...this because they are too busy caring for you
by way of a myriad and complex set of benificent instructions and plans. (he is just too valuble to dirty his hands,..but to be sure, if he did, we are led to believe this would be a step down.)
what a crapload.

it may take decades, but ultimately there neednt be a 'law' against capitalism,..not any more than a law against cannibalism is necessary,... problem is now, it the case of capitalism, workers are fighting to be eaten,..climbing onto the plate of their own accord,...serving themselves up despite the fact that they both bought and built the tools of thier own consumption.

on the subject of the social development of anti-capitalism, kropotkin has a little bit on this point in "the place of anarchism in socialistic evolution"...;

Comrades! you have often asked yourselves -- "Whence comes the wealth of the rich? Is it from their labor?" It would be a mockery to say that it was so. Let us suppose that M. Rothschild has worked all his life: well, you also, every one of you working men have also labored: then why should the fortune of M. Rothschild be measured by hundreds of millions while your possessions are so small? The reason is simple: you have exerted yourselves to produce by your own labor, while M. Rothschild has devoted himself to accumulating the product of the labor of others -- the whole matter lies in that.

But some one may say to me; -- "How comes it that millions of men thus allow the Rothschilds and the Mackays to appropriate the fruit of their labor?" Alas, they cannot help themselves under the existing social system! But let us picture to our minds a city all of whose inhabitants find their lodging, clothing, food and occupation secured to them, on condition of producing things useful to the community, and let us suppose a Rothschild to enter this city bringing with him a cask full of gold. If he spends his gold it will diminish rapidly; if he locks it up it will not increase, because gold does not grow like seed, and after the lapse of a twelvemonth he will not find £110 in his drawer if he only put £100 into it. If he sets up a factory and proposes to the inhabitants of the town that they should work in it for four shillings a day while producing to the value of eight shillings a day they will reply --

Among us you'll find no one willing to work on those terms. Go elsewhere and settle in some town where the unfortunate people have neither clothing, bread, nor work assured to them, and where they will consent to give up to you the lion's share of the result of their labor in return for the barest necessaries of life. Go where men starve! there you will make your fortune!

The origin of the wealth of the rich is your misery. Let there be no poor, then we shall have no millionaires.


well put prince k.

all for now,
be well in peace.
ian

[veggie 3.14]

yep :)

Not that it was all that hard. I do plan on stiching CNT/FAI on at some point, but thats gonna be tougher.
Aye, I think so.

Are the CNT still around?

quite so.
and i find that these distinctions take all the air out of the right wing argument.
they are invariably only prepared to argue about authoritarian socialism... and
usually have little or no education about 'a third way'..


Aye, I find that.

Or the old "anarchy is choas" bullcrap.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

Sorry if this question has already been asked, but it's the one thing that has always bothered me about anarchy:
Assuming the whole world were to become anarchist, what is there to stop someone or a group of people seizing control? Wouldn't feudal-type warlords and eventualy kings arise from it? How can anarchy preserve itself without being forced on people?

[Der Übermensch]

Are the CNT still around?

Yes and no. There is a web site that apparently is the CNT... But I don't know Spanish, so have no idea if it really has anything to to with the original CNT.
the site is http://www.cnt.es/home.php


Assuming the whole world were to become anarchist, what is there to stop someone or a group of people seizing control? Wouldn't feudal-type warlords and eventualy kings arise from it? How can anarchy preserve itself without being forced on people?
While I guess there is a theoritical possibility of it, if an individual tried to take power, who would listen to him? If the majority of the people in the given area supported him, then all's well that ends well, as if thats what they want, let them have it (the minority in opposition can always join another commune).
As for forcing it upon people, I again refer to Spain. While it can be argued that some people were forced, like I outlined in the appendix, those who weren't Anarchists were given a good amount of freedom. They were allowed to keep much of what they had (excluding excessive's) and ussualy the Milita would make sure that they weren't attacked or threatened by people who might resent them.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

Sorry if this question has already been asked, but it's the one thing that has always bothered me about anarchy:
Assuming the whole world were to become anarchist, what is there to stop someone or a group of people seizing control? Wouldn't feudal-type warlords and eventualy kings arise from it? How can anarchy preserve itself without being forced on people?

hey jimbob,...really this is a VERY important question and can be used to delineate why anarchists would prefer anti-authoritarian means, even if it takes much longer than authoritarian, coercive means, as well as why anarchist strive for social revolution as opposed to political victories.

....that is, when presented without force and without coercion, these ideas can be carried throughout the population as a matter of UNwritten law,...as a matter of very basic social "contract"...basic understandings about free association, mutual aid, direct action, participatory workplace and community democracy, autonomy, etc...

spread in time throughout the population these very basic values would present questions internal to people when they were posed an idea,...say a capitalist, or king, or lord or whatever...proposes to employ you? well,...after centuries of capitalist brainwashing it occurs to very few to ask; "will i have to work under command?" "will i own the tools and machines i am using, while i am using them?" "will i have a proportionate say in the decisions that affect me?" "will i have empowering work as well as laborous work?"...all of the things that people oriented social organization can provide.

it doesnt occur to people to ask those questions now because this machine was built so WE would ride it,...and it has been here long enough that we were born into it, without reference to the possibilities.

ok, and on the other hand you have authoritarian means,...and here is the rub...that people will (rightfully) revolt against even very good ideas if those ideas are compelled upon them by external forces rather than educated about the mechanisms and left to decide and perhaps seek socialism from within as a matter of personal moral choice and under pressure from no one. (political and economic pressure that is,.. OF COURSE social pressure is applied, but social pressure can be as innocent as this thread. as in, "hey check this out,..get into it, investigate, kick the tires, I THINK in time it could really work!")

i do have a habit so far of including quotes, but this is quite relevant;
from bakunin's "immorality o the state"...the last paragraph;
Morality Presupposes Freedom.
And even when the State enjoins something good, it undoes and spoils it precisely because the latter comes in the form of a command, and because every command provokes and arouses the legitimate revolt of freedom; and also because, from the point of view of true morality, of human and not divine morality, the good which is done by command from above ceases to be good and thereby becomes evil, Liberty, morality, and the humane dignity of man consist precisely in that man does good not because he is ordered to do so, but because he conceives it, wants it, and loves it.

be well in peace.
ian

[sydbickle]

As Thomas Jefferson once stated the government that governs least governs best.

[Der Übermensch]

I prefer Thoreau's elaboration. I heartily accept the motto, - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

[Katana]

This is a question about Marxist communism in general; not really anarchy in specific.

Will all sorts of occupations be paid the same? Doctors as much as janitors? Lawyers as much as the guy who says, "would you like fries with that"? And, no matter how hard you work, as long as you work, you'll get paid a fixed amount? Where's the incentive?

I think that society needs at least a vague mode of stratification in order to know what it's doing. Unless an anarchistic society is built from the ground up, it's nearly impossible to perpetuate its existence. Adapting one from a modern society (or even a single city) would be a daunting, if not endless and fruitless, task.

[Der Übermensch]

There are always those who have incentive to do the job because of what the job represents, not what it pays. Those are the types who become Docters, and other such things. Likewise, there are those who, while lazy, arn't totally disconnected, and would be fine with taking a low end service job.

As for general stratification, there are some models of Anarchism I have seen that allow for limited Stratification. They see a difference between small levels of difference and major excess.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

This is a question about Marxist communism in general; not really anarchy in specific.

hey there, first off, the above statement has some issues.
"anarchy" is not any subset of marxism, though you may find anarchists who are quite familiar with marx, many will have arguments about details and permutations. even more will have arguments with marxists, and i'm still not quite sure how well "marxism" reflects the work of marx. i find it generally difficult to understand why a supposedly "scientific" socialism would have an individual's proper name as their creed. really. i admire alot of anarchist thinkers and writers, but have never considered calling myself a 'bakuninist' or 'kropotkinist' or 'chomskyist'...(hilarious to contemplate.)

anyway......
Will all sorts of occupations be paid the same? Doctors as much as janitors? Lawyers as much as the guy who says, "would you like fries with that"? And, no matter how hard you work, as long as you work, you'll get paid a fixed amount? Where's the incentive?

I think that society needs at least a vague mode of stratification in order to know what it's doing. Unless an anarchistic society is built from the ground up, it's nearly impossible to perpetuate its existence. Adapting one from a modern society (or even a single city) would be a daunting, if not endless and fruitless, task.

before the question "Will all sorts of occupations be paid the same?" is asked, its important to note at least the difference about who would decide. now, benificent managers and CEOs are deciding, based to a higher degree than anything else on profit, productivity, etc. i personally have no trouble visualizing a system within which the people decide, based on essentially participatory bargaining between the persons of the workplaces expressing themselves democratically as to their expectations, and then "ping pong"ing that information between communities of consumers expressing themselves democratically. some of the initial conflicts that arise via speculation can be addressed by making sure you understand that these two groups cannot be considered in competition (after all it is cooperative ecomony we are describing.)...no, not in competition because they are both YOU. that is, those are the two systems within which everyone votes; at work as to you needs, and at home, as to your needs.
....so much of this requires the continued social revolution discussed elsewhere in these posts,..i cant stress enough that a morality of cooperation must be in play...this plays a large role in my arguments against authoritarian communism.
ok, those voting would know they were considering a number of factors.. they would consider the raw physical effort involved, the health risks, whether the job was one that tended to empower or to marginalize.
(another note, important to point out that we are evaluating "jobs" at this point and not specific persons in specific positions...also you might have noticed that i did not include as consideration the amount of training that any of these jobs required, think about it, some other post perhaps to address that later.)
ok, that is roughly step 1 but it doesnt solve the problems yet because with these values in play we will very likely end up with a situation where sewer work and coal mining might be valued at say $80 an hour...while filing papers or managing other clerical or organizational tasks might offer $10.
so then what?
balanced work complex
ok, so then one might coordinate a schedule that suits exactly your needs,..how this is done is just an organizational question....an internet site? a community center? work sharing organized between different workplaces?
think pragmatically about it for a moment before you discount it as requiring people to know how to do every different job,..just not true. but you might know several different jobs...jobs which attract you in different ways, for different reasons. maybe you wanna work a (by then old-fashioned) 40 hour work week filing papers? answering phones? accounting? or maybe a 10 or 15 hour week up to your knees in s***? or mining coal? or shoveling dirt?....or do you wanna strike a balance and work a week where you staple and file for 20 hours and pull a 5 hour shift smelting steel? you decide....of course, availability, skill, training would all play a role in consideration.

EDIT:hehe,..almost forgot the important part,...after all of this....it IS possible for people to make somewhat more than each another,.. BUT only for working either harder or longer or both....NOT for having had the BENEFIT of training, NOT for owning land, NOT for owning tools, not for controlling others, etc....only for working harder or longer.

(this is really much much larger than a one post discussion, there are details about some professions that deserve different kinds of scrutiny,..you mentioned doctors for instance,...and everyone always thinks of all the schooooooool that requires, but fail to recognise this medical preisthood has carved out a patriarcal niche' for itself,...i dont think it is any mistake in our society that one can be a nurse (predominately female) for 40 years and still not be a "doctor" of any kind,...what other skilled professions offer no advancement to working apprentices?

gonna break out here just because it's getting late and i must sleep for WORK tomorrow, wanna recommend a very broad strokes kind of talk about some of these forms and ideas though....its michael albert, anarcho-communist and co-developer of ParEcon (participatory economics), which, whatever you think of its viability, at least considers the basics of an anarchist economic vision.
anyway,.check it if interested;
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=3952&nav=topic-directory&

(and try http://radio4all.net by itself for hours and hours of educational and informative audio)
more later.
be well in peace.
ian

[white_riot]

NOFX freak you have done a really good job on informing people on what Anarchism is and all the questions you have answered on it. Well done. I have really enjoyed reading this thread.

[darkkeeper9]

This might have already been asked, but would'nt somone try to take over, cos humans being human, even though we could evolve, there would still be a whew who would want to try and take over and threaten the whole society, They would'nt be alone human greed will make others follow and want to take power, look at the animal world, i mean groups of primates have "alpha males" which take charge and are "bullyish" towards the other apes, us being closly related to apes would mean that its not all that differant, and it seems to me that this form of freedom would be a step backwards for the human race, afterall even thought we say that most polititions are a complete pain in the arse, they've been put there because we trust them to lead us by popular demmand, and there are many that would'nt have a clue about decisions in a society such as this, and what about servival of the fitist because the best way forward for the human race is as many others have put it before that it is to weadle out the weakist and the stupidist from society in order to get closer to "perfection". i appologise if this sound a bit facist and pro nazi

anything to add would be good to help im my understanding

[G.G.Allin]

what about currency? can things hold monetary value?

[Der Übermensch]

You need to work on syntax, but as far as I can tell, your basicly asking what prevents someone from taking over?

The simple answer is the people.
As I have said before, if people are ready for Anarchy, they will embrace it, and anyone foolish enough to try and take over will have no base to work from. Once a person is empowered with their independence, and believes in it, no force except maybe death is able to take that freedom away.

[WoodenShoeSolution]

and what about servival of the fitist because the best way forward for the human race is as many others have put it before that it is to weadle out the weakist and the stupidist from society in order to get closer to "perfection"

my my my my

first of all, "survival of the fittest",..as it is relevant in biological evolution...is not applicable to sociology especially. what it seems you are doing here is fishing for phrases that have little to do with one another, and assembling them so as to make a point you already support.
evolution is a process of the non-random selection of random mutations, producing very mild differences over hundreds of thousands of years. the biggest genetic difference between humans is whether they are lactose intolerant or not, (about 30,000 genetic 'base pairs' describe the difference. (out of 6 billion i think.)) ...the shade of your skin for instance requires 6 pairs....one billionth of how you're built. now extrapolate this to the sociological; is the color of your skin only 1 billionth the makeup of your social existence and development?
NO WAY!!! the point being that some other invented human sources explain the percieved differences....usually to further the fascist agenda worldwide. in order for those fascists to succeed they have to nuture and cultivate ALL of the "borders" between us, and develop new "borders" when we start crossing the old ones.
these borders are exactly the points that anarchists should focus their attention on dissembling, on monkeywrenching. smash borders between "races"! smash borders between lands! smash borders between sexes! smash borders between classes!
SO then?? how do we explain the differences in intellect? would it surprise you to find that we in the USA seek our education in a system built for entirely another purpose? "WHOA THERE iAN!! you wacky 'conspiracy theorist'...of course the education system is designed to educate!"
no, not really,..not here in the USA anyway.
here is an interesting lifted item;
Occasional Letter Number One

Between 1896 and 1920, a small group of industrialists and financiers, together with their private charitable foundations, subsidized university chairs, university researchers, and school administrators, spent more money on forced schooling than the government itself did. Carnegie and Rockefeller, as late as 1915, were spending more themselves. In this laissez-faire fashion a system of modern schooling was constructed without public participation. The motives for this are undoubtedly mixed, but it will be useful for you to hear a few excerpts from the first mission statement of Rockefeller’s General Education Board as they occur in a document called Occasional Letter Number One (1906):

" In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

This mission statement will reward multiple rereadings.

education? no, not really..."education" here has come to mean that you stay in line, that you wait until 'called on', that you offer the proper response when the proper bell rings, that you are capable of repetitive onerous drudgery, that you are willing to continue demonstrating a skill long after you've clearly understood it, that you are punctual, etc....

very little to do with education really.

and you would take this system and try to determine who "the fittest" are??
a; are the fittest those who got the highest scores and the most degrees and certificates?
b; OR are the fittest those who were able to maintain autonomy and identity, and never have the weakness to be broken?
NOTE; i am not actual saying that either are the fittest. i an saying that they are subject to a perverse social model that has nothing to do with human biology. i am saying that humans are **** near identical except for 'personality'.

ok, and..
what about currency? can things hold monetary value?

while opinions vary on this point, i see no problem whatever with currency, and feel that problems associated with money usually have to do with other mechanisms and structures in the economic system.

as for product 'value'...i think it gets trickier there...as value should be derived from the labor involved,..
basic ideas in this vein are called 'labor theory of value', or LTV for short.
here is wikipedia on the subject;
LABOR THEORY OF VALUE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value)

right. thats enough.
be well in peace.
ian.

[Love Anarchist]

I only got my hands on one book on Anarchy till now, but heard several songs about it... :D
It's indeed a difficult subject, but its bases were quite simple, starting from Rousseau and his theory of human nature, which is initially good, but altered by society. Also, scientific optimism, which prospered in the XIXth century and even lead to bull**** believes like natural evolution would coincide with human moral evolution.
But in order for Anarchy to be installed, all the people would need to evolve to the point where they would want Anarchy. That means individual evolution trough knowledge and willing to better yourself spiritually, or increasing artistic passion. Education wouldn't cut it, education sucks balls and creates robots and I don't want to hear about such a thing in Anarchy, even if it would teach the absolute truth... But Anarchy is a state of mind, you want to feel liberated from the shackles of society, you don't care about their values, especially their bull**** money and possessions, you are your own God and you'd rather believe in the beauty of Nature, for example (unless you want to get all Hegel about it and believe in the dialectical end of history, might as well believe in Christian Judgement Day...). Just eliminating the state, but keeping institutions like school, wouldn't be much of a progress... And if you still believe the people should have homes and so on, well then there's no reason why they shouldn't want more confort, and more luxury than others. Or are they going to break down and cry if they see that everyone has equal rights and conditions ? Believing in Anarchy means destroying civilization, learning from and never repeating the mistakes of history and indeed, if people were given their freedom they could apreciate it, but only if they are individuals, and superior ones at that, without greed or will to power, which would only manifest itself in Art...
"Ubermensch"... Nietzsche didn't believe in Anarchy, because egalitarianism made him sick... Besides, he didn't believe the masses could do anything right... But as an individual, he was anti-state... As long as people will still care about their asses, well, America has got that fully covered...

[veggie 3.14]

I only got my hands on one book on Anarchy till now, but heard several songs about it... :D
It's indeed a difficult subject, but its bases were quite simple, starting from Rousseau and his theory of human nature, which is initially good, but altered by society. Also, scientific optimism, which prospered in the XIXth century and even lead to bull**** believes like natural evolution would coincide with human moral evolution.
But in order for Anarchy to be installed, all the people would need to evolve to the point where they would want Anarchy. That means individual evolution trough knowledge and willing to better yourself spiritually, or increasing artistic passion. Education wouldn't cut it, education sucks balls and creates robots and I don't want to hear about such a thing in Anarchy, even if it would teach the absolute truth... But Anarchy is a state of mind, you want to feel liberated from the shackles of society, you don't care about their values, especially their bull**** money and possessions, you are your own God and you'd rather believe in the beauty of Nature, for example (unless you want to get all Hegel about it and believe in the dialectical end of history, might as well believe in Christian Judgement Day...). Just eliminating the state, but keeping institutions like school, wouldn't be much of a progress... And if you still believe the people should have homes and so on, well then there's no reason why they shouldn't want more confort, and more luxury than others. Or are they going to break down and cry if they see that everyone has equal rights and conditions ? Believing in Anarchy means destroying civilization, learning from and never repeating the mistakes of history and indeed, if people were given their freedom they could apreciate it, but only if they are individuals, and superior ones at that, without greed or will to power, which would only manifest itself in Art...
"Ubermensch"... Nietzsche didn't believe in Anarchy, because egalitarianism made him sick... Besides, he didn't believe the masses could do anything right... But as an individual, he was anti-state... As long as people will still care about their asses, well, America has got that fully covered...

Read the thread.

[Love Anarchist]

You didn't have to quote the entire thing just to say that...
As far as I read it, it's about how life would be then and that you could get to it if people evolved (I don't see how and in what sense) and keep it there by education... Also, that only good artists would survive and also that the ones who, after all that education, still wouldn't like it, could go to the desert... And I don't think there's much psychological thought involved in it, or I just didn't realise it...
However, historically speaking, good job...

[veggie 3.14]

You didn't have to quote the entire thing just to say that...
As far as I read it, it's about how life would be then and that you could get to it if people evolved (I don't see how and in what sense) and keep it there by education... Also, that only good artists would survive and also that the ones who, after all that education, still wouldn't like it, could go to the desert... And I don't think there's much psychological thought involved in it, or I just didn't realise it...
However, historically speaking, good job...
Yes, I did.

*Knows he's in the wrong*

What are you going on about?

[Der Übermensch]

"Ubermensch"... Nietzsche didn't believe in Anarchy, because egalitarianism made him sick... Besides, he didn't believe the masses could do anything right... But as an individual, he was anti-state... As long as people will still care about their asses, well, America has got that fully covered...
He wasn't an anarchist per sé, but he hero worshiped Max Strirner, who was the father of Individualist Anarchism, and whose writings can be traced as a direct influence on Nietzsche's writings. Nietzsche was even afraid some of his work would look almost plageristic in comparison.
Nietzsche probobably would of laughed at Anarcho-Communism, but I think that he easily can be interprated from the Individualist standpoint, so loosley could be called an Anarchist.

[siva_chair]

He wasn't an anarchist per sé, but he hero worshiped Max Strirner, who was the father of Individualist Anarchism, and whose writings can be traced as a direct influence on Nietzsche's writings. Nietzsche was even afraid some of his work would look almost plageristic in comparison.
Nietzsche probobably would of laughed at Anarcho-Communism, but I think that he easily can be interprated from the Individualist standpoint, so loosley could be called an Anarchist.


It takes nothing away from his writings if he wasn't an anarchist.

[Love Anarchist]

Indeed, he did "worship" Stirner and recomended him to Baumgartner, one of his favourite students, for example, while he was teaching at Basel... I don't think Stirner was ever widely popular, anyway, (which is good in a way...) altough his work was introduced by J.H.Mackay, a non-violent individualist Anarchist, somewhat like his friend Rudolf Steiner...
He probably "worshiped" Stirner because of his strength, Nietzsche was more of a poet and only destroyed in order to create, anyway, it takes a lot of stupidity to consider him a fascist writer of some sorth, in "About the sublime" from "Also sprach Zarathustra" he talks about the final evolution of the "Ubermensch", becoming good ! ...

[Der Übermensch]

Striner was pretty much unkowen, outshined by Hegel during his time, and the surpassed by Nietzsche down the road. Even so, the "Ego and It's Own" can be traced as both the founding point of Modern Existential philosophy as well as Individualist Anarchism. But anyhow, we are getting off topic here, there's a Nietzsche thread somewhere around here.

[veggie 3.14]

Well, with any luck, I'm going to be buying Homage To Catalonia tommorow... :cool:

[MACKIE_B]

Yes. But "businesses" are not privately owned, nor operated for profit.

communism..

[MACKIE_B]

No.
I think your a commie ( anit-christ)

[Der Übermensch]

do you mean 'Anti-Christ'...?

Anyways,most forms of Anarchism are based on the same economic system that you refer to. communism. As I've said far to many times though, do confuse communism with Communism (CCCP).

[veggie 3.14]

I think your a commie ( anit-christ)
Why does being a communist make me the "anit-christ"?

[SumDysturbedKid]

think your a commie ( anit-christ)

that's weird, i think jesus is more of a commie. He lived in poverty, and preached about charity, rich giving to the poor (if everyone did it then everyone would eventually reach economic equilibrium). He also believed that everyone was created equal. Was he the "Squealer" (Animal Farm) for god? He also seemed to cherish the group much more than the individual. With as many rules as Christianity has, he wouldv'e loved a government to limit everyone's individual freedoms (as long as he was the government). I think he would've been all for communism.

[Reaganista]

I think your a commie ( anit-christ)

:amaze:

What?

[siva_chair]

I think your a commie ( anit-christ)

:amaze: :lol:

The Tway? Communist? Let alone the anti-christ?

You are so full of **** your breath stinks. I can smell it over the internet.

[Reaganista]

Nah he got me, I'm the anit-christ...

[siva_chair]

Nah he got me, I'm the anit-christ...

Oh shi....RUN!

[TheNowhereman42]

Well for once in my life I got a school topic that doesn't suck, I've got a research paper between 6 and 15 pages on the Spanish Civil War in my American History class (I realize its nothing to do with America, but it was one topic in a list of 200 or something, so there you go. Apparently its a topic because of America's involvment in it or something, even though there wasn't any...I'll be sure to make a point of that).

Anyway thanks NOFX for those paragraphs on it, I'll probably use quite a bit of that information, along with a couple thick books I have on the subject. I acctually cited this thread as one of the sources in my bibliography, which for some reason we are turning in 6 weeks before the final paper is due.

[Der Übermensch]

That actually the exact topic I am doing for my APUSH class :p

There was no Official involvement, as America blockaded the Republic (FDR didn't want to lose the Catholic vote, even though he personally supported the republic). There were however about 3,000 Americans who went to Spain to fight. You will mainly want to concentrate on the Abe Lincoln Brigade, which was affiliated with the Communists, but there was a American volunteer unit with the CNT, the name of which I can't remember, which numbered about 150 people.

For sources, try to get your hands on a book called 'Madrid 1937'. It cost me 60$'s, but it was well worth it, as its a large collection of letters from many of the volunteers, so is a wonderfull Primary source.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415914086/qid=1113317448/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Theres also a book 'Comrades', by Harry Fisher, which is the best first person account I found.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803268998/qid=1113317518/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Another source is "Americans in the SPanish Civil War". Overall, I thought it was crap, as the guy who wrote it is a total brown-nose, but it still has some usefull stuff on sequence of action.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804722773/qid=1113317583/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books

If you need just a general history, I recommend Antony Beevor's book, its a lot shorter then Hugh Thomas', but still has a lot of info.

[veggie 3.14]

What about Homage to Catalonia?

I've got that; it's awesome.

[Der Übermensch]

Very good book, but Orwell is British, not American :p

[veggie 3.14]

Very good book, but Orwell is British, not American :p
Point, but it shows a view on the war...

[Der Übermensch]

yes, but not the one he needs for his project. Orwell fought with a POUM militia, while the Abe Lincolns were attached to the 15th (International) Brigade, which was part of the main army, and recruited for by the COMINTERN.

[TheNowhereman42]

There was no Official involvement, as America blockaded the Republic (FDR didn't want to lose the Catholic vote, even though he personally supported the republic). There were however about 3,000 Americans who went to Spain to fight. You will mainly want to concentrate on the Abe Lincoln Brigade, which was affiliated with the Communists, but there was a American volunteer unit with the CNT, the name of which I can't remember, which numbered about 150 people.

For sources, try to get your hands on a book called 'Madrid 1937'. It cost me 60$'s, but it was well worth it, as its a large collection of letters from many of the volunteers, so is a wonderfull Primary source.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415914086/qid=1113317448/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Theres also a book 'Comrades', by Harry Fisher, which is the best first person account I found.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803268998/qid=1113317518/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Another source is "Americans in the SPanish Civil War". Overall, I thought it was crap, as the guy who wrote it is a total brown-nose, but it still has some usefull stuff on sequence of action.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804722773/qid=1113317583/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/103-7415629-9545455?v=glance&s=books

If you need just a general history, I recommend Antony Beevor's book, its a lot shorter then Hugh Thomas', but still has a lot of info.

1) I knew the American thing, although I think our history book lists the number as something smaller than 3,000.

2) I might get one of those sources, right now I just have a big book called The Spanish Civil War that I found at borders randomly, can't remember the authors name

3) Oh, its much more fun that just a general history, I acctually get to state a point and write an entire paper defending it

I'm thinking of going with something like: Although much overlooked in general history, and sometimes even forgotten, I believe the Spanish Civil War was one of the most important events in history as it showed a full social revolution is still possible in modern times, and also that it could succsesfully (sp?) defend itself from outside attackers. Or something like that, I need to turn in my thesis statement in a couple of weeks.

also I acctually have Homage to Catalina somewhere in my mom's huge bloody bookcase, I'll probably pull it out as I've wanted to read it anyway. Orwell is where its at. I think NOFx interpreted it as I have to relate it to America, but thankfully I don't.

[Der Übermensch]

1) I knew the American thing, although I think our history book lists the number as something smaller than 3,000.
It really depends on who is saying it. The COMINTERN claimed 15,000+ during the war. There are however like 2,800 confirmed participants.

2) I might get one of those sources, right now I just have a big book called The Spanish Civil War that I found at borders randomly, can't remember the authors name
Probably Hugh Thomas' book. Its the best out there.

I'm thinking of going with something like: Although much overlooked in general history, and sometimes even forgotten, I believe the Spanish Civil War was one of the most important events in history as it showed a full social revolution is still possible in modern times, and also that it could succsesfully (sp?) defend itself from outside attackers. Or something like that, I need to turn in my thesis statement in a couple of weeks.
Depends on what you consider succesfull... It showed they had the ability to mount an effective defence... But due to internal squaballing, and the military might of Germany, they kind of lost...

also I acctually have Homage to Catalina somewhere in my mom's huge bloody bookcase, I'll probably pull it out as I've wanted to read it anyway. Orwell is where its at. I think NOFx interpreted it as I have to relate it to America, but thankfully I don't.
Then how is it for American History? I'd assume that if it was on a topic list, thats what the teacher was aiming for...

[TheNowhereman42]

Aye, I'm considering it succesfull because they held out pretty well despite overwhelming odds.

I think he just skimmed the chapters we were covering and put random topics on it, hes a bit lazy because he's really just the football coach. Anyway, all he said was to state a point and defend it. Most of our "American History" class was about WWII anyway. Thats the school system for ya,

[Reaganista]

Most of my American History class was about the 19th century.

[siva_chair]

Most of my American History class was about the 19th century.

As was mine.

Nowhereman, you loose.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm not sure, but my thesis is probably going to be that while the rank ad file of the Lincolns were there due to their belief in fighting Fascism, the Brigade as a whole was were just COmmunist tools.

[TheNowhereman42]

the first semester of my class was 19th century, now its Cold War/WWII/Civil Rights Movement era stuff.

[dislocated214]

Christiania is another place where Anarchist is in action, but that has probably already been said.

[Der Übermensch]

I have read some limited information on the place, but don't know to much beyond the fact it is a small semi-automous commune located in Denmark. I'm not sure if its been discussed earlier. Your welcome to write up a more extensive anaylsis to add to the guide if you want.

[Nociceptor]

I don' tknow if you guys mentioned this, but if you wanted to find out about working communes (though long gone, did really work until the outside world got in), look up a guy named Josiah Warren. He created two or three working communes in his lifetime (one was destroyed by mosquitoes, another by flooding, and the last by the media . . . b*st*rds . . .) and wrote a book describing them and how to set them up.

[stifflittlefingers]

I have read some limited information on the place, but don't know to much beyond the fact it is a small semi-automous commune located in Denmark. I'm not sure if its been discussed earlier. Your welcome to write up a more extensive anaylsis to add to the guide if you want.

Make another thread man, these threads are getting kind of sad and I love your threads. Sorry that this is spam, but I mean it.

[Faith No Doubt]

A friend of mine who used to be in a punk band in the 80's is big on anarchy.

I told her I don't like rubbernecking at girls because it makes me feel sordid and I like to treat both sexes equally.

She told me "That's a sign of a true anarchist."

And I wasn't even trying. Go me.

[stifflittlefingers]

...

[WhipJack]

I told her I don't like rubbernecking at girls because it makes me feel sordid and I like to treat both sexes equally.



Isnt equal treatment a more communistic ideal?

[Der Übermensch]

Feminists are drawn to "Anarchism", as exampled by Anarcho-Feminism, which is really no different then Femi-nazi's.

I personally have nothing against staring at hot chicks... but thats probably just the teenager in me...

[veggie 3.14]

Feminists are drawn to "Anarchism", as exampled by Anarcho-Feminism, which is really no different then Femi-nazi's.

I personally have nothing against staring at hot chicks... but thats probably just the teenager in me...
Indeed.

Asking hot girls to see if they can touch their elbows behind their backs is great!

[siva_chair]

Indeed.

Asking hot girls to see if they can touch their elbows behind their backs is great!

Or if they can pick up a quarter without using their hands?

[veggie 3.14]

Or if they can pick up a quarter without using their hands?
:thumb:

[siva_chair]

:thumb:

YYYYEEEEEESSSSSSS......Score one for me.

[veggie 3.14]

YYYYEEEEEESSSSSSS......Score one for me.
:lol:

I got a real hot girl to do try and touch her elbows behind her back today.... :naughty:

[siva_chair]

You are my hero. Did your eyes get really big at moment she tried it? I know mine would.




And yes, by eyes I mean my *****....

[veggie 3.14]

You are my hero. Did your eyes get really big at moment she tried it? I know mine would.




And yes, by eyes I mean my *****....
Indeed.

She is hot.

[EDFDM]

To the creator of this thread: You're a friggin' dumbass. And NOFX sucks, too.

[Der Übermensch]

To the ****tard who just posted... did you read the thread?
And yes, NoFX does suck... I hate my name, but I am very much attached to my 2002 Join date.

[Reaganista]

Ask Jim to change it.

[Der Übermensch]

he can? Sweet!

[Reaganista]

Yeah, he is an admin.

[italic zero]

Change it to Blink182Freak!

[Der Übermensch]

I'd rather take Cyanide...

[italic zero]

That's another good option...

[SumDysturbedKid]

lets bet on what he'll change it to...mmmm im thinkin ubermensch

[Der Übermensch]

no, Bloodanguts, thats what I use for.... everything (except here :( )
Übermensch would be my second choice...

[Uberman]

Originally posted by NOFXFreak
Übermensch would be my second choice...

:thumb:

[veggie 3.14]

To the creator of this thread: You're a friggin' dumbass. And NOFX sucks, too.
Get a real brain.

:thumb:

[Zoroaster]

So, veggie, you've become a "libertarian socialist" now, have you? A pity, really. You had potential.

[veggie 3.14]

So, veggie, you've become a "libertarian socialist" now, have you? A pity, really. You had potential.
Potential to do what?

I'm still trying to discover where I am on the political spectrum, and learning more about politics, but I think libertarian socialism, or something similar, is closest to my views.

[Ragamuffin]

When in the hell did Scotland defeat England? Trust me mate if we had ever defeated them then we wouldn't be one of Englands bitch countries. But your right Scotland has told the Catholic church on numerous ocasions, and quite rightly so to piss off.

P.S I have officially declared myself the new pope through the powers invested in me by anarchism!

[siva_chair]

P.S I have officially declared myself the new pope through the powers invested in me by anarchism!

Irony?

[Der Übermensch]

Actually, England and Scotland are now the United Kingdom because the king of scotland inheritaded the crown of England as well. The Scots kicked the English asses more then once (and visa versa).

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

I have read some limited information on the place, but don't know to much beyond the fact it is a small semi-automous commune located in Denmark. I'm not sure if its been discussed earlier. Your welcome to write up a more extensive anaylsis to add to the guide if you want.
It's right in the middle of Copenhagen. It's been granted a "social experiment" status by the Danish government, which means they leave it alone. They're hanging to that by a thread, unfortunately, because of serious problems with drugs (one street is nicknamed pusher street). It's not 100% anarchist, because they've been forced to bring in some laws, for example banning gang colours after the Hell's Angels trashed the place. That's about all I can remember from an article I read ages ago, maybe Knifeboy knows some more...
I know I am being hypocritical by continuing the life of this thread, but there is a stickied thread on the forum for the discussion of Anarchism, keep it in there.
Figured I should respond to this here...
I just liked the idea of two teams debating, really. Maybe with another topic...
So, veggie, you've become a "libertarian socialist" now, have you? You had potential.
It's nice to see him fulfilling it...

[Noku]

Debating about anarchist theory is pretty much worth nothing if the pro-anarchist admit that it is impossible to form anarchist nation in this world in it's current state.

Interesting perspective for the debate would be something like modifying the government towards anarchistic principles and how those ideas could be carried out.

Good structure for the debate would be something like anarchist side makes a proposion and then the opposite critisizes and let's limit it to total four posts per proposion, well maybe five or six since one post would be kind of introduction of the idea.

I'd like to defend the "conservative" side of the debate since I am not going to be that busy in near future... If debate is started the opening post should be something like a political program, how the anarchists are planning to achieve their goals and what are the major step stones and then the small necessary steps like law changes and organizations to support the progress.

For example a list of the things to get rif off before anarchism can happen might be like this:
Capitalism
Alternatives for private ownership
Supporting the competition against private ownership
Some changes in structures of economy (depending on what kind of anarchism you'd like have)
Congress
Do away with president
Divide the power of congress to smaller sub groups
Forming communal organizations for local decission making
Education reforms
Education should be self-oriented, without a teacher as authority
Anarchist society would require slightly different kind of education in contentual sense
Communal infrastructure management
Forming communal organizations to solve waste, etc. problems of the area
Decreasing public infrastructure services and replacing them with communal services
Technological developement towards easy-to-use machinery

[siva_chair]

I believe that if Anarchism will ever be achieved, it will actually come about through a capitalist system (Anarcho-capitalism). I probably have this belief because I have zero faith in socialist systems. Though, I doubt one will come about within my or my children's lifetime.

[Noku]

Well... Private ownership would lead in to extreme corruption and oppression of wealth. I don't think the controlled economy would be any better... capitalism without private ownership... mutualistic anarchism might work the best.

[siva_chair]

Well... Private ownership would lead in to extreme corruption and oppression of wealth. I don't think the controlled economy would be any better... capitalism without private ownership... mutualistic anarchism might work the best.

I would have to agree. I like the idea of mutualism from what I have read. I think such a system (if it ever comes to be) will spring out of a capitalist system, though.

[Der Übermensch]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it takes away the one thing that keeps capitalism in check... the government. With regulation gone, there is nothing to stop the big corperations from stomping out the little guys, and eventually controlling your life like a surogate government...

But anyways, Anarchism, as its 'pure' form advocates, is, while not immposible as noku said, but it is a very far off hope. I personally apply to a Confederalist model of small free communal associations based off of Proudhons Federalism/Mutualism.

[siva_chair]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it takes away the one thing that keeps capitalism in check... the government. With regulation gone, there is nothing to stop the big corperations from stomping out the little guys, and eventually controlling your life like a surogate government...

Yes I know. That is why I don't full heartedly support it.

But anyways, Anarchism, as its 'pure' form advocates, is, while not immposible as noku said, but it is a very far off hope. I personally apply to a Confederalist model of small free communal associations based off of Proudhons Federalism/Mutualism.

I would support Mutualism before any of them, and believe it is probably the most probable of all of them.

[Noku]

But anyways, Anarchism, as its 'pure' form advocates, is, while not immposible as noku said, but it is a very far off hope. I personally apply to a Confederalist model of small free communal associations based off of Proudhons Federalism/Mutualism.

Well, how about the "debate"? It would be interesting to see how you'd think the progress could be taken to right direction.

[TheNowhereman42]

Freedom Uprising Festival May 28th
12pm to 8pm
at the UCLA Labor Center
675 S. Park View St. 1st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90057-3306
(Accross from McArthur Park)

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution! "
-Emma Goldman

Hosted by DJ Bahar

Poets:
Aliah
Bahar
Open Mic for all Attendees

Dancers:
Tamar of "No Borders"
Fiya Dance Ensemble (Arican/Ballet/Jazz)

Artists:
Conspiracy of Thought (punk)
Christ Punchers (Instrumental Rock)
DUDE****INHELLYEAH (punk/grind/thrash)
Mezklah (tribal electronica)
Jah Faith and His Band (reggae and hip-hop)

Hip-Hop Artists:
Aidge One from the Aesthetics Crew
The Philistines
Nomad
As Is
Life Convicts
The Living Mechanizm
Black Love R88RS (w/ Dr. Oop + Kmllion)
(celebrating release of "daze like these" blackloveradiation.com)


Free entry/Open to donations

sponsored by the Anti-War on the World Collective (santa monica college)
antiwarsmc@yahoo.com

note: we still need a p.a. system, so if anyone can help with that it'll be great
- If organizations/vendors want to table please contact the AWWC


In case any So Cal people are interested

[griftadan]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it takes away the one thing that keeps capitalism in check... the government. With regulation gone, there is nothing to stop the big corperations from stomping out the little guys, and eventually controlling your life like a surogate government...

thats exaclty why im not fully right. the only ecnomic function that governments needs to do, apart from coining and regulating currency, is regulating is monopolies. theres two ways for governments to protect the economic interests of people, one is by protecting the worker, the other is by protecting the consumer. most libetarian/right economists will still take measures to protect the consumer, and wont interfere with unions so that the workers can protect themselves.

[Reaganista]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it takes away the one thing that keeps capitalism in check... the government. With regulation gone, there is nothing to stop the big corperations from stomping out the little guys, and eventually controlling your life like a surogate government...


There'd be nothing surrogate about it. It would just be a government. The East India company's control of India is an example of this.

[Danish]

But anyways, Anarchism, as its 'pure' form advocates, is, while not immposible as noku said, but it is a very far off hope. I personally apply to a Confederalist model of small free communal associations based off of Proudhons Federalism/Mutualism.

Sellout!

[Der Übermensch]

lol! Just cause I ain't a primitivist?
:p

Sydicalism and/or mutualism is always going to be the most effective path if anarchism is going to have a chance.

[Ragamuffin]

Actually, England and Scotland are now the United Kingdom because the king of scotland inheritaded the crown of England as well. The Scots kicked the English asses more then once (and visa versa).

Thanks for the info but i'm aware that the Stewart dynasty inherited the English throne from that of the Tudor. Of course we kicked their arses every now and again and they kicked ours too but we were never able to defeat them on a large scale merely in battles rather than wars.

Cheers

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

'lo, just droppin in cos I found some information about Christiania, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_of_Christiania
and the official site, http://www.christiania.org/
Haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

[Danish]

lol! Just cause I ain't a primitivist?
:p

Sydicalism and/or mutualism is always going to be the most effective path if anarchism is going to have a chance.

While I agree, I still think more in terms of Marx than you. I think that the transformation from capitalism to classlessness will naturally progress into an anarcho-syndicalist form of social organization.

[Beavisandbutthead]

Im sorry, but I have to throw in my two-cents. Im just going to go off of the U.S.S.R. here. A system where everyone is equal, but all it ends up as is some people are more equal than others. If you admit that due to man's inablility to never being able to practice this goverment, than why are you for it?!? It leads to everything that you guys are to trying to prevent! Not only would the sure to be revolution kill millions, but you cant possibly expect everyone to agree, causing revolution after revolution. If you create one of your defences, than someone has to lead it. That person then has power, who ends up a dictator. For those of you that could even think about this, stop for a second and think about how it would play out.

[Der Übermensch]

The CCCP has absolutly nothing to do with Anarchism. End of discussion.

[Beavisandbutthead]

Anarchism can't be done, end of discussion.

[Das Übermensch]

I would argue against you... but I've already written a whole thread on it... (hint, you're in it)...

If you want to quote past arguements I or others have made and counter them in a logical manner, then it might be worth my time...

[grunge_lives_on75]

So you don't think Anarchy requires a global movement?


The only way an anachist state would stay is if the rest of the world followed.

[Das Übermensch]

Acknowledge is a better world to use.

[supermusicman]

Anarchism can't be done, end of discussion.

i agree. there will always be people who lead and people who follow. anarchism cant realisticly work

[Das Übermensch]

Which of course is why it was effectivly implemented in Spain, the Ukraine, the Krondstadt, and as far as I can tell from what I've read on it, has effectivly lasted for the better part of 30 years in Christina.

Seriously, is it so hard to actually put some thought into your post and explicate upon your reasoning? It makes for a much more effective discussion.

From now on I'm just going to post obcenity's to people who post things like "Anarchy can't work because it can't"...

[veggie 3.14]

What happened to NOFXFreal, NOXRFeak?

**********

Indeed, NOFXFreak!

[Der Übermensch]

I got banned playing superpeers guessing game...

I'm back now though.

[TheNowhereman42]

So whats everyones opinion on the recent events in Chiapas and the EZLN's gerenral red alert?

I'm really interested to see what the Zapatistas are planning.

[veggie 3.14]

I haven't heard about it.

Explanation?

[themandontgiveafuk2]

http://www.rebelforums.org

Go on it.

[TheNowhereman42]

I haven't heard about it.

Explanation?

Well basically the Mexican government went into rebel territory and burnt all of the zapatista's marijuanna plants. In response, the EZLN called a state of red alert, and cut basically all ties with all organizations, as to save them from government prosecution, and basically told everyone not willing to participate in armed combat to leave rebel terriotory. I believe all minors were forced to leave weather they were willing or not. Bascially all of the Zapatista bases were deserted and the stores were closed, and the Juntas went into a nomadic state. So the general opinion going around is that the EZLN are planning something very big, perhaps even an armed conflict with the mexican government.

I've not heard much else scince the origional couple of EZLN communiques were posted, other than a short BBC article from thursday stating that General Marco's has said there will be no armed combat, and part of what they are doing is to spread their issues beyond indian rights, but who knows where those statements came from or what context they were in.

So at this point no one is really sure whats happening, especially since getting in touch with the acctual Zapatistas is near impossible right now.

[rightwod]

what do you think about people who are not followers?
are they sick?

do you think that sheep and followers are well?

here is a girl who is being mocked on here.
it is because she is no more arrogant then anyone else out there.

Just thinks for herself.

she states in her about section, that she isn't interested in the commerical world. so what? www.marissamarchant.com/about.html

what is so good about commericalism?

If she doesn't like commericalism, is that something to laugh at and mocK?

I am not sure about that. sorry.

[rightwod]

there is this cool site ourcivilisation.com

and I was wondering...

what is wrong with thinking for yourself?


here is a woman who thinks for herself, makes judgements for herself and being mocked by some sheep;.


she does and says want she feels and isn't following the mold and trends of sheep who think like sheep and talk like sheep and followers.

she doesnt' follow....
she doesn't care about what people think....

www.marissamarchant.com/about.html :lol:

[Der Übermensch]

what is he talking about?

[aLk321]

Before i say anything i would like to establish the fact that i am not for or against our current governing body. I think that the only thing that is important is that our government accomplishes one goal. That goal is to keep us healthy, safe, and whole. If there was no one to do this it would be left to us to take care of ourselves, which we all know would not work. i mean sure you may like not having anyone to tell you what to do for a short time, that is until some one kills your mom and steals your car. in short, Anarchy is an illusion that underdeveloped minds cling to, in order to keep some sort of a political "rebel" recognition. we all know government is everything. anarchy will never be accomplished by anyone but a couple of insane cult groups who drink animal blood and urine. so stop trying to keep the myth alive please. i mean for christ sake you wrote a manual on anarchy. get a life. :thumb:

[Der Übermensch]

Eww... that font hurts my eyes.
Before i say anything i would like to establish the fact that i am not for or against our current governing body. I think that the only thing that is important is that our government accomplishes one goal. That goal is to keep us healthy, safe, and whole.
That is the purpose of government. The problem is that government rarely (read that as never) stays within its rights. It instead likes to impose upon personal freedoms, regulating what we can and can't do, without just cause or right.

If there was no one to do this it would be left to us to take care of ourselves, which we all know would not work. i mean sure you may like not having anyone to tell you what to do for a short time, that is until some one kills your mom and steals your car.
Anarchy is Order. I never said that it was Chaos, and no one - baring teenage "anarchists" - would say otherwise. In Anarchy, there is "law", as is explained in the guide itself.

in short, Anarchy is an illusion that underdeveloped minds cling to, in order to keep some sort of a political "rebel" recognition.
Yes, "Anarchy" is popular with youth. However, what they cling to is best termed as Chaos.

we all know government is everything.
Exactly... and thats the problem.

anarchy will never be accomplished by anyone but a couple of insane cult groups who drink animal blood and urine.
Did you read the guide? I guess not... But anyways, I've never drunk urine... but I did once lick a paper cut... tasted salty... :thumb:

so stop trying to keep the myth alive please. i mean for christ sake you wrote a manual on anarchy. get a life. :thumb:
Its not a manual, its an over view of the history and philosophy of the movement. No one can tell you how to go about it, only give you some helpful guidelines.

[Mobius731]

There is always a sense of organization to be found. People generally wish to be more powerful, and thus assume control of someone or something. Even if there is no government, if you go right down to, a family for instance, the mother and father will be in charge of the children. People on their own are no problem, but large masses of said people is trouble waiting to happen. There will always be a need for organization, but I do agree however, that anarchy does NOT mean chaos.

[Der Übermensch]

Orginization of Society is essential, I won't deny that. There is a difference however between deferring to a doctor in medical matters, and deferring to a architect in matters of design; and allowing a small group of politicians regulate your life.

[Maxwell_MetalDrummer]

Anarchism can't be done, end of discussion.

Anarchy isnt a longterm plan anarchy is most common during revolutions inbetween one style of goverment and another.

[Smokey D]

No, anarchism is the removal of coersive and hegemonic controls from all people, allowing for a society governed by a social equilibrium. If it occured as envisioned by true-blooded anarchists, it would be a permanent shift, not the chaotic scramble in the power vacuum that follows revolution.

Unfortunately, coersive and hegemonic controls are a natural dynamic in human interaction, and thus a true, enduring shift in society remains a very distant dream.

[dropkickstreetpunk]

Eww... that font hurts my eyes.

That is the purpose of government. The problem is that government rarely (read that as never) stays within its rights. It instead likes to impose upon personal freedoms, regulating what we can and can't do, without just cause or right.


Anarchy is Order. I never said that it was Chaos, and no one - baring teenage "anarchists" - would say otherwise. In Anarchy, there is "law", as is explained in the guide itself.


Yes, "Anarchy" is popular with youth. However, what they cling to is best termed as Chaos.


Exactly... and thats the problem.


Did you read the guide? I guess not... But anyways, I've never drunk urine... but I did once lick a paper cut... tasted salty... :thumb:


Its not a manual, its an over view of the history and philosophy of the movement. No one can tell you how to go about it, only give you some helpful guidelines.
wow, you just shut that kid up.

[punk_riot]

Anarchy sounds good but would it work? Humans are dumb creatures and we all like to stab each other in the back. The anarchy-society sounds a lot like the socitey we have now, the only diff is that it is not written laws that we will have to obey. What happens when people beginns to play by the law of the nature "the survivel of the fittest". The stronges and most popular persons in the anarchy socitety will sooner or later take the power and there will be no more anarchy just chaos because all man wants is power and wealth. Why would'nt that happen in the anarchy society? Why would'nt the stongest take the power?

[Der Übermensch]

Sorry, I no longer will be answering posts with grammer below a 5th grade level.

[Against Miik!]

Anarchy sounds good but would it work? Humans are dumb creatures and we all like to stab each other in the back. The anarchy-society sounds a lot like the socitey we have now, the only diff is that it is not written laws that we will have to obey. What happens when people beginns to play by the law of the nature "the survivel of the fittest". The stronges and most popular persons in the anarchy socitety will sooner or later take the power and there will be no more anarchy just chaos because all man wants is power and wealth. Why would'nt that happen in the anarchy society? Why would'nt the stongest take the power?

Whats wrong with that? Eventually the entire human race would be strong, thus preparing us for the alien takeover as seen in the cinematic extraveganza The War of the Worlds starring the recently proven insane Tom Cruise.

[punk_riot]

[QUOTE] Sorry, I no longer will be answering posts with grammer below a 5th grade level

sorry for that but I don't talk english so u don't have to be so ****ing mean and here are some **** u don't understand!!!!

"du är en taskig liten skit en j*vla snorunge och en riktig liten horunge, så det så med tanke på att jag faktiskt försökte"

And that was as mature as the answer you gave me

[punk_riot]

I think you got me wrong the problem

Is that someone will be in charge sooner or later and that’s not the way anarchy should be

[Bleh!]

if you comment someones grammar.. it means this is the best argument you got against his.. meaning he wins ! :D:D

[punk_riot]

if you comment someones grammar.. it means this is the best argument you got against his.. meaning he wins ! :D:D


You mean it actually could be something clever in the thing I wrote? becuse I have no idea and wanted answers but the guy did not give me anything good so my question still don't have an answer...

and once again sorry for writing as a 5th grader but I can't help it

[Der Übermensch]

sorry for that but I don't talk english so u don't have to be so ****ing mean and here are some **** u don't understand!!!!

"du är en taskig liten skit en j*vla snorunge och en riktig liten horunge, så det så med tanke på att jag faktiskt försökte"

And that was as mature as the answer you gave me

din morsa lukta fritterad getrov i fittan. :thumb:
(I'm sure my grammer for that was horrible)

The point is that in the 19 pages that make up this thread, I have answered your points quite thourougly far to many times. I have gotten extremely bored about answering the same thing over and over, so mostly just am being an a$shole. Yes,its immature of me, but if someone posts a new or original point/question, I would be happy to give an indepth answer.

Edit: Thats the only swedish phrase I know, so don't bother countering likewise...

[punk_riot]

hehe Thank you then i will look for my answer

and yes the gramma was horrible but I'am imprested the only word I don't understand is "getrov" but who gives a f*ck

it should be "din morsa luktar fritterad i fittan"
but I don't understand the use of fritterad you should try this for next time
"din mamma luktar fisk i fittan" To say that my mother smells like fish in the ***** is much better

But why the stupid answer to my stupid question. Are you bored or what?

[Der Übermensch]

very very very very bored.

I tried learning swedish once, but all I ended up doing was looking up naughty words on the 'net... Thats all I remember now. While I don't really know what it all is word for word, fritterad might be something like "goats ***" since I am under the impression at least that it means "the inside of ur mothers **** smells like fried goat ***" or something like that.


Wow... this has really gotten off topic...

[Huss]

wanting anarchy is probably the dumbest thing you could want, so buddy you want no government, no rules, no laws, no police .... think about it long and hard, there would be no order, we would still be living in the caveman days, a good example of what it would be like if there was anarchy would be...

Me coming to your home raping your mom and your sister and then killing them and you and your family and you know what dumby, i wouldnt get in any trouble because there is no one to punish me.

besides there will never be anarchy, its in human nature to want to be regulated, if a government falls someone will always be there to pick it back up or start a new one

[hypocracy hater]

wanting anarchy is probably the dumbest thing you could want, so buddy you want no government, no rules, no laws, no police .... think about it long and hard, there would be no order, we would still be living in the caveman days, a good example of what it would be like if there was anarchy would be...

Me coming to your home raping your mom and your sister and then killing them and you and your family and you know what dumby, i wouldnt get in any trouble because there is no one to punish me.

besides there will never be anarchy, its in human nature to want to be regulated, if a government falls someone will always be there to pick it back up or start a new one


Did you read the thread?

[Der Übermensch]

I don't think so.

[Huss]

Look up anarchy in the dictionary, fagmo

any form of it is not good, your just some punk kid that thinks he knows it all

[TheNowhereman42]

Me coming to your home raping your mom and your sister and then killing them and you and your family and you know what dumby, i wouldnt get in any trouble because there is no one to punish me.

Except you wouldn't rape his mom and sister or kill anyone, because like most people, you would find that wrong and wouldn't be able to do it even if you wanted to, which you don't.

Hence anarchy: A strong people need no leader

Good try though. :D

[Der Übermensch]

Look up anarchy in the dictionary, fagmo

any form of it is not good, your just some punk kid that thinks he knows it all


Yay! Arguing with retards is fun!

From Websters Dictionary: 'Anarchism, n. The theory that all government is an evil. Proudhon (1809-65) "Father of Anarchism" advocated a social organization based on common ownership and free agreements.'


quoted from Encyclopedia.com
"(?n´erk?zem) [Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that people are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders human development."

Quoted from Britannica.com:
"cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. Anarchist thought developed in the West and spread throughout the world, principally in the early 20th century."

Quoted from en.wikipedia.org (very good article there):
"Anarchism is a term which encompasses a variety of political philosophies, social movements, and political ideologies that advocate the abolition of all forms of coercion. Individual freedom and opposition to the State are the unvarying principles of anarchism; less agreed upon are such matters as the role of violence in changing society, the preferred type of economic system, the support, rejection, or interpretation of egalitarian ideals, and the degree of organization desirable to effect social change.
The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek ??????? ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social harmony. All proponents of anarchism argue that relations based upon voluntary cooperation (as opposed to statism) will lead to a society of free individuals."

Want me to keep going?

Please stop bringing out the goddam "look in the dictionary" argument...

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

Can you better explain the AO "Anarchy is Order" idea? I understand it to a degree but it still confuses me a bit. And can I get a better explanation of Anarcho-Syndicalism? You didn't really explain it, you just said it was like AC but more related to the Union movement.

[Der Übermensch]

"Anarchy is Order" was an utterance of Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and which led to the creation of the now [in?]famous symbol of Anarchism.
The reasoning behind the concept is that Anarchism, as a philosophy, does not advocate or in anyway endorse Chaos, a word that still has become synonymous with it in many peoples minds. Anarchism, to work, still requires society to function. However the difference is that in no way is anyone coercied into it. The running of society, instead of being delagated to a select few, is open to everyone who wishes to help out. (I don't know if that answers your question, but I can elaborate more if you need).

Anarcho-sydicalism, as stated, revolves around the Union, so was more popular in urban areas, while AC was more rural; although both could be found in either setting. I'll explain the basic concept with a factory. All the workers are members of the Union, and the union as a whole owns the factory. Each man, by entering into this arangement agrees to do his share of the work, and in turn, benefits from the "profits" and products equally. In a multistep model, with multiple industrys, each Union would be connected to the rest of the Unions, to form a larger syndicate (this is what the CNT was, an orginization of smaller Unions). Within the sydicate, goods and services are therefor exchanged freely between Unions and individual members.

One of these days I'll draw up a little diagram :thumb:

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

Each man, by entering into this arangement agrees to do his share of the work, and in turn, benefits from the "profits" and products equally.


Thanks but I still don't understand the differenece between this^ and a voluntary communism.

Also, are there any really good books on anarchism I can pick up? I want to read farther into it.

[Der Übermensch]

Its because a Union has slight regimentation, since Union officers need to be chosen and such (by lot for a short term period is the best method). Technicaly, it isn't "pure" Anarchism because of this, but its not enough to make a huge difference, as their position is still dependent on the people as a whole.

Also, the communistic model is based more on a whole community, each member offering seperate services; while the sydicalist is based on a large group all offering the same thing, interacting with other such groups, which makes it better suited to very large population areas, while the communistic one is better suited to towns and small cities.
The communistic model can still be blended with sydicalism however, but on a larger scale, with communes functioning as a Union would.

As for books, in the original post (or it might be the 2nd one), I have a list of good readings. I would recommend Guerins "Anarchism" as a starting point however.

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

Its because a Union has slight regimentation, since Union officers need to be chosen and such (by lot for a short term period is the best method). Technicaly, it isn't "pure" Anarchism because of this, but its not enough to make a huge difference, as their position is still dependent on the people as a whole.

Also, the communistic model is based more on a whole community, each member offering seperate services; while the sydicalist is based on a large group all offering the same thing, interacting with other such groups, which makes it better suited to very large population areas, while the communistic one is better suited to towns and small cities.
The communistic model can still be blended with sydicalism however, but on a larger scale, with communes functioning as a Union would.

As for books, in the original post (or it might be the 2nd one), I have a list of good readings. I would recommend Guerins "Anarchism" as a starting point however.

Thanks. I'll be sure to pick up that book.

[Der Übermensch]

np :) Glad to spread the word :p

If you enjoy that book, also check out his compilation, No Gods No Master, which is a collection of works by other anarchist writers.

[veggie 3.14]

besides there will never be anarchy, its in human nature to want to be regulated, if a government falls someone will always be there to pick it back up or start a new one
Human nature to want regulation?

Not quite.

[Der Übermensch]

The fact that anarchism exists as a philosophy proves that it is not human nature. If it was, the there would be no Anarchists.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

besides there will never be anarchy, its in human nature to want to be regulated,
Oooh, that explains the millions of people who didn't resist Fascism and how Hitler won the second world war, not to mention the almost complete change from monarchy to democracy that never happened!

[SumDysturbedKid]

besides there will never be anarchy, its in human nature to want to be regulated, if a government falls someone will always be there to pick it back up or start a new one

I understand what you're saying about wanting regulation but i wouldn't call it "human nature." There are however a number of people too stupid to decide their own morals and must be given orders and live for something other than themselves. To quote Nietzsche "Those who cannot command themselves must obey." For instance, many people do not vote because they feel that they "don't know enough about politics" or "don't care." While I would not agree with anarchy, you are mistaken about it...Anarchy is Order. These weak people do have the option to be told what to do--from society's rules. The beauty of anarchy would be that those who do not need to be told how to live have the option of living freely, outside of any society whose rules they would not agree with.

That being said, you're a dumbass.

[Smokey D]

The fact that anarchism exists as a philosophy proves that it is not human nature. If it was, the there would be no Anarchists.


That's a terrible argument. It's not generally considered human nature to blow oneself up, but it still happens. As you well know, intellectual thought can overide instinct, if the desire is strong enough. The problem lies in convincing enough people to make it feasible.

[Der Übermensch]

My point is merely that you can not place one feature upon humans and say "this is human nature, and it means XXXXXXX will never work". We don't understand, nor do I think we ever will, what human nature truly is. At the least, human nature can be overcome, and at most, human nature is merely constructed by society.

[Smokey D]

As long as we continue to be human, human nature will exist. The question must be asked whether it is right to try and change our nature. If we do it, will we cease to be human?

In trying to re-programme that nature, you are faced with the difficulty of a) convincing some 5 billion people they're doing it wrong, b) effecting a deep, enduring change in society.

If, as some suggest, human nature cannot be altered in any meaningful way, any change we do manage to impose upon society will be superficial. Underlying it all will be the deep, ingrained motivations of power and greed. These are things that have been bred into us over millions of years of evolution. To think we can sufficiently over come them through mere intellectualism in the course of a few decades is, at best, naive and hubristic at worst.

[thedeadwalk!]

What is human nature?

[Smokey D]

Nobody's entirely sure, though I believe we have enough empirical evidence to suggest it's not exactly alturistic.

[thedeadwalk!]

What would you say would be an example of human nature?

[Smokey D]

Self-promotion.

[Bleh!]

human nature is greed.. its what is gonna drive us into the ground.. !

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

human nature is greed.. its what is gonna drive us into the ground.. !

People need to stop with all this "human nature" business. All it is, is a cop out because you can blame anything on something that's so complex no one understands it.

[Der Übermensch]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "cop out". It does present a viable roadblock with most theorys that have a basis in human interaction. Its merely the belief of Anarchists that with the spectrum of possible explanation of human nature that at best, human nature will be changed within a generation or two, and traits associated with capitalism and authoritarianism, such as greed and jealousy, will disappear; and that at worst human nature is a constant, but that it can be consciously overcome by humans for the advantage of both themselves and society. Most believe in something between the two.

[ThisUserIsAPipebomb]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "cop out". It does present a viable roadblock with most theorys that have a basis in human interaction. Its merely the belief of Anarchists that with the spectrum of possible explanation of human nature that at best, human nature will be changed within a generation or two, and traits associated with capitalism and authoritarianism, such as greed and jealousy, will disappear; and that at worst human nature is a constant, but that it can be consciously overcome by humans for the advantage of both themselves and society. Most believe in something between the two.

Human nature is so complex and unexplainable people can use it even for everything. In this thread I've seen "It'sl human nature to be controlled" and "it's human nature to rebel"

[veggie 3.14]

What one book should I buy on Anarchism?

Two, at a push?

[Hammer of the God]

Im hardcore for jesus.

[Der Übermensch]

What one book should I buy on Anarchism?

Two, at a push?

I always recommend Guerin's Anarchism as a first buy. From there, its a matter of preference.

[SumDysturbedKid]

Anarchy could actually work even if human nature was greed--it's Max Stirner's "union of egoists." Each individual wants what is best for themselves but realizes that they must work together to accomplish this. Each person is driven by greed but understands that we all need to "use" each other for every individual's benefit. It is similar to Nietzsche's idea. As he stated in Will To Power--My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on--

[Der Übermensch]

Individualism is great, and I love it, but its not effective for urban life, which presents a problem for modern context. It requires at least something of a blend with Mutualism to become viable.

[Smokey D]

A greater problem lies in that not all people are capable or willing to exploit one another equally. If we are left to devise a society based on who is able to most effectively use other people, it becomes a tyranny all of its own.

[veggie 3.14]

I always recommend Guerin's Anarchism as a first buy. From there, its a matter of preference.
Any Kropotkin?

[Der Übermensch]

I have Kroptikins "Anarchism". Good book, but more indepth. Guerin is much better starter.

[veggie 3.14]

Okies.

[Leftover Jello]

What one book should I buy on Anarchism?

Two, at a push?

Isn't it much more anarchic to borrow the book from a library, that way the book stays public property, not to mention you spend no money and can get as many books as you want. Just a suggestion.

[Der Übermensch]

Yes, and while I dunno about Veggie's, but I my school library has one book, and my local public library doesn't have any. Not a very popular topic to carry...