Beginners Guide to Anarchism!

[Der Übermensch]

It hasn't turned into...

The government has always been an entity that has a monoploy on the legitimate use of violence; a duty entrusted to it by the citizenry.

[Smokey D]

You're supposing too much autonomy for government institutions. They aren't institutions separate from their individuals that compose them, and certainly not from the people who elect them.

However, one famous definition of government is an entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence. It's probably incorrect to think of it in privatised terms, though.

[coheneran]

You're supposing too much autonomy for government institutions. They aren't institutions separate from their individuals that compose them, and certainly not from the people who elect them.

But it wasn't elected by a majority of British citizens. 50% of British citizens don't vote, and Blair only got in last time on like a 60% vote or something, that's like 30% of the British public then.

However, one famous definition of government is an entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence. It's probably incorrect to think of it in privatised terms, though.

No such thing as legitimate violence. Why is it incorrect to think of it like that?

[PerpetualBurn]

Because you constantly say that there's no such thing, but then cite cases in which it's the right form of action to take.

[coheneran]

Because you constantly say that there's no such thing, but then cite cases in which it's the right form of action to take.

I never said a revolution is rose-scented and pink-tainted. A peaceful revolution is impossible because the state employs illegitimate violence, and the best way to fight back is through violence, even though it's illegitimate. That's where the saying, "During the revolution we will burn their flags, and after the revolution we will burn our flags" comes from.

[Smokey D]

But it wasn't elected by a majority of British citizens. 50% of British citizens don't vote, and Blair only got in last time on like a 60% vote or something, that's like 30% of the British public then.

Well, the right to vote is near universal, so who does vote is not actually that big an issue.

Besides that doesn't make it a private, autonomous company.

No such thing as legitimate violence. Why is it incorrect to think of it like that?

Legitimate as in 'made legal'.

And it's not private because it's regulated by the constitution.

[coheneran]

Well, the right to vote is near universal, so who does vote is not actually that big an issue.

Besides that doesn't make it a private, autonomous company.

In the sense that on some level a company has to answer, at least partly, to its shareholders, than no, the government is not completely autonomous, but then neither are companies with shareholders.

Legitimate as in 'made legal'.

And it's not private because it's regulated by the constitution.

It clearly isn't, as the current Parliament is passing laws and has passed laws that aren't constitutional. For example, SOCPA.

[Smokey D]

In the sense that on some level a company has to answer, at least partly, to its shareholders, than no, the government is not completely autonomous, but then neither are companies with shareholders.

The government is far less autonomous than a company with respect to voters and shareholders.

And it's not private. It derives its authority from the people, not legal title.

It clearly isn't, as the current Parliament is passing laws and has passed laws that aren't constitutional. For example, SOCPA.

Actually, the constitution of Britain is such that Parliament is supreme and can pass any legislation it wants. But it still has to be passed, and that's the key.


There are companies who have a monopoly on certain forms of coercion. For example banks and credit companies.

I saw this from earlier and all I can say is no no no no. Banks and credit card companies are not monopolistic.

[coheneran]

The government is far less autonomous than a company with respect to voters and shareholders.

And it's not private. It derives its authority from the people, not legal title.

What the government says is very different to what it does. It represses political protest, it criminalises citizens and thus communities, it doesn't represent them, it passes laws more beneficial to companies than to citizens or communities, it concentrates on profit instead of quality of service.

Actually, the constitution of Britain is such that Parliament is supreme and can pass any legislation it wants. But it still has to be passed, and that's the key.

OK. Do you know about SOCPA?

I saw this from earlier and all I can say is no no no no. Banks and credit card companies are not monopolistic.

I mean as a whole, not individually.

[Der Übermensch]

I mean as a whole, not individually.
Which is not the definition of a monopoly...?

[griftadan]

you really need to get over the fact that words have agreed upon definitions

just throwing this out there again

[coheneran]

Which is not the definition of a monopoly...?

I think it does when you look at it from an outsider non-capitalist point of view.

[griftadan]

yes the capital owners as a group "monopolize" industry, the description really loses it's meaning if you look at it like that though.

[coheneran]

In what way?

[Der Übermensch]

I think it does when you look at it from an outsider non-capitalist point of view.

N o

[italic zero]

In what way?
you know how mono means one?

[coheneran]

Did you read my post about seeing it from a non-involved non-capitalist point of view?

[italic zero]

that's just like white people not being able to tell black people apart; objectively, it's meaningless

[coheneran]

That's a terrible analogy because all companies work under capitalist ethics while black people all have their own individual ethics, so I can accurately judge companies as a whole but I can't black people.

[griftadan]

In what way?

because "monopoly" in the every day sense implies one individual producer comprising the whole market, just because all the producers in a market share a common characteristic (they own capital) doesn't mean they are alligned together to effectively monopolize the industry. infact most of the time they are at odds with each other through competition.

That's a terrible analogy because all companies work under capitalist ethics while black people all have their own individual ethics, so I can accurately judge companies as a whole but I can't black people.

are you serious? companies don't all operate under the same ethics

[Smokey D]

What the government says is very different to what it does. It represses political protest, it criminalises citizens and thus communities, it doesn't represent them, it passes laws more beneficial to companies than to citizens or communities, it concentrates on profit instead of quality of service.

No. That the government criminalises some behaviors and does not represent some people doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the prevailing will of the population.

And it doesn't pass laws more beneficial to companies or any of that. You can't just go throwing out rhetoric like that.

I mean as a whole, not individually.

Well, that can't possibly be a monopoly.

[Der Übermensch]

Did you read my post about seeing it from a non-involved non-capitalist point of view?

You are basicly saying that "all car makers have a monopoly on making cars".
Which, while in some stupid as **** way could maybe make a slight amount of sense, is not what a monopoly is.
A monopoly would be if "Ford has a monopoly on making cars."

[coheneran]

because "monopoly" in the every day sense implies one individual producer comprising the whole market, just because all the producers in a market share a common characteristic (they own capital) doesn't mean they are alligned together to effectively monopolize the industry. infact most of the time they are at odds with each other through competition.

are you serious? companies don't all operate under the same ethics

The ethics and practice they have in common is capitalism and every single company, even Oxfam, follows it. I'm talking about the violent relationship of monetary exchange of goods (ie. buying and selling stuff).

No. That the government criminalises some behaviors and does not represent some people doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the prevailing will of the population.

But it doesn't, and I don't even need to bring out the "representative democracy doesn't give people enough control or say over matters" argument because New Labour got way less then 50% of the votes of the British public, so they don't "reflect the prevailing will of the population."

And it doesn't pass laws more beneficial to companies or any of that. You can't just go throwing out rhetoric like that.

Yeah it does. It's got a policy of privatisation, which in this country has only ever ****ed over working people and put a big ol' wad of fe'tters in companies' hands.

Well, that can't possibly be a monopoly.

Again, from a non-involved non-capitalist point of view.

But I just realised I can't even remember why I'm arguing about monopoly, so I'll drop it.:p

[Jack Wilson]

i recently saw a very interesting documentary on anarchism called anarchism in america. they've been playing it a lot on the doc. channel you should check it out.

btw, i was wondering, is that emma goldman in your avatar?

[Smokey D]

But it doesn't, and I don't even need to bring out the "representative democracy doesn't give people enough control or say over matters" argument because New Labour got way less then 50% of the votes of the British public, so they don't "reflect the prevailing will of the population."

If it truly mattered, 50% of the electorate would get out on election day and vote Labour out.

Yeah it does. It's got a policy of privatisation, which in this country has only ever ****ed over working people and put a big ol' wad of fe'tters in companies' hands.

Privatisation is short term pain for long term gain for most sectors. Compare Britain's economic fortunes to Europe's malaise.

Again, from a non-involved non-capitalist point of view.

Which doesn't even make sense.

The ethics and practice they have in common is capitalism and every single company, even Oxfam, follows it. I'm talking about the violent relationship of monetary exchange of goods (ie. buying and selling stuff).

Wait. How would there ever be anything other than a violent exchange of goods? Even if you substitute bartering for money, it's still the same basic conditions.

[Der Übermensch]

btw, i was wondering, is that emma goldman in your avatar?
whose?

Cause mine is a CNT milita woman.

Again, from a non-involved non-capitalist point of view.
Read my last post, cause what you're saying is ****ing stupid.

[griftadan]

The ethics and practice they have in common is capitalism and every single company, even Oxfam, follows it. I'm talking about the violent relationship of monetary exchange of goods (ie. buying and selling stuff).

so non-capital owners monopolize labor because they all participate in selling thier labor? i mean from a... non-non-capitalist perspective...

[coheneran]

If it truly mattered, 50% of the electorate would get out on election day and vote Labour out.

Hardly. These people have been through tories and they've been through labour, and they don't like either. When 50% of the public isn't even registering to vote anymore (we have to register for every elections year here, or something similar) that reflects the system of democracy itself, not the quality of party practices. If the party isn't liked, it'll be voted out, but they can't vote out the system so they just ignore it.

Privatisation is short term pain for long term gain for most sectors. Compare Britain's economic fortunes to Europe's malaise.

Britain's economic fortunes are to do with markets expanding and multinationals paying high-ish taxes 'cos our "corporation tax is the most competitive out of the other large countries' tax rates" (that's a direct paraphrase from the new Budget), the quality of life is not getting better for the working class. Hospitals are being closed, NHS walk-in clinics in working areas as well. Loads of strikes and industrial disputes that the mainstream media doesn't utter a peep about (I only know about it from IWW activities and unions' newspapers. Pollution problems in quite a few countryside communities. Oh yeah, even a student campus occupation in the North.

Which doesn't even make sense.

Ok, I'll drop that whole monopoly thing for another time. It makes sense in my head and you all speak English first language so I probably have bits of meanings missing, I'll figure it all out maybe and post about it someday. No worries.

Wait. How would there ever be anything other than a violent exchange of goods? Even if you substitute bartering for money, it's still the same basic conditions.

Gift economics is the general term: because capitalist exchange is violent and since economics directly and heavily affect social conditioning (ie. you're poor you think and act with money differently than rich and well off people (the main factor of petty and property crime, I think)), and keeping in mind that the economy is violent, that affects every level of the society (ie. rich or poor), and so it's hard for us to imagine other forms of exchange.

Gift economics then comes partly from one main observation (as I see it) on society:

That people still willingly and voluntarilly give gifts to each other (whether a gift to a friend, money to the homeless guy, making a meal for your family etc.), so they are not fully or inherently using violent exchanges.



Wow, I spent ages on that post. I hope it shows.:)

[Smokey D]

Hardly. These people have been through tories and they've been through labour, and they don't like either. When 50% of the public isn't even registering to vote anymore (we have to register for every elections year here, or something similar) that reflects the system of democracy itself, not the quality of party practices. If the party isn't liked, it'll be voted out, but they can't vote out the system so they just ignore it.

I don't really how you can blame the system for people not getting out and voting. You're really not a fan of personal responsibility, are you?

And you have to realise that in the English system, you can vote out the system. If someone put together a party that appealed to the 50% of unregistered voters and thereby gained an overwhelming majority in parliament (with the other parties having some proportion of the remaining 50%), they could remodel the English constitution in any way it pleased. However, such a party does not exist and does not appear to be in the making. That is, the majority of English people, however unhappy they are with Labour or the Tories, don't seem willing to reconstitute their political nation. That is the essence of democracy.

Britain's economic fortunes are to do with markets expanding and multinationals paying high-ish taxes 'cos our "corporation tax is the most competitive out of the other large countries' tax rates" (that's a direct paraphrase from the new Budget), the quality of life is not getting better for the working class. Hospitals are being closed, NHS walk-in clinics in working areas as well. Loads of strikes and industrial disputes that the mainstream media doesn't utter a peep about (I only know about it from IWW activities and unions' newspapers. Pollution problems in quite a few countryside communities. Oh yeah, even a student campus occupation in the North.

Britain's GDP is pretty much equal with every large European state, and only beaten by small countries with good banking economies.

Nonetheless, a Britain with all the problems you point out in addition to crippling unemployment is worse than a Britain with just the problems you point out.

Gift economics is the general term: because capitalist exchange is violent and since economics directly and heavily affect social conditioning (ie. you're poor you think and act with money differently than rich and well off people (the main factor of petty and property crime, I think)), and keeping in mind that the economy is violent, that affects every level of the society (ie. rich or poor), and so it's hard for us to imagine other forms of exchange.

What the hell is a gift economy?


That people still willingly and voluntarilly give gifts to each other (whether a gift to a friend, money to the homeless guy, making a meal for your family etc.), so they are not fully or inherently using violent exchanges.


There isn't enough to go around. You have to prioritise. Prioritisation necessitates choice. Choice means ranking of preferences. I don't know why me choosing to give all my produce to me and my friends (re: cronyism) and none to starving people on the street is less violent than capitalist notions of buying and selling labour.

[quote]

[coheneran]

I don't really how you can blame the system for people not getting out and voting. You're really not a fan of personal responsibility, are you?

A big fan, actually.:)

That's why I'm taking responsibility for myself and other people by trying to change the system.

And you have to realise that in the English system, you can vote out the system. If someone put together a party that appealed to the 50% of unregistered voters and thereby gained an overwhelming majority in parliament (with the other parties having some proportion of the remaining 50%), they could remodel the English constitution in any way it pleased. However, such a party does not exist and does not appear to be in the making. That is, the majority of English people, however unhappy they are with Labour or the Tories, don't seem willing to reconstitute their political nation. That is the essence of democracy.

The state doesn't follow its own laws, those laws are there for the ruled, not the rulers. If a party or group threatens the stability of the state's power and authority, the state doesn't hesitate to crush it, legally or not (See end of post). The people of Britain cannot win by playing the state's rules, nobody anywhere can.

Britain's GDP is pretty much equal with every large European state, and only beaten by small countries with good banking economies.

I don't know what that means in context of what I was saying, but I know what GDP means.

Nonetheless, a Britain with all the problems you point out in addition to crippling unemployment is worse than a Britain with just the problems you point out.

Fair enough, though there is that too (obviously not as much as when Thatcher closed down the coal and steel industries).

What the hell is a gift economy?

This should start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economics

It's resoundingly simple when you think about it less in terms of maths and market forces and more in terms of the day to day.

There isn't enough to go around. You have to prioritise. Prioritisation necessitates choice. Choice means ranking of preferences. I don't know why me choosing to give all my produce to me and my friends (re: cronyism) and none to starving people on the street is less violent than capitalist notions of buying and selling labour.

There's more than enough to go around.







One example of state repression of threatening opposition was Sack Parliament: http://www.vivisection.info/netcu_watch/oct14_3.htm

It was actually only about 50 protesters, 70 at absolute max if there's a chance I got it badly wrong, but there definitely weren't 100 people there, let alone 150. That's all against 800 cops, with a whole horse squad on ready standby a few blocks away.

[Mr. Ron]

I was watching a vid today of some Scottish anarchists in a riot that were basically destroying private property, goading the police into action and basically begging to be arrested. Sometimes I wonder if the ultra right sees being arrested as a badge of honor or something. Plus its totally uncool to destroy other people's property.

[Der Übermensch]

I hate those ****ers. Not doing anyone any good.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, don't get me wrong I do realize every movemnet has it's jackasses.

[Der Übermensch]

Most so called "anarchists" are a bunch of whiny jackasses. Its just the sad state of things :(

[Mr. Ron]

I just see those kinds of people as suburban kids who live off of capitalism and preach against it at the same time, but love using the anarchist cause as a vehicle to cause trouble.

[griftadan]

i just love it when the anarchist culture gets merchandized by businesses. not as much as che though.

irony ++

[Der Übermensch]

Che's family gets a cut out of every product made with his image on it. And the guy who actually took the iconic photo gets nothing :-p

[coheneran]

That's capitalism for you.

As much as I don't like being the suburban trouble-making anarchy preacher, I must point out that riots are hella fun, and riotporn is hella sexy.

[Smokey D]

A big fan, actually.:)

That's why I'm taking responsibility for myself and other people by trying to change the system.

But you insist the state is to blame for everything.

The state doesn't follow its own laws, those laws are there for the ruled, not the rulers. If a party or group threatens the stability of the state's power and authority, the state doesn't hesitate to crush it, legally or not (See end of post). The people of Britain cannot win by playing the state's rules, nobody anywhere can.

The rule of law means that there's no difference between the rulers and the ruled.

I don't know what that means in context of what I was saying, but I know what GDP means.

It means that, per capita, English people earn the same or more than every other European nation.

Fair enough, though there is that too (obviously not as much as when Thatcher closed down the coal and steel industries).

Well, actually, unemployment and other economic inidicators were all negative before Thatcher closed down the mining industries.



This should start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economics

It's resoundingly simple when you think about it less in terms of maths and market forces and more in terms of the day to day.

You mean when you don't take into account real economics and limit yourself to wishful thinking.

There's more than enough to go around.

Not in the amounts you might want. If I think my best friend deserves 20hours worth of output and another person thinks they deserve 40hours worth of output, who's right?


One example of state repression of threatening opposition was Sack Parliament: http://www.vivisection.info/netcu_watch/oct14_3.htm

It was actually only about 50 protesters, 70 at absolute max if there's a chance I got it badly wrong, but there definitely weren't 100 people there, let alone 150. That's all against 800 cops, with a whole horse squad on ready standby a few blocks away.

That doesn't seem particularly repressive.

[coheneran]

But you insist the state is to blame for everything.

The System of capitalism and the State that benefits from it create symptoms in society that are products of both those things, in varying degrees. For example, I can blame the capitalist System as the original initiator of all property crime, since private property and class inequality stem directly from capitalism (with protection and assistance from the State). That's not to say that if someone nicked my wallet I wouldn't confront them about it, I would, but I also desire to eradicate the problem from the rest of society as fully as possible. According to practice and theory, that can be done by abolishing the notion of private property and getting rid of class inequalities.

The rule of law means that there's no difference between the rulers and the ruled.

Clearly that's not the case in practice.

It means that, per capita, English people earn the same or more than every other European nation.

Oh ok, I was talking about corporation tax rates in this country being lower than the other major countries.

You mean when you don't take into account real economics and limit yourself to wishful thinking.

No, I mean when we create an economy to mirror a society (the opposite is what we have now), so that human beings are treated like human beings and not like commodities. In egalitarian societies throughout history, the economy has always been based on non-violent non-oppressive gift culture, and worked out fine.

Not in the amounts you might want. If I think my best friend deserves 20hours worth of output and another person thinks they deserve 40hours worth of output, who's right?

If you mean how much your friend gets paid for his production, I think he should have control over the goods he produced himself.

In terms of food and similar resources, there is more than enough, and it's sustainable.

That doesn't seem particularly repressive.

I meant it as an example of state reaction to a perceived threat to its authority. Fifty twenty-somethings (and many were much younger than that) in Parliament Square surrounded by almost a thousand cops.

[lfantwister]

According to practice and theory, that can be done by abolishing the notion of private property and getting rid of class inequalities.
The only problem there is that humans inherently think of themselves as unequal. Neither the state nor the system can alter human nature enough for that to work.

No, I mean when we create an economy to mirror a society (the opposite is what we have now), so that human beings are treated like human beings and not like commodities.
So the things people make and the ideas they have are worth only what they as human beings are worth? You can't separate humans from commodities because they are as valuable to a society as the things they produce; an economy that mirrored a society would end up very much like capitalism because society encourages competition (and not just for economic purposes)

[Iskandar]

The only problem there is that humans inherently think of themselves as unequal. Neither the state nor the system can alter human nature enough for that to work.This statement is based on the assumption that human nature is something intrinsic and fixed, rather than molded by our environment and experiences.

[Smokey D]

The System of capitalism and the State that benefits from it create symptoms in society that are products of both those things, in varying degrees. For example, I can blame the capitalist System as the original initiator of all property crime, since private property and class inequality stem directly from capitalism (with protection and assistance from the State). That's not to say that if someone nicked my wallet I wouldn't confront them about it, I would, but I also desire to eradicate the problem from the rest of society as fully as possible. According to practice and theory, that can be done by abolishing the notion of private property and getting rid of class inequalities.

You can blame (I don't know if that's the right word) the state (not just capitalist states; pretty much all states are based on a concept of property) the formalisation of property crime, but the injustice that it identifies must have existed before then. If, for example, my family depends on my 2 cows for its subsistence, and a person takes those cows without justly compensating me, I have been deprived of the means for my existence. This is, almost by definition, unjust.

And I have no evidence to suggest that it erradicating practise and theory will eliminate poverty, much less themotivation to steal or commit crimes.

Clearly that's not the case in practice.

Yes it is. The powerful are subject to the law, no matter how powerful they are.

Except the Queen, but that's just a foolish hangover from feudalism.

Oh ok, I was talking about corporation tax rates in this country being lower than the other major countries.


Which seems to have at least maintained income parity with other Western European states.

No, I mean when we create an economy to mirror a society (the opposite is what we have now), so that human beings are treated like human beings and not like commodities. In egalitarian societies throughout history, the economy has always been based on non-violent non-oppressive gift culture, and worked out fine.


How does a market not mirror society?

And you haven't solved the problem of scacity.

If you mean how much your friend gets paid for his production, I think he should have control over the goods he produced himself.

No, I mean if I want to gift my impoverished friend (let's say he is stupid and can't supply himself with enough essentials) but two other equally impoverished people also desire and require the benefits of my gift, who decides who gets what? And why isn't that distribution any less unfair or arbitrary than in capitalism?


In terms of food and similar resources, there is more than enough, and it's sustainable.


You're assuming the existence of a perfect infrastructure here, which is all well and good in modern western economies but kind of breaks down in the third world. So far you've described a pretty occicentric world view.


I meant it as an example of state reaction to a perceived threat to its authority. Fifty twenty-somethings (and many were much younger than that) in Parliament Square surrounded by almost a thousand cops.

Well, given the present climate, that's not necessarily a bad idea. Did the police actually interfere with proceedings?

[Iskandar]

How does a market not mirror society?Or is it the other way around?
And you haven't solved the problem of scacity.That, possibly the most fundamental problem of economics, is totally subject to ideological interpretation.

[Smokey D]

Or is it the other way around?

I'd say it's pretty hard to distinguish a system whereby goods are distributed in relation to the wants of a society from the society itself. It's like saying religion is somehow separate.

That, possibly the most fundamental problem of economics, is totally subject to ideological interpretation.

Hardly. All resources that are desired are inherently scare, including time.

[Iskandar]

I'd say it's pretty hard to distinguish a system whereby goods are distributed in relation to the wants of a society from the society itself. It's like saying religion is somehow separate.That system doesn't have any effect on the society itself?
Hardly. All resources that are desired are inherently scare, including time.I meant the problem of how we should address the scarcity issue. Its answers vary wildly and are often based in ideology.

[Smokey D]

That system doesn't have any effect on the society itself?

No. You misunderstand. The system must necessarily have an impact on society (and vice versa) because it is part of that society.

I meant the problem of how we should address the scarcity issue. Its answers vary wildly and are often based in ideology.

Well, I can agree with that.

At the same time, however, we should remember that some answers are in fact better than others, and aren't evidence of false consciousness but actually the approrpiate thing to do.

[Iskandar]

No. You misunderstand. The system must necessarily have an impact on society (and vice versa) because it is part of that society.I certainly do agree with this. Are we so far apart?
Well, I can agree with that.

At the same time, however, we should remember that some answers are in fact better than others, and aren't evidence of false consciousness but actually the approrpiate thing to do.Of course. I'm not a fan of being so blindly ideological that it hinders my ability to comprehend the truth.

[coheneran]

The only problem there is that humans inherently think of themselves as unequal. Neither the state nor the system can alter human nature enough for that to work.

Evidence?

And you must remember that being equal doesn't mean you can't be unique and different from everyone else.

So the things people make and the ideas they have are worth only what they as human beings are worth? You can't separate humans from commodities because they are as valuable to a society as the things they produce; an economy that mirrored a society would end up very much like capitalism because society encourages competition (and not just for economic purposes)

You just defended the notion of human beings as commodities because that way they're more valuable to the market. There's nothing much that I can say, except that I am worth a lot more than the amount of kitchens I sell over the phone and the amount of improvements I make on an iTunes upgrade.

You can blame (I don't know if that's the right word) the state (not just capitalist states; pretty much all states are based on a concept of property) the formalisation of property crime, but the injustice that it identifies must have existed before then. If, for example, my family depends on my 2 cows for its subsistence, and a person takes those cows without justly compensating me, I have been deprived of the means for my existence. This is, almost by definition, unjust.

It is unjust. But remember I am differentiating between private property and personal property. In your particular example though, I'd be loathe to call cows (or an apple orchard) property, whether personal or private.

What's your point, though?

And I have no evidence to suggest that it eradicating practise and theory will eliminate poverty, much less themotivation to steal or commit crimes.

By theory I mean just that, and by practice I'm refering to anarchist and anarchistic experiments in creating an egalitarian society.

Yes it is. The powerful are subject to the law, no matter how powerful they are.

The powerful are officially under the jurisdiction of the law, yes, but how many of them have to answer to it in their day to day crimes is another matter.

Which seems to have at least maintained income parity with other Western European states.

Ok...

How does a market not mirror society?

By creating an egalitarian society and then an egalitarian market around it. I put a lot of social violence now down to market violence (ie capitalism's inherent violence that we talked about), and the same for inequality (although there's a lot more inequality from indirect market influences, such as racism due to slavery so long ago, started for economic reasons).

And you haven't solved the problem of scacity.

Give me a scenario to solve.

No, I mean if I want to gift my impoverished friend (let's say he is stupid and can't supply himself with enough essentials) but two other equally impoverished people also desire and require the benefits of my gift, who decides who gets what? And why isn't that distribution any less unfair or arbitrary than in capitalism?

Well, I assume there's some sort of community in the immediate area? You're not all four of you living in a secluded field with only one person farming and reaping. Generally anarchism involves community support for its individual members. The best way for something such as food distribution, I find, is to go for it the old tribal celtic way: Find the biggest pot you can, then fill it with whatever food you have to cook with, and lots of water, wait an hour or less, and voila! You have enough food for the whole community (my experiences involve squats with 20-30 people).

You're assuming the existence of a perfect infrastructure here, which is all well and good in modern western economies but kind of breaks down in the third world. So far you've described a pretty occicentric world view.

Fair point. However, I don't see why we can't keep the infrastructure (granted a few fundamental changes in energy production etc) or a similar one in an anarchist world.

Well, given the present climate, that's not necessarily a bad idea. Did the police actually interfere with proceedings?

Well, one reporter had to be rushed to the hospital in a neckbrace after cops pushed him violently to the ground. And yes, they did interfere heavily with the protest. They employed snatch-squad tactics, where they'd try to locate the leaders inside the protest, then open their corral, a small group of cops would run through, grab whoever it is they thought was the leader, and ran out the circle again. After about four hours of this it was basically three people in the circle. Obviously the main fallacy with this tactic is that there were no leaders, and when whoever happened to be leading the chants or directing the black bloc at the time (we set up a little one to try and break pthe circle, but looking at the ratios, we never really had much chance:p) got snatched, someone else would take their place. It's a bit like the Wobblies filling up all the jails in Spokane.

[Smokey D]

It is unjust. But remember I am differentiating between private property and personal property. In your particular example though, I'd be loathe to call cows (or an apple orchard) property, whether personal or private.

What the hell is it then? If I have put all my effort into raising a cow and done so at the expense of doing other worthwhile work (opportunity cost) so that I have something to eat or milk to provide for me and my family, someone stealing it does me a great injustice.

What's your point, though?

That the law giving the injustice a name and a penalty does not itself create the injustice.

By theory I mean just that, and by practice I'm refering to anarchist and anarchistic experiments in creating an egalitarian society.

Neither of which have demonstrated any reasons why theft or other crimes should automatically end.

The powerful are officially under the jurisdiction of the law, yes, but how many of them have to answer to it in their day to day crimes is another matter.


It depends if it is an actual crime or something you feel should be a crime. People don't really get away with **** any more. And I certainly don't see how crimes could be punished in a society that lacks a coercive mechanism.

Ok...

Meaning privatisation policies haven't led to a catastrophic collapse in standards of living.

Well, I assume there's some sort of community in the immediate area? You're not all four of you living in a secluded field with only one person farming and reaping. Generally anarchism involves community support for its individual members. The best way for something such as food distribution, I find, is to go for it the old tribal celtic way: Find the biggest pot you can, then fill it with whatever food you have to cook with, and lots of water, wait an hour or less, and voila! You have enough food for the whole community (my experiences involve squats with 20-30 people).

What if everyone likes me and my friends more than that other guy?

And there's not necessarily that much food available.

Give me a scenario to solve.

Fresh water in Australia. Seriously, there's governments who will pay millions for a solution, so I'm willing to hear what you have to offer.

Fair point. However, I don't see why we can't keep the infrastructure (granted a few fundamental changes in energy production etc) or a similar one in an anarchist world.

Well, because most of the infrastructure is framed around capitalist production for one thing.

And for another, you're denying the opportunities of your new society to any country that's currently undevelopped.


Well, one reporter had to be rushed to the hospital in a neckbrace after cops pushed him violently to the ground. And yes, they did interfere heavily with the protest. They employed snatch-squad tactics, where they'd try to locate the leaders inside the protest, then open their corral, a small group of cops would run through, grab whoever it is they thought was the leader, and ran out the circle again. After about four hours of this it was basically three people in the circle. Obviously the main fallacy with this tactic is that there were no leaders, and when whoever happened to be leading the chants or directing the black bloc at the time (we set up a little one to try and break pthe circle, but looking at the ratios, we never really had much chance) got snatched, someone else would take their place. It's a bit like the Wobblies filling up all the jails in Spokane.

Well, that's not very good at all. Just because I don't believe in anarchism doesn't mean I condone the actions of all states and their institutions.

I certainly do agree with this. Are we so far apart?

You know I love you man.

Of course. I'm not a fan of being so blindly ideological that it hinders my ability to comprehend the truth.

Cool.

[lfantwister]

Evidence?
This statement is based on the assumption that human nature is something intrinsic and fixed, rather than molded by our environment and experiences.

The obvious yet mysterious tenet that economists who defend capitalism always assume is that every person has an inherent and apparently unquenchable desire for “things”—the rarer, the better—and this passion is what essentially creates economics and capitalism as we know it. I'm arguing, and I'm pretty sure many others would say that it’s a natural desire, citing various religious doctrines that forbid it (the logic being that if a religion finds it important enough to talk about, it must be a prevalent part of human nature). Note how the 10 commandments talks about coveting your neighbor, or how in other religions the state where desire for material things is nonexistent is nirvana. Isn't religion enough of a reflection of human nature to prove that greed or lust for material goods is inherent within us?

Maybe the why has to do with hundreds of thousands of years of caveman-type mentality (Me Ur! Me have four rocks and you have two! As a side note, I wonder why we always give cavemen such atrocious grammar).

And you must remember that being equal doesn't mean you can't be unique and different from everyone else. except isn't your value as a person reliant on your individual skills?
You just defended the notion of human beings as commodities because that way they're more valuable to the market. There's nothing much that I can say, except that I am worth a lot more than the amount of kitchens I sell over the phone and the amount of improvements I make on an iTunes upgrade. no you're not, dont lie to yourself :)

[Danish]

The only problem there is that humans inherently think of themselves as unequal. Neither the state nor the system can alter human nature enough for that to work.

Read some Rousseau.

[lfantwister]

Read some Rousseau.
thanks for the advice, im on it

[coheneran]

I'd suggest Terry Pratchett, he's far better than Roosow.

[Der Übermensch]

Um... isn't he a Science Fiction writer?

[coheneran]

Science Fiction/Fantasy Comedy, if you wanna be exact about it.

A much better read than Roosow, I find. In fact pretty much the only anarchist writers who don't make me yawn are Emma Goldman and CrimethInc.

Is it possible to love someone you've never met? I think it must be.

[pedro durruti]

Have you ever read Voltairine de Cleyre?

[coheneran]

Ah, I've never heard of that. I've started reading Charles Bukowski ebooks though, he's amazing.

[Der Übermensch]

Science Fiction/Fantasy Comedy, if you wanna be exact about it.

A much better read than Roosow, I find. In fact pretty much the only anarchist writers who don't make me yawn are Emma Goldman and CrimethInc.

Is it possible to love someone you've never met? I think it must be.

Noooow I get it...
You've read Days of War, Nights of Love once too many times!!

And Rousseau was a French Enlightenment philosopher, he isn't supposed to be light reading. I wouldn't trust a Sci-fi writer for my philosophy any more then I would for my religion... ;-)

[coheneran]

Noooow I get it...
You've read Days of War, Nights of Love once too many times!!

And Rousseau was a French Enlightenment philosopher, he isn't supposed to be light reading. I wouldn't trust a Sci-fi writer for my philosophy any more then I would for my religion... ;-)

But then again, would you trust a long dead philosopher for it? I wouldn't.

And I resent that accusation, I never finished Days Of War. I got what I wanted from it. It was a beautiful book that captured the essence of individualist anarchism by paradox and self-contradiction. I didn't agree with a lot of the content, but the general message was great, though I won't ruin it for you.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm not saying it's a bad book... You should see my copy, its so worn and dog eared I'm suprised it's still intact. I'm just saying that CrimethInc publications are a horrible basis for actual anarchist theory. All emotion, no substance.

And I wouldn't trust a dead philsopher merely because he was a philosopher, but I'd give him credence.

[coheneran]

That's because they're not collectivists and they're not writing theory, what they're writing (to me) is closer to literature, which I prefer to theory.

Of course, I give all my reading a chance, regardless of reputation.

[Der Übermensch]

Emotion gets you no where.

[coheneran]

What are you talking about? A moment of anarchy is filled with emotion.

[Petros]

Anarchists are just a bunch of followers after an ideology like everyone else.

[coheneran]

That's fair, but you have to recognise the incredible difference between anarchy and every other ideology.

[Der Übermensch]

That's fair, but you have to recognise the incredible difference between anarchy and every other ideology.
Um... sure, it professes different things then other ones, but its no different then any other ideology in the sense that it is one...

[Petros]

Ok tell me this. If there were an 'anarchist' state, what would anarchists do if someone was opposed to the 'government'?

[coheneran]

There wouldn't be a State in an anarchist society.

[Petros]

That is why I put it in quotes, for lack of a better word for what it would 'be'.

If the person were a right wing fascist, what would anarchists do?

[coheneran]

I have no problem living with anybody who can respect and tolerate other people.

I don't know what every anarchist would do, or even most. I know what I would do though. I'd try to persuade the fascist that she was wrong.

[Der Übermensch]

Cohn... don't give a cop out answer...

[coheneran]

Honestly, how can I answer that? I can't answer for anybody else, and the question was so vague. I know people who'd kill a Nazi without thinking, I know people who wouldn't aim a gun at someone if their lives depended on it, and both are anarchists.

[Der Übermensch]

They would be effecivly ostracized from society is the correct answer...

[Petros]

Look, I'm not saying a Nazi doesn't deserve what is coming to him.

If an anarchist kills a Nazi because he/she is a fascist, he/she is being an authoritarian.

If he/she doesn't kill him because he is a fascist, then what does he/she do? If he/she exiles the fascist, they are being authoritarian. If they put them in prison, they are being authoritarian.

So what would an anarchist do?

[coheneran]

I don't want to ostracize anyone...

Human beings are changeable moment to moment, even a Nazi can be shown anarchy is better. Walking into an anarchist space I haven't seen anyone who's not in uniform walk out saying "What a load of wank".

[Petros]

They would be effecivly ostracized from society is the correct answer...

So anarchists are opposed to anyone with a different ideology.

[coheneran]

So anarchists are opposed to anyone with a different ideology.

Fascism is intolerant of most individual freedom, it makes generalised deeply flawed judgements, it seeks to fully or significantly control people's lives based on one person's decisions, it's based on a hierarchical system which is terrible in itself.

Anarchism is none of those things.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Human beings are changeable moment to moment, even a Nazi can be shown anarchy is better.ok Walking into an anarchist space I haven't seen anyone who's not in uniform walk out saying "What a load of wank".anecdotal evidence: absolutely irrefutable

[coheneran]

Well gee, I'm sorry I didn't do a survey at the time.

No seriously I don't care if internet facts refute what I've seen with my own eyes.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

sorry, what are you babbling about?

anecdotes don't prove anything

[coheneran]

No, my experience does, to me. Which is what matters, to me.

No need for "babbling", this isn't the local elections, we're friends here.:)

[pedro durruti]

They would be effecivly ostracized from society is the correct answer...
Ideologically, definitely, but like Petros said it'd be authoritative to physically exclude someone, so long as they are not disrupting others freedom.

[coheneran]

Ideologically, definitely, but like Petros said it'd be authoritative to physically exclude someone, so long as they are not disrupting others freedom.

Even if they are it's authoritarian. But if fascism still exists as a practicable idea, then the revolution isn't complete. And a revolution is dirty, it's violent, it's definitely not a soldiers putting their guns away situation.

So I can see why someone wouldn't hesitate to kill the fascist, I just prefer to try other ways first.

[Der Übermensch]

So anarchists are opposed to anyone with a different ideology.

To a degree.

Ideologically, definitely, but like Petros said it'd be authoritative to physically exclude someone, so long as they are not disrupting others freedom.
No one would physically be kicked out, but its a "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kind of thing" (yes, a massive over simplification).
If someone doesn't want to be a part of it, they can't expect anyone to help them, and they might as well go leave.
There's a great passage by Bakunin on the matter, but the book its from is at home...

[pedro durruti]

Well, you know anarchists... it's probably floating around online somewhere. What is it from?

[Der Übermensch]

Statism and Anarchy... I think. I read it in Guerin's "No Gods, No Masters" Anthology though (which is awsome and I recommend to everyone).

[lfantwister]

If someone doesn't want to be a part of it, they can't expect anyone to help them, and they might as well go leave.
What if they're the only one in the community that can do a certain skill and are therefore integral to the success of it?

[pedro durruti]

Why'd they join the community if they hate the way it's structured so much?

[lfantwister]

what if they try it with the best intentions and decide they hate it?

[griftadan]

Why'd they join the community if they hate the way it's structured so much?

not everyone gets the choice to choose their community i suppose.

[pedro durruti]

Ok my friends, why must we look at this hypothetical situation? Different communities would treat the situation differently, like Eran said, but if they are dedicated to egalitarian, peaceful cooperation, then they would stick to those principles, and work things out to the best of their ability.

We haven't even discovered if this is even attainable yet, I think we should focus on that. Heh heh

[coheneran]

Of course it's attainable, I've been in dozens of communities who work like that.

[pedro durruti]

I'm talking about on a large scale

[Der Übermensch]

What if they're the only one in the community that can do a certain skill and are therefore integral to the success of it?

Then the community better try damn hard to convince them to stay, or else learn the damn skill.

Of course it's attainable, I've been in dozens of communities who work like that.
A circle of hippys who share their pot doesn't count.

[gregulus]

Then the community better try damn hard to convince them to stay, or else learn the damn skill.


A circle of hippys who share their pot doesn't count.

What about pot and partners?

Really, it seems to me that Cohn's idea of anarchy is billions of little communes all around the world that all act independently from their neighbors. This sounds pretty illogical to me.

[lfantwister]

Then the community better try damn hard to convince them to stay, or else learn the damn skill.
Seems like a great opportunity for our mr. opportunist to gain a bit of power

[Der Übermensch]

What about pot and partners?
Now we're getting somewhere!


Seems like a great opportunity for our mr. opportunist to gain a bit of power
Well if the collective will isn't enough to stop one man from taking advantage of them, then I don't see why they tried to collectivise in the first place.
Unlike what Cohn seems to be saying, this isn't suited for everyone. I wouldn't even say its suited for a majority. To work, people need to want it to work. Anarchism is NOT practical for universal implementation, and it never will be. It can only work on a smaller scale - City State or small Nation State.

[Iskandar]

Really, it seems to me that Cohn's idea of anarchy is billions of little communes all around the world that all act independently from their neighbors. This sounds pretty illogical to me.It's a utopian pipe dream, that. I don't think there's a point to discussing what a future anarchist society would be like; the best we can do is offer our opinions on how it should function, and back it up with historical examples.