Beginners Guide to Anarchism!

[Der Übermensch]

Here we go, I hope I'm not the only one who actually took this idea seriously :p. I don't know if this is really the final copy, but it seemed finished enough to post. This isn't really ment to be a debate thread, but if anybody has suggestions of what I should add, they are welcome, and I will maybe Edit them in.

Development
Anarchism is a loose political theory based on the principle that all forms of government in which man rules over man is wrong. Anarchism is not a specific philosophy, but rather has many branches. Individualist, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism , and Anarcho-Capitalism are the most dominant forms, and I will get into more detail later.

Proudhon and the Basics
The term 'Anarchism' was first coined by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a French Writer most known for his book "What is Property?", and his answer "Property is Theft". Influenced by the revolution of 1830, Proudhon remained prominent in the early years of the movement, although never latched onto one particular branch to call his own, and eventually in his older years shifted slightly toward con-federalism. It is important to realize that the property Proudhon argues against is not personal property. He, and most Anarchists, make a distinction between the property of ones personal lives (a house for instance), and that used for the larger purpose (like a factory).
A staunch individualist, Proudhon was highly critical of Marxist philosophy. He once wrote to Marx, "Let us not become the leaders of a new religion, even were it to be the religion of logic and reason". In explanation of his vision for the future, Proudhon wrote, "The very sovereignty of the people contains its own negation. If the entire people were truly sovereign there would no longer be either government of governed; the sovereign would be reduced to nothing; the State would have no raison d'être, would be identical to society and disappear into industrial organization".
These are views embraced by most versions of Anarchism, which can all be pretty much boiled down to personal freedom, or as Bakunin stated it, "Freedom is the absolute right of every human being to seek no other sanction for his actions but his own conscience, to determine these actions solely by his own will, and consequently to owe his first responsibility to himself alone".

Individualist Anarchism
One of the hardest branch of Anarchism to really explain, Individualist Anarchism is not so much a political theory as much as a personal philosophy. IA is originally based off of the writings of Max Stirner, a German egoist writer who declared, "Every State is a tyranny, be it the tyranny of a single man or a group." While similar to the German Nihilist movement, Individualists rejected the destructive manner associated with them.

Anarcho-Communism
This is where we get into the meat of it. Anarcho-Communism is based off the writings of Bakunin, a contemporary, and on/off friend of Marx. Bakunin, while agreeing with many principals Marx professed, believed the only successful instatement of Anarchism could come from spontaneous revolution, rather then the incremental merging Marx wrote of. AC is based on voluntary communal living. Bakunin was very explicit that the individual should never be coerced into anarchism, and that, "The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts".

Anarcho-Syndicalism
Syndicalism is kind ofsimilar to AC, but is based closely with the Union movement that erupted after 1848, and died down after WW1, (Except for Spain, where the CNT still exists, albeit in a limited form). Instead of communal societys, Sydicalists believe in webs of mutual, Democratic based Unions. At its peak, the members of European Anarchist Unionists numbered in the millions.

Anarcho-Capitalism
Not considered Anarchism by most, I felt obligated to provide a brief description. The basis of AnCap is that the same as regular Anarchism is relation to government, but believes in an Unrestricted Free Market. Often criticized because by eliminating government, it allows monopolistic company's to take over.

Anarchism in Action
1830 and 1848
The revolution of 1830 in France was not actually anarchism, but heavily influenced early writers. The revolutions of 1848 involved Anarchists to a limited degree, but its most important effect was within a few years, over 900 Anarchist influenced Unions had started throughout Europe.

Paris Commune
Again not a real Anarchist movement, but notable for their involvement on the part of the Communards, as well as its experiment in peoples direct input into the running of the government. It was soon destroyed however when Versailles troops retook Paris and slaughtered about 30,000 participants.

The Haymarket
During a rally in Chicago on May 3rd, 1886, the crowd was attacked by the police, A bomb was thrown and a number of police killed. Although obviously innocent, a number of Anarchist and Socialist leaders of the rally were arrested for the bomb (it is now thought a policeman or someone in their pay threw it to provoke a retaliation). Five were sentenced to death, one of which committed suicide in his cell, and the other four were hanged. The remaining 3 were pardoned by the governor, who realized the trials were a sham, a few years later, and the rest cleared of charges. In the aftermath, immense sympathy, national and world wide, was brought to their cause (the 8 hour work week), and May 1st was made International Workers Day.

Propaganda by the Deed
A regrettable time in Anarchist history, for a time, the Anarchist International Congress endorsed the practice of select assassination, which resulted in the death of a number of heads of state. It was eventually realized this was counterproductive, as it only portrayed an image of violence to the public. After the assassination of McKinley, the practice was disavowed, but not before getting Anarchists on most government watch lists.

The Russian Revolution
It should be noted that soviets were free workers communes that had resulted in the Revolution of 1905, and again in 1917. The Bolshevik party, one of the smaller ones at the outset of the revolution, adopted the name and slogans to surf along on the popularity of them with the people. The quickly became the largest political party in the revolution.
The Kronstadt
The Kronstadt was a naval base at which the sailors had been particularly commended for their valor in the revolution. It was also home to one of the largest soviets, one that took the Bolsheviks initial promises of autonomy literally. In 1921, as the Bolsheviks started to tighten control, the Kronstadt refused to cooperate. A handpicked unit of the Red Army (most refused to assault men they still thought of as allies) assaulted the Kronstadt, killing almost all inhabitants.
The Makhnovist movement
The Makhnovichina was a large area of the Ukraine founded by the Anarchist Nestor Makhno that encompassed 20 million people by some accounts. He organized a militia, which initially fought with the Reds against the Whites, and was at one point the largest fighting force on the part of the Reds. However, Lenin saw them as a threat, as their free communes he viewed as a threat to Bolshevik power as it presented another option, one he didn't want, to the Russian people. So once the Whites were minimized, he ordered Trotsky to take care of it. A meeting was called, and all the Makhno militia commanders went to meet with Trotsky. Instead, they were arrested and executed. Nestor escaped to Paris, but the Red Army, with the element of surprise, swept in and destroyed the Makhnovichina.

Spain
Spain was the home of the largest Syndicalist movement in Europe. The Spanish Anarchists were initially started by Fanelli, a disciple of Bakunin. They soon moved into a Unionist movement, headed by the CNT Union. Even after the Republican government emerged, the Anarchists still attacked it. However, when Franco started his rebellion against the government (which was leaning Socialist), the Anarchists decided to side with the Loyalist forces, which also comprised of government forces, Stalinist Communists, Trotskyites, and Socialists. Centered mainly in the Catalonia (Barcelona), and Andulsia regions of Spain, as well as with influence in the Basque region, the Spanish Anarchists numbered 2-8 million (depends who's counting). However, the Communists were ordered by the USSR to consolidate power, and attacked the Anarchist forces. The Trotskians (POUM) were caught in the middle (hated by Stalinists as well), and leaned towards the Anarchists. With the loyalist forces split, the Fascists, backed by Hitler and Mussolini, overran them and gained control of Spain.
I am working on a longer summary of Spain. ITs to big to add here, so heres the link to part on later on.
Part 1 (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7064858&postcount=277)
Part 2 (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7208790&postcount=312)
Part 3 (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7208800&postcount=313)

[Der Übermensch]

Paris Commune II (May-June Revolt)
"I take my desire's for reality because I believe in the reality of my desires"
Anarchist influenced, as well as by the Situationalists. It started in response to the arrest of several students for anti-vietnam activity's. More students turned out in protest, and when confronted by police, it only made more students turn out. Riots started, Barricades were erected, and soon universities all over the city, workers unions, and regular citizens turned out into the streets. Almost 10 million people were out in protest at its height, and red and black flags flew all over the now occupied city. Eventually the military was brought in to quell the takeover, which was eventually ended with a promise of an increase of 35% in the industrial minimum wage and an all round-wage increase of 10%.

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.

Edit: Update
Ok, seeing some of the responses so far, I'm going to add a bit more (+I'm just bored...)
Laws, or Lack Thereof
Laws don't exist under Anarchism. That is, laws in the sense that governments apply the word. Rather, guidelines are agreed upon by the people in the commune, comprimises being reached over parts of disagreement rather than just one group winning out. What happens if one doesn't want to follow the guidelines is up to each commune. No one is obligated to be part of a commune, best put by Bakunin, "The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts."

Symbols
The best known symbol of Anarchism is the A in the O. It originaly developed as a representation of Proudhon's quip, "Anarchy is Order", although it has been corrupted by the punk and skater generations in recent times.
Another symbol is the Black Flag, which is ussualy thought of as a symbol of anti-authority. It is sometimes combined with a Red Flag (Workers Struggle), put together diagonally. This is most common with Syndicalism, and was used by the CNT-FAI in Spain.

Application
People often like to say that anarchism could never work, because there would be people opposed to it, and therefor it would be contradictory. I do agree, that it can not be forced, but also believe it can work, although whether now is the time is debatable. Education is the most important step, as once people know what Anarchism stands for, rather then petty acts of violence, I think the acceptance for it would be over whelming. It must be remembered though, that the eccense of Anarchism is embodied in the achievment of the will of the people, not just the actual implementation of Anarchism. Ironically, Marx stated it best, "Better the whole world be destroyed and perish utterly than that a free man refrain from an act which his nature moves him". The time for Anarchism will present itself, not impose itself, as "Liberty can and must defend itself only through liberty; to try to resist is on the specious pretext of defending it is a dangerous contradiction (Bakunin)"

Dictionary Definition
That seems to come up a lot... Here (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8627317&postcount=469) is a post I did on the subject. Read it before you quote dictionary.com and think your hot ****...

Due to the large amount of information available, I couldn't go over everything. There are a number of other forms of Anarchism, such as Tolstoys Christian Anarchism, as well as major writers, such as Kroptokin. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend the following.
Books
Daniel Guérin - Anarchism, as well as No Gods, No Masters 1 & 2
George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia
Peter Kropotkin - Anarchism
Mikhail Bakunin - God & State
Pierre Joseph Proudhon - What is Property?
Emma Goldman - Anarchism and Other Essays
Almost anything by AK Press
CrimethInc - Days of War, Nights of Love (most of which can be found online here http://www.crimethinc.com/library/ )

Websites
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ - an extensive FAQ
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm - a shorter FAQ
http://www.nestormakhno.info/ - All about Nestor Makhno (read his essay on meeting Lenin)
http://www.spunk.org/ - Lots of great articles

Movies
Land and Freedom - Actually about the Trotskiest POUM in the Spanish Civil War, not the CNT, its somewhat based on Homage to Catalonia. It does have a great part in it that showcases the communalization of the land, and village councils.
The Dreamers - Great movie, set with the backdrop of the Paris Commune II. Not very informative, but good nonetheless.


Last updated 7/14/05

[shadows_forbid]

so do you think anarchy could work in a society of now? and why dont they teach anarchy is schools?

[Reaganista]

Take a comparative government course.

[shadows_forbid]

ooooooooooooooo thanks Tway

[|~Iceb0x~|]

I don't know how to ask this question, but is anarachy like a state of rebellion and after the rebellion has gotten there goal do they re-write the government?

Is the IRA a group of anarachist?

[Nra4ever_17]

No and No

[|~Iceb0x~|]

So theres nothing but disorder?

Does a nation who is over taken by anarchy become sothing like a thrid world?

[Nra4ever_17]

So theres nothing but disorder?

No. There is no government, not no order. The IRA, btw, are conservatives I think.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

What happens to jobs are there still jobs?

[Reaganista]

Of course. It's not about going back to nature.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

The IRA, btw, are conservatives I think.
Makes sense The Irish Republican Army, I don't like the IRA by the way

[Nra4ever_17]

What happens to jobs are there still jobs?

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

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Would the movie mad max be an example of anarachism

Does greed still exist In anarchy?

How about schools?

Do are children become artisans?

What happens if you murder someone?

[Reaganista]

No.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

No.
Is that no for the mad max question? or in general?

[|~Iceb0x~|]

What Happens to religion?

What about the questions I asked 4 posts up?

[Reaganista]

Would the movie mad max be an example of anarachism


No.


Does greed still exist In anarchy?


Yes.


How about schools?


Yes.


Do are children become artisans?


Huh?


What happens if you murder someone?

All the Anarchists on here have ever told me is 'The people would unite and destroy them'.

[Reaganista]

What Happens to religion?

What about the questions I asked 4 posts up?

People would be allowed to believe whatever they want.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

All the Anarchists on here have ever told me is 'The people would unite and destroy them'.
heh that sounds funny.
That artisan question didn't to be answered if there was still schools.

Is everyone an equal in Anarchy

[Der Übermensch]

Would the movie mad max be an example of anarachism

No, thats Chaos
Does greed still exist In anarchy?
Depends on how you view Human nature. It will at first, but it could, for all we know, be slowly removed from society
How about schools?
Yes, they exist. Education is one of the most important things a man can get.

Do are children become artisans?
huh? Improper verb usage...?

What happens if you murder someone?
Depends on the commune. You might be punished, or maybe face ostrization.

What Happens to religion?
Religion, yes. Heirarchal religion (i.e. Catholic), probobly not.

So theres nothing but disorder?
Proudhon said, "Anarchy is Order". Thats what the A in the O means...

[|~Iceb0x~|]

How come there aren't any (or aleast that I know of) anarchy governments?

When england invaded scottland during the time of Robert the bruce, and how the people of scottland united to fight the english, was that form of anarchy. if so this means my dad and I have blood lines to anarchist.

[Reaganista]

Religion, yes. Heirarchal religion (i.e. Catholic), probobly not.


And who would be enforcing this fascism? Surely not the revolutionary non-government!

[|~Iceb0x~|]

I was looking at the quote made by NOFXfreak

"What Happens to religion?"
"Religion, yes. Heirarchal religion (i.e. Catholic), probobly not."

I have strong feeling that I was related to anarchist, because when scottland battled england and finally defeated them they sent a "declaration of aboth" to the vactican
which was a clear statement to the pope that they wanted nothing to do with there religion (Roman Catholic)

[chips88]

How can anything be run, if not for profit? I would like someone to explain to me what our lives would be like, how they would change, under anarchism.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

From what I learned, You will in small communities, there own little nations. where instead of one person calling the shots, the community would all agree on something and do it.
one thing you would notice right away is no laws, and you can do what ever you want but is its something bad the community will decide what your conquence would be, I don't know what I am about to say is right but I am going to say it anyway Anarchy is like democray without laws or a governing body, just something controled by the people.

Is there Infrastucture in anarchy?
If so, Whos pays for it?or does some voluteer to do it?

[Danish]

so do you think anarchy could work in a society of now? and why dont they teach anarchy is schools?

It definately could.

They don't teach it in schools (even in universities for the large part!) because the institutions of education are controlled by capital and thus aim to maintain the status quo and indoctrinate people at a young age.

[Reaganista]

If they don't teach it at your university you need to ask for a refund. If they don't teach it at your High School, you go to a bad one.

[Der Übermensch]

And who would be enforcing this fascism? Surely not the revolutionary non-government! It's not something that would be inforced... its just the fact I don't really think a practicing Catholic can be an Anarchist, as Catholic doctrine is all about the heirarchy and papaul supremecy.

and no, the Scottish rebels weren't Anarchists. I'm scottish, but my history on that is a bit fuzzy... however, If i remember correctly from Braveheart, they united yes, but it was behind the Bruce, not as a collective, equal entity. Defience to the Catholic Church is nothing new really... Martin Luther wasn't an Anarchist....

Is there Infrastucture in anarchy?
Depends on what you consider infastructure.

one thing you would notice right away is no laws, and you can do what ever you want
There arn't laws in the current sense of the word, but there are guidlines agreed upon by all members of a given commune that they agree to live by.
As I've always said, if you want to kill people, go ahead, but make sure you do so in a commune where everyone agree's pointless killing is all right.

[Reaganista]

It's not something that would be inforced... its just the fact I don't really think a practicing Catholic can be an Anarchist, as Catholic doctrine is all about the heirarchy and papaul supremecy.


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

[IAJP]

Amazing, pure class,
I think you deserve some rep for that :thumb:

[Der Übermensch]

I was bored... so I added a few more things... not really in any order, just what I thought of.
So you don't think Anarchy requires a global movement?
Its hard to say. I think that a global movement would be ideal. However, it may work not on a global scale... It's been tried on a limited scale, and smashed by the Red Army, and then the Spanish/German/Italian Fascists, but that isn't to say that it can't survive... Time will tell i guess...

[Danish]

Of course it requires a global movement. It requires the mass abandonment of the capitalist mode of production for a mode of production that works far better.

[chips88]

How does it work far better? I would also still like someone to explain how our daily lives would be affected, and not in general terms. I mean stuff like movies, cars, ordinary stuff.

[Der Übermensch]

They might not be affected at all. There is little to gauge it on there, since the last large scale commune was in '36, and theMay-June revolts weren't long enough to really test its effect for modern amenity's. I will say this much, the Internet definitly is a step forward. It allows international communication, something that was never available to earlier generations, and I can easily see it facilitating the international comradery [is that a word..?] that would be needed for international support of anarchism.

[Danish]

How does it work far better? I would also still like someone to explain how our daily lives would be affected, and not in general terms. I mean stuff like movies, cars, ordinary stuff.

It would work far better because the means of production would be democratically controlled by all instead of the few. The needs of people would be provided for. Social inequality would be erased. Of course there would still be things like movies and music (they would probably be better because they wouldn't be corporate crap). Cars would exist, but a more rational way of organization would be developed so people wouldn't need to rely on cars as much.

[j_mac_86]

The problem with the theory of anarchy is simple, it is based around structure, therefore it can not and never will exist. Throughout history the world has been full of chaos and destruction however, everything evens itself out. Eg. Lets say a forest that has been growing for thousands of years burns down, one could say this is anarchy but, over time the forest will grow back. This cycle can go on for as long as there is life on this planet. The same can be said for any living organism on the planet, and since everything except metal was once a living thing (plastics=oil=fossil fuels) anarchy can not exist because life is cyclic, structured. Now what if China decides to blow up the world, complete chaos, extinction of human race(we are not separated from the animal kingdom, we are animals too people), this is what you call anarchy the trouble is life will find a way to cope, to move, to evolve. Basically evolution is the one thing anarchy doesnt have an answer to and in a universe of variables, evolution is the only constant. In fact ironically anarchy is essential for evolution, without anarchy there is no need to evolve and develop for future generations its just that alot of pissed off teenagers have tried to adopt as some sort of religion or an excuse to blame all their problems in the world. If anything "anarchy", rebellion or what ever you want to call it starts in the mind, if your pissed off at the world thats fine but it doesnt mean that you have to conform to a whole different set of norms just to be different, seems pretty stupid dont you think. I strongly recommend you all to read some of Tim Leary's work (He's the guy speaking on the start of "third eye" when tool play it live) heres a link www.leary.com or www.deoxy.org/leary.htm

Also i would like to add, if anarchism did become the new political structure for the world, we would end up with communisim, people are just to greedy. :angry:

[Smokey D]

To be clear, anarchy =/= chaos. It is simply the abolition of an organ of governence. We are instead governed not by laws, but by our own social ethic. It is generally supposed that a change in the mode of production is also necessary.

Also, Communism and anarchy aren't that different. Communism, as enivisaged by Karl Marx, requires a slow (d)evolution from the capitalist, Bourgeois model, while anarchism prefers the idea of an immediate shift. In some cases, there are also difference in the philosophies behind the ideas. For example, some forms of anarchism reject the marxist maxim of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', and (as I understand it) focuses more on what you are willing to produce. However, the ultimate conclusion of both ideologies is a classless, stateless and, above all, free society.

And so, for the same reason that I don't think Communism will work, I don't think Anarchism will either. It requires such a fundemental shift in human nature that it is utterly impractical to try and force it upon the masses. As I've mentioned in previous threads on this topic, greed derives from desire, and desire is instinctive, and so it is impossible to remove greed without altering our instincts. Also, the 'laws' of the communes will ultimately require a kind of governing body to enforce them, meaning the ideology is self defeating. Finally, the system is too open to abuse. With no government to enforce checks and balances, and only the fairly nebulous concept of social equilibrium to impose stability, authority can be concentrated into a few ambitous people. Since power, by its nature, accrues in the hands of the powerful, the effect will be cumilitive until the anarchic society collapses back into a dictatorship. Someone correct me on this if I've misunderstood.

[Special Brew]

So, if we lived in a anarchist community we'd basically be relying on people helping each other out? Because that doesn't seem very efficient, you can't depend on people to help you live.

[Madcap.]

You depend on farmers to grow food. You depend on the power companys to heat your house. Everyone apart from the farmers and hunter require a dependance on something.

[Reaganista]

Farmers depend on people, too.

They depend on manufacturers to make their tools, scientists to invent new and better means to grow foods, other farmers to grow different types of food to avoid malnutrition (because most farmers concentrate on just a few crops), soldiers and police to defend their farmland and in market-economies, consumers to give them money or goods in exchange for surplus food.

[Madcap.]

Yeah, OK. See everyone depends on someone for survival. To S.O.B.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

It just wouldnt work I dont think, a lot of my reasons other people have already said. But think of it, originally, when humans were only live cave men, or even before that. Then there was anarchy, and people evolved and developed various systems of government. That is what I think made humans succeed over other animals in that they had something unifying them. I think that people would go back to this seeing as they no longer have to discover organization.
But governments are good for somethings, life roads, schools, hospitals, police, fire. In anarchy i dont think that we would have any of these, at least not to our current standard. People would want all these things, and the communes probably wouldnt give what they wanted. Also, someone said that there would be no organized religion. Clearly quite a lot of people believe in organized religion otherwise nobody would go go to church, and anarchism, being what it is, cannot prevent them doing this. What if some people wanted organized religion or someone to govern them? Then they would just go and do it, meaning no more anarchism. Also, some people would have more power in each commune or society, it happens naturally all the time, almost everywhere you look. These people might get a following, and next thing you know you have a dictator. there was something else i was gonna say but i forgot....

[Madcap.]

In anarchy the people govern themselves.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

People do pretty horrific things when theres nobody to stop them, i mean look at the nazis ( i dont like to draw the parallel here, sorry) , they were all human being but many chose to join of their own free will. So I wouldnt trust people not to do things. I mean, murders happen and if there was no police or anything, only the "goodwill of the commune" or whatever there would be no justice, i think. Like in a playground, people bully each other and nobody stops it, yeah? Believe me, i know (sad to say). But this kind of proves to me that if people dont have any contrainsts they dont govern each other that well. Im probably repeating myself here. Also, the environment. people would build factories and things and with no regulation on how much emmisions on cars fumes and factory fumes and power station fumes the environment would be even more ****ed than it is already. Oh yeah, power.
You may say that each little place could control their own power source, but some places dont have the facility toi do this and rely on other places, needing some kind of "National Grid", and someone to keep an eye on it and make sure things run smoothly. This would apply to other things to. Oh its starting to look like a government already!

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

In anarchy the people govern themselves.

people wouldnt, at least not very well. there would be "devolution" i believe, which in some ways may be no bad thing but in others it certainly would be.

[Madcap.]

I think that even without a 'government', morals and ethics would still exist.

[Madcap.]

people wouldnt, at least not very well. there would be "devolution" i believe, which in some ways may be no bad thing but in others it certainly would be.

notice that I said 'the people' not 'people'. Anarchy is a total democracy.

[Der Übermensch]

Ok, heres a basic explanation of how it might function (this isn't the only way).

In my town, there is a farm that has a 'community supported agriculture program'. You pay an amount of money, and then every week you can go to the farm, and pretty much help yourself. There is some stuff that there is a per person limit (mostly already harvested stuff), but then you can also go into the field and pick stuff, which is on a "take what you think you will need" basis.
Thats the fact, now I introduce to hypothetical's. Lets say a docter decided to participate. Instead of paying the fee, he offers his services as needed to the farmer and his family. Amplify this to all walks of live and interconnect them. Simple as that.

[Saberpunk]

Ok, heres a basic explanation of how it might function (this isn't the only way).

In my town, there is a farm that has a 'community supported agriculture program'. You pay an amount of money, and then every week you can go to the farm, and pretty much help yourself. There is some stuff that there is a per person limit (mostly already harvested stuff), but then you can also go into the field and pick stuff, which is on a "take what you think you will need" basis.
Thats the fact, now I introduce to hypothetical's. Lets say a docter decided to participate. Instead of paying the fee, he offers his services as needed to the farmer and his family. Amplify this to all walks of live and interconnect them. Simple as that.

Dude, where do you live? ther's nothing like that around here, although goodness knows ive tried to get a community garden started.

[jaredong]

heh good job nofxfreak (although your name is kinda silly cuz you are way smarter than the average nofx punk. good job on the lil essay.

what i would like to ask is... all this history is good and dandy and all. so is the theories behind it. however, considering that it seems like anarchy is about the people governing themselves and making decisions, what would you suggest that be done on an indivual level for normal people? for example, you and me and the average mx reader. something beyond the "educate yourself" or "read more" ideas. (heh, kinda feel bad cuz you've answered so many questions but w/e heh)

[Der Übermensch]

Saber, I live in Maine.

and my name comes from a more regretable time in my musical development, and I'm just too lazy to change it.
As for what to do beyond self education, I'd say educate others. Spreading the word, showing people that Anarchy is NOT a bunch of hoodlums vandalizing property, thats what I feel is most important at this point in its development.

[Smokey D]

In my town, there is a farm that has a 'community supported agriculture program'. You pay an amount of money, and then every week you can go to the farm, and pretty much help yourself. There is some stuff that there is a per person limit (mostly already harvested stuff), but then you can also go into the field and pick stuff, which is on a "take what you think you will need" basis.
Thats the fact, now I introduce to hypothetical's. Lets say a docter decided to participate. Instead of paying the fee, he offers his services as needed to the farmer and his family. Amplify this to all walks of live and interconnect them. Simple as that.


Such programs don't work without a level of expertise, so there would need to be trained famer running the whole operation. What happens when one of these farmers decides his contributions to society are worth more than what he's getting for them, or that he deserves more power in the commune. No one could really stop him from taking it, as food is a far more vital and immediate necessity than, say, tools. Perhaps there would be a group designed to enforce the will of the commune, but then, what would be the difference between the laws and government we have now?

Again, I have to point out I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, and believe that if it were carried out as planned, it would be very beneficial. However, people tend to be either too stupid, stubborn or greedy for entirely voluntary societies to function right. Too open to abuse, in my mind.

[jaredong]

i think... that a basis of how the society would work is the basic idea that "man is good" given the chance.

like, right now, are you more so not doing something bad because there is a law against it or do you not do it because of your own morals? for example, are people not going around raping and murdering each other because there is a law or because we know its a bad thing? given, such things would happen in a society like that, but right now, wiht all the laws and control systems, things are still happening anyway right?

when it comes down to it, i believe that people *are* all good at heart, every single one of us. although they might not extactly do good things, even like Al capone thought we was just doing a public service and all. like, i believe im a pretty good hearted person, so do many people on the board, i dont understand why we tend to believe that a few bad apples make us think "man kind is screwed and evil"

[Der Übermensch]

jaredong said it, the basic assumption is that man, if not naturaly good, can at least overcome his urges to the benefit of society.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

Makes sense The Irish Republican Army, I don't like the IRA by the way
Oh sweet Jesus... Republican in the sense of the IRA has nothing to do with the Republican party in America. It just means they want a republic. They started off as vaguely left leaning, I think, and probably got more so as civil rights became an issue in the north*, but now I don't think the various splinter groups have much of a political philosophy beyond "get the brits out".

*I'll check this with my history teacher tomorow, I could be wrong.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

.
The Kronstadt
The Kronstadt was a naval base at which the sailors had been particularly commended for their valor in the revolution. It was also home to one of the largest soviets, one that took the Bolsheviks initial promises of autonomy literally. In 1921, as the Bolsheviks started to tighten control, the Kronstadt refused to cooperate. A handpicked unit of the Red Army (most refused to assault men they still thought of as allies) assaulted the Kronstadt, killing almost all inhabitants.
The Makhnovist movement
The Makhnovichina was a large area of the Ukraine founded by the Anarchist Nestor Makhno that encompassed 20 million people by some accounts. He organized a militia, which initially fought with the Reds against the Whites, and was at one point the largest fighting force on the part of the Reds. However, Lenin saw them as a threat, as their free communes he viewed as a threat to Bolshevik power as it presented another option, one he didn't want, to the Russian people. So once the Whites were minimized, he ordered Trotsky to take care of it. A meeting was called, and all the Makhno militia commanders went to meet with Trotsky. Instead, they were arrested and executed. Nestor escaped to Paris, but the Red Army, with the element of surprise, swept in and destroyed the Makhnovichina.

I have to do a special study for my history course, and these fit into the period I'm studying. They sound really interesting, do you know where i can find more information on them?

[Der Übermensch]

Guerin's book has a good analysis of them,

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA5.html#seca54
http://www.nestormakhno.info/
The nestor mahko site provides the section from Guerins book on the site, and I also found Nestors account of his meeting with Lenin to be very intrest, ( http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/krem/visit.htm ) as it provides a nice look at how misplaced the Bolsheviks were with their priority's.

[Iban3z]

i should print this out and post it all over my school so the all the faggot punk posers can actually understand what all the patches/wristbands they wear actually mean....

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

Cool, Thanks:) This is a great thread, I never really took anarchy that seriously, but now I'm starting to like it...

[i like arab girls]

i should print this out and post it all over my school so the all the faggot punk posers can actually understand what all the patches/wristbands they wear actually mean.... **** right.

[siva_chair]

i should print this out and post it all over my school so the all the faggot punk posers can actually understand what all the patches/wristbands they wear actually mean....

It wouldn't do any good. One must have intelligence and decent reading comprehension abilities to understand any of it. You would be wasting your time with most of them.

[JimbobTheSquirrel]

It wouldn't do any good. One must have intelligence and decent reading comprehension abilities to understand any of it. You would be wasting your time with most of them.
Yeah, but he might get to a few of them, and it would be worth it... Especialy to see the look on his principal's face when he sees all the anarchist propaganda that's been put up all over his school...

[italic zero]

Haha. I should start an Anarchist club just to see what would happen. I just have to get a teacher sponsor.

[Der Übermensch]

we have a philosophy club I started with a friend...
not the same, but we have been able to discuss it at times :)

[username77]

Great thread.

What about people who make things that not everyone needs? I.E., if i make basses, and the dr. doesnt play bass, do i not get healthcare?

[Der Übermensch]

in a single step model, you wouldn't, but in a communal model you would. Everyone pledges their service's to the community as needed.

[username77]

What if someone simply doesnt do their job? Everything would kinda break. What about war? What would make people fight if the country was under attack? Unless of course it was a global system, then there would be no war. Who decides the quality of what you get? Some one who does a very small job, such as a casheer, would be able to get, say, a porche. Then what makes someone do a hard job like a docter? Im not trying to be annoying, just curious.

[Der Übermensch]

Like I said earlier, Anarchism works on the assuption people are willing to do their part for society.

As for War, Militia's. Nothing against a defensive force, possibly a state of Armed Neutrality.

[Noku]

Education... I like the idea that I may choose to study whatever I am interested of. "Oh my god... our stupid community needs more doctors! That means, you my son, will be a doctor!" Actually I like the idea that I may do pretty much whatever I want with my life, nothing is stopping me. I trust my government much more than the people around, I don't go with the mainstream and government gives me the right to be what I am. I haven't found the people I could identify with yet but I may work and earn my living without someone telling me what to do or who to be, thanks to my great government. Without government I would be bound to co-operate with others just because they have something I need. When there is government around I don't have to do anything more than do my job (with good enough salary 12e/hour, $15.5/hour) and pay my taxes (14.5%). After the work I may be a rock musician and writer, something that people around me would never accept. I have been diagnosed for PD and I get all kind of drugs for FREE! Without Government I might not have been even diagnosed, they'd say I am just acting it all up to avoid responsibility over myself or because I was some attention whore. The laws... I can't see what is wrong with those, you can always break them and go to court (free lawyers for those who can't afford, better than nothing!). Because democracy isn't working for you, it doesn't mean it isn't working at all.

To be honest I am not that satisfied to our politics here and I am very critical about every decission they make. But I would choose our democracy over anarchy everyday, people in our congress are capable of making working solutions for this society, which I would never believe if there was anarchy around, they would never get as far as voting and after that people wouldn't still obey the rules. Government can force people to help those who are in need, I can't see what is wrong with that? I still think that it would be good idea that employees would own their job but where the heck do we need anarchism to make that work?

Please tell me, what is so good about anarchism?

[Der Übermensch]

But I would choose our democracy over anarchy everyday
Anarchy is Democracy in its purest form.

[Noku]

Anarchy is Democracy in its purest form.

Are you just playing with nice words or am I living in Anarchy right now? I never wanted democracy in its purest form.

But I would choose our democracy over anarchy everyday

[Der Übermensch]

sorry to break it to ya, but we live in a Federal Democratic Republic.

[luvcifer]

Here we go, I hope I'm not the only one who actually took this idea seriously :p. I don't know if this is really the final copy, but it seemed finished enough to post. This isn't really ment to be a debate thread, but if anybody has suggestions of what I should add, they are welcome, and I will maybe Edit them in.

Development
Anarchism is a loose political theory based on the principle that all forms of government in which man rules over man is wrong. Anarchism is not a specific philosophy, but rather has many branches. Individualist, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism , and Anarcho-Capitalism are the most dominant forms, and I will get into more detail later.

Proudhon and the Basics
The term 'Anarchism' was first coined by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a French Writer most known for his book "What is Property?", and his answer "Property is Theft". Influenced by the revolution of 1830, Proudhon remained prominent in the early years of the movement, although never latched onto one particular branch to call his own, and eventually in his older years shifted slightly toward con-federalism. It is important to realize that the property Proudhon argues against is not personal property. He, and most Anarchists, make a distinction between the property of ones personal lives (a house for instance), and that used for the larger purpose (like a factory).
A staunch individualist, Proudhon was highly critical of Marxist philosophy. He once wrote to Marx, "Let us not become the leaders of a new religion, even were it to be the religion of logic and reason". In explanation of his vision for the future, Proudhon wrote, "The very sovereignty of the people contains its own negation. If the entire people were truly sovereign there would no longer be either government of governed; the sovereign would be reduced to nothing; the State would have no raison d'être, would be identical to society and disappear into industrial organization".
These are views embraced by most versions of Anarchism, which can all be pretty much boiled down to personal freedom, or as Bakunin stated it, "Freedom is the absolute right of every human being to seek no other sanction for his actions but his own conscience, to determine these actions solely by his own will, and consequently to owe his first responsibility to himself alone".


One of the hardest branch of Anarchism to really explain, Individualist Anarchism is not so much a political theory as much as a personal philosophy. IA is originally based off of the writings of Max Stirner, a German egoist writer who declared, "Every State is a tyranny, be it the tyranny of a single man or a group." While similar to the German Nihilist movement, Individualists rejected the destructive manner associated with them.

[B]Anarcho-Communism
This is where we get into the meat of it. Anarcho-Communism is based off the writings of Bakunin, a contemporary, and on/off friend of Marx. Bakunin, while agreeing with many principals Marx professed, believed the only successful instatement of Anarchism could come from spontaneous revolution, rather then the incremental merging Marx wrote of. AC is based on voluntary communal living. Bakunin was very explicit that the individual should never be coerced into anarchism, and that, "The individual owes duties to society only in so far as he has freely consented to become part of it. Everyone is free to associate or not to associate, and, if he so desires, to go and live in the deserts or the forests among the wild beasts".

Anarcho-Syndicalism
Syndicalism is similar to AC, but is based closely with the Union movement that erupted after 1848, and died down after WW1, (Except for Spain, where the CNT still exists, albeit in a limited form). At its peak, the members of European Anarchist Unionists numbered in the millions.

Anarcho-Capitalism
Not considered Anarchism by most, I felt obligated to provide a brief description. The basis of AnCap is that the same as regular Anarchism is relation to government, but believes in an Unrestricted Free Market. Often criticized because by eliminating government, it allows monopolistic company's to take over.

Anarchism in Action
1830 and 1848
The revolution of 1830 in France was not actually anarchism, but heavily influenced early writers. The revolutions of 1848 involved Anarchists to a limited degree, but its most important effect was within a few years, over 900 Anarchist influenced Unions had started throughout Europe.

Paris Commune
Again not a real Anarchist movement, but notable for their involvement on the part of the Communards, as well as its experiment in peoples direct input into the running of the government. It was soon destroyed however when Versailles troops retook Paris and slaughtered about 30,000 participants.

The Haymarket
During a rally in Chicago on May 3rd, 1886, the crowd was attacked by the police, A bomb was thrown and a number of police killed. Although obviously innocent, a number of Anarchist and Socialist leaders of the rally were arrested for the bomb (it is now thought a policeman or someone in their pay threw it to provoke a retaliation). Five were sentenced to death, one of which committed suicide in his cell, and the other four were hanged. The remaining 3 were pardoned by the governor, who realized the trials were a sham, a few years later, and the rest cleared of charges. In the aftermath, immense sympathy, national and world wide, was brought to their cause (the 8 hour work week), and May 1st was made International Workers Day.

Propaganda by the Deed
A regrettable time in Anarchist history, for a time, the Anarchist International Congress endorsed the practice of select assassination, which resulted in the death of a number of heads of state. It was eventually realized this was counterproductive, as it only portrayed an image of violence to the public. After the assassination of McKinley, the practice was disavowed, but not before getting Anarchists on most government watch lists.

The Russian Revolution
It should be noted that soviets were free workers communes that had resulted in the Revolution of 1905, and again in 1917. The Bolshevik party, one of the smaller ones at the outset of the revolution, adopted the name and slogans to surf along on the popularity of them with the people. The quickly became the largest political party in the revolution.
The Kronstadt
The Kronstadt was a naval base at which the sailors had been particularly commended for their valor in the revolution. It was also home to one of the largest soviets, one that took the Bolsheviks initial promises of autonomy literally. In 1921, as the Bolsheviks started to tighten control, the Kronstadt refused to cooperate. A handpicked unit of the Red Army (most refused to assault men they still thought of as allies) assaulted the Kronstadt, killing almost all inhabitants.
The Makhnovist movement
The Makhnovichina was a large area of the Ukraine founded by the Anarchist Nestor Makhno that encompassed 20 million people by some accounts. He organized a militia, which initially fought with the Reds against the Whites, and was at one point the largest fighting force on the part of the Reds. However, Lenin saw them as a threat, as their free communes he viewed as a threat to Bolshevik power as it presented another option, one he didn't want, to the Russian people. So once the Whites were minimized, he ordered Trotsky to take care of it. A meeting was called, and all the Makhno militia commanders went to meet with Trotsky. Instead, they were arrested and executed. Nestor escaped to Paris, but the Red Army, with the element of surprise, swept in and destroyed the Makhnovichina.

Spain
Spain was the home of the largest Syndicalist movement in Europe. The Spanish Anarchists were initially started by Fanelli, a disciple of Bakunin. They soon moved into a Unionist movement, headed by the CNT Union. When Franco started his rebellion against the government (which was leaning Socialist), the Anarchists decided to side with the Loyalist forces, which also comprised of government forces, Stalinist Communists, Trotskyites, and Socialists. Centered mainly in the Catalonia region of Spain, as well as with influence in the Basque region, the Spanish Anarchists numbered 2-8 million (depends who's counting). However, the Communists were ordered by the USSR to consolidate power, and attacked the Anarchist forces. The Trotskians were caught in the middle (hated by Stalinists as well), and leaned towards the Anarchists. With the loyalist forces split, the Fascists, backed by Hitler and Mussolini, overran them and gained control of Spain.


thats too long :amaze:

[Der Übermensch]

Dude... I just summarized a couple 1000 pages I've read into a handful of paragraphs, and you complain its too long?

[Noku]

sorry to break it to ya, but we live in a Federal Democratic Republic.

We? I doubt that you live here where I live... I don't live in US.

Anyway, what makes you think that Anarchism would be any better than the system I am living in?

Please tell me, what is so good about anarchism? I've asked this question many times on the other anarchism threads but never got any response... so I beg you to tell me what it has to offer? I don't feel that my rights are violated by this government, we don't even have much corruption because we don't allow big campagne budgets (50 000e max). I vote for a person who shares same values with me on the most important issues, the less important issues I don't even want to hear about more than what I read from news papers. Why anarchism is better?

[Der Übermensch]

We? I doubt that you live here where I live... I don't live in US.
Not much difference... there are no actual Democracys in the world...

I could possibly tell you why its better, if you told me where you live...
But how is it democratic to be able to choose 1 out of two, maybe three people? Sure, they agree with you on some issues, but they don't agree with you on everything. Don't forget about the fact that big buisness pretty much owns government through lobbyists.

[ibanezsucks04]

sounds good to me mob mentallity and vigilante justice how can it not be safe?

[Noku]

Not much difference... there are no actual Democracys in the world...

I could possibly tell you why its better, if you told me where you live...
But how is it democratic to be able to choose 1 out of two, maybe three people? Sure, they agree with you on some issues, but they don't agree with you on everything. Don't forget about the fact that big buisness pretty much owns government through lobbyists.

I live in Finland. We get to choose one out of thousands to get in congress of 200 and when choosing president we vote one out of thousands and those who get most of votes get to finals. President has no real power in here, every decission is made in congress, president just signs some papers and works as our front man for foreign countries. Corruption is minimal here and big business has never tried to involve in politics. Maybe they have but never got caught... In US you have separation of the government and church, here we have separation of the government and business. Last corruption scandal was when our prime minister used classified information during her campagne, when she got caught she left the government immediately. We didn't need court, media or anything like that, she was resposible enough to understand she wasn't capable of working as prime minister after caught with something like that.

[username77]

Was that really worth a post?
Thanks NOFX freak, good thread
Rep+

[Der Übermensch]

Noku, while I can not say I am too familiar with the Finnish government, I do know that it is considered one of, if not the least corrupt in the world. But either way, I highly doubt you "get to choose one out of thousands". There is only so many names that can fit on a ballot. And regardless, there is only one person who can represent your views fully and in the exact way you feel about them, and that is you.

[Noku]

Noku, while I can not say I am too familiar with the Finnish government, I do know that it is considered one of, if not the least corrupt in the world. But either way, I highly doubt you "get to choose one out of thousands". There is only so many names that can fit on a ballot. And regardless, there is only one person who can represent your views fully and in the exact way you feel about them, and that is you.

If I would have to vote for every decission made in my society I would have to vote about something that has less importance for me than for someone else. That is why I think represantive democracy works better than something else. People vote for the important things, not everything. However there has to be enough people and parties to prevent "vote for the lesser bad" phenomenon.

You have to realize that in order for anarchism to happen you shouldn't be too radical, over enthusiastic and concentrate less on playing with fancy words. How about a system where you have 100 politics points to spend each month. Everyone who spends more than 20 points on one issue would be allowed to hold speach in "the congress" (or someting like that). You could choose someone to represent yourself in "the congress", if you believe someone has better knowledge and more time to concentrate on the issues. But this wouldn't be true anarchism anymore because you would be obeying some order, but for your own good you have to, unless you are undependant on the others... I dunno.

Even though you might not be able to answer my question "Why anarchism would be good for me?", I'd still be interested on your view of anarchistic society. How would it work etc?

How anarchism could provide better sollutions to following things:

Education

Health care

Infrastructures

Politics

Low class jobs

Economy (the worth of job)

Youth

The list is too long...

Here is the challenge, think how things could be worked out in current society and how they could be worked out in anarchism. Do we need to go as far as "blowing up" the government in order to make things better, or could we just change the way it works? Give up of those big ideals and seek for compromises, it is the best way to get long lasting solutions.

EDIT: Don't hurry with this one, I want you to pay some serious thought about this one, not just some quick answers. I don't care if it takes a month for you to come up with some ideas, as long as they have wide perspective on things and they are based on your OWN thoughts, not someone elses theories. Be rational, be sceptical and ask if someone could find a flaw in your logic and give you some additional perspective. I'd start with Anarcho Syndicalism, that is my favorite and could work, even though it wouldn't be pure anarchism in the end. I don't believe that there is anything pure that could exist, it is all about finding the best combinations.

[Der Übermensch]

If I would have to vote for every decission made in my society I would have to vote about something that has less importance for me than for someone else. That is why I think represantive democracy works better than something else. People vote for the important things, not everything. However there has to be enough people and parties to prevent "vote for the lesser bad" phenomenon.
You only have say in issues that effect you. I live in Maine... Do I want some guy from Arizona writing laws that effect me, when he has no idea about how live goes on here? of course not.

[Der Übermensch]

Noku... about your little subpoints, you do realize I'm a High School student, right? I can't go into the inticacy's of individual workings of government because I'm not really that far into it yet. Right now I am concerned more with the overall workings of society, and the general apllication and orginization of communes. I can give you the basic's on those, but I doubt I could get into much detail on most of them.

[Noku]

You only have say in issues that effect you. I live in Maine... Do I want some guy from Arizona writing laws that effect me, when he has no idea about how live goes on here? of course not.

Could your fascination to anarchism be your answer for political frustration?

[Der Übermensch]

I would say it started that way, but no longer falls under that heading. Here is a very brief summary of my intro to Anarchism:
For a very long time... since I was maybe 11, I would say I have been rather politicaly aware. At that time, I had lots of idea's that I figured landed under some sort of "Utopian Socialist". But anyways, in about 8th grade I started listening to Punk, which obviously introduced my to Anarchy, but nothing more then the Nihilistic Chaos type. It seemed "cool", but I wouldn't consider myself a violent person, so I kind of dismissed it, although I did have a very "**** the government attitude".
At some point in 9th grade, a friend lent me a copy of "Days of War, Nights of Love". Totaly changed my opinion of Anarchism. Not only did it present Anarchism is a totaly different light then I had been led to believe, but much of it was very similar to thoughts and Ideas I had been formulating for years. So since then I've been learning more and expanding my horizons about it.

[g0d_!d!0t!]

hey nofx freak!

i live in winnipeg, mb canada and im jus wondering if you could compare anarchism to the canadian government. if you know much about the canadian government that is. not many people care about us. i dont even care about us that much.


thank you very much

[Der Übermensch]

I'm in the US, so am not too up on the Canadian gov. All I really know is that it is Parlimentary, and a member of the Commenwealth as well, so owes some sort of fealty to the Queen.

[henry]

hi there, from what i gather the word is 'rebel with no cause'. A bunch of immature people trying to sound cool by rebeling just for the hell of it. I find it very annoying. I'm sure many of these people would be the first to complain if they didn't have there 'guitar power chords' book or there elecrtic amps with extra grunge distortion. all built by people who have learnt things in school. What would you do if people ran riot in the streets killing people, i'm sure it sounds great fun. this whole anarchy buisness is a pain in the arse,, and i think you should grow up. The sort of 'rebels' making these fashionable claims of anarchy are the trend followers i think willl be the ones working in a stuffy office when grown. with love from henry

[I Am a Hat]

hi there, from what i gather the word is 'rebel with no cause'. A bunch of immature people trying to sound cool by rebeling just for the hell of it. I find it very annoying. I'm sure many of these people would be the first to complain if they didn't have there 'guitar power chords' book or there elecrtic amps with extra grunge distortion. all built by people who have learnt things in school. What would you do if people ran riot in the streets killing people, i'm sure it sounds great fun. this whole anarchy buisness is a pain in the arse,, and i think you should grow up. The sort of 'rebels' making these fashionable claims of anarchy are the trend followers i think willl be the ones working in a stuffy office when grown. with love from henry
What?

[chips88]

What?

Exactly! :thumb:

[Der Übermensch]

did you read the ****ing synopsis I put together?

[italic zero]

Since when did your synopsis become ****ing?

[_Alexisonfire_]

I am also interested in anarchism, and is currently developing theories, or a utopic society model based on anarchism. Well, if I think it is...

In an anarchist system, laws would be inexistant, of course. Progressively, people with similar ideals will start to gather up and create micro-societies caracterized by not only a dominance of the majority, but a total agreement. By that I mean that those micro-societies would not be "run" if I can use that word, through the will of of the majority, but of the whole population. An individual who is against those "rules" would be effectively free to leave that society and seek for another, or compromise and accept. Ultimately, countries would be formed not out of regional territories, but rather by ideologies; those people would not be restricted by any geographical barriers, as it is one's freedom to wander by the world as one sees fit, because there is no "right" over land by anyone at all. Geographical countries like the ones that exist today would not exist, but rather a gathering of people caracterized by similar ideologies, unbound by borders .

I'll develop this further when I have time.

[Jackle Chan da man]

dude u musta bin really bored

[_Alexisonfire_]

who're you talking about

[Noku]

I am also interested in anarchism, and is currently developing theories, or a utopic society model based on anarchism. Well, if I think it is...

In an anarchist system, laws would be inexistant, of course. Progressively, people with similar ideals will start to gather up and create micro-societies caracterized by not only a dominance of the majority, but a total agreement.

That could work in internet! In real world however... have you ever met anyone with whom you'd have a total agreement. Human personality is not single, it is sum of many things. There are people with whom we want to identify and there are people with whom we don't. Even though we would be in a group which would be politically similiar to our views we would still see ourselves different from the others. Every group can be divided to sub-groups unless the members of group are all different and have common purpose (a band for example). Total agreement is a very naive idea.

By that I mean that those micro-societies would not be "run" if I can use that word, through the will of of the majority, but of the whole population. An individual who is against those "rules" would be effectively free to leave that society and seek for another, or compromise and accept.

Yeah, you are free to leave the society but you are going to swim across the atlantic? You have to compromise with others in order to make them do favors for you. Even if there was anarchism traveling wouldn't be free and easy.

Ultimately, countries would be formed not out of regional territories, but rather by ideologies; those people would not be restricted by any geographical barriers, as it is one's freedom to wander by the world as one sees fit, because there is no "right" over land by anyone at all. Geographical countries like the ones that exist today would not exist, but rather a gathering of people caracterized by similar ideologies, unbound by borders .

I'll develop this further when I have time.

Do you really think that people would allow some wanderers come and go as they please. People wouldn't be united by ideologies, they would be united by needs of society. Someone has to make food, other will maintain power supply etc. Basicly in order to choose to live in a society which matches your ideology you would need education or something that makes you too valuable to live without.

The whole ideology thing is also very naive. Ideologies aren't definite, they change over time. Childhood is golden because a kid is naive enough to believe that there is something definite in the world. It is already a chaos.

Why wouldn't you try to find people over internet that shares your opinnions. Then move to same apartment and provide your living by yourselves. What bounds you to live the life the way you are living right now? I am comfortable to live in a city where I can find enough people that shares same views on some aspects of life. I don't want everyone to be like me, in the end disagreeing is the fruit of life.

No one prevents you of buying an axe and building a cottage in forest and live in anarchy. The thing is that you are too bound to the society... I understand that you are just building a theory but I think that theories should be build on working principles, not some naive beliefs. I don't call religion science or vice versa. If you need to believe in better society then try something constructive instead of insane utopia... What is the problem and what are the alternatives, how to carry that out. On the other hand wasting time is fun... :evil:

[_Alexisonfire_]

Wow, didn't you see I put utopian society model before presenting this? Strange it sounds like an utopia...

IT ****ING IS

[Der Übermensch]

If I get around to it, I'll post up my Confederalist anarchism model. It basicly a merger of weak governmental forces on a national scale with Anarchist principals in place of a local governing system as to present a viable means in which an Anarchist society can funcion in a world of governments.

[_Alexisonfire_]

:thumb: Looking forward to it. How old are you?

[Der Übermensch]

I'm 17

[|~Iceb0x~|]

Okay, I got some questions now.

Isn't there a anarchist party that could run in the election?

Why is Anarchy a "bad thing" to some people?

I going to try to say this next question....

In the medevil times, with the germatic culture (german culture) there was no central government, no written laws,and they lived in small communties. Is this a example of Anarchy?

[Der Übermensch]

Anarchist Party's wouldn't really run in elections, although in Spain a number of anarchist sympathizers served in the Spanish Government.

People think anarchy a bad thing because it is often thought of to represent lawlessness and banditry.

As to the German question, I thought that Germany was broken into small tribes and principality's, although I may be wrong about that.

[siva_chair]

As to the German question, I thought that Germany was broken into small tribes and principality's, although I may be wrong about that.

That, and all the tribes had tribal leaders. Any central authority ruins the chances of them being called any form of Anarchy.

[Smokey D]

They weren't really tribes by the Middle Ages, more a collection of petty states, principalities, arch duchies and mini kingdoms.

But yes, they were ruled by a monarchial central government, and can't really be considered anarchic (though such a modern term doesn't really belong in a medieval context).

[Reaganista]

In the medevil times, with the germatic culture (german culture) there was no central government, no written laws,and they lived in small communties. Is this a example of Anarchy?

They had written laws.

And would earth be considered Anarchy because there's no central government and the people live in a random combination of Dictatorships, Kingdoms, Sultanates and Republics?

[Der Übermensch]

It could be classified as Right-anarchy if the term is used loosly. This is similar to Libertarianism and Ayn Rand's stuff, where everything is bought and sold, including security. However, due to the fact that many governments stay in power by coercion, this isn't very applicable.

[throughbeingcool]

I'd like to help NOFXFreak out a bit and bring forth the idea of Participatory Economics.

Participatory Economics is a working model of an economy within an anarchist society (I guess it could work in a socialist, but still capitalist, society as well).

Capital SORT OF exists, in the form of credits for WORK EFFORT, not production levels. The people working alongside you decide just how much effort you put in, and how much you get credited for.

Work is coordinated through workers councils (each workers council being formed by the workers of a particular industry). Work is matched up precisely with the level of consumption so no more is produced than is needed. Consumer demands are met by various levels of consumer councils. Consumers make their demands through sort of family "wish lists". Then they are awarded products based on their need, and the work efforts of those working in the home. All are offered work, and are trained for free. A greater workforce means less time spent at work, and then more credit for less work. Costs are set by taking into consideration the demand for a product, the social and environmental cost of making the product, and the availability of the product.

The consumer councils and the workers councils work together to coordinate production and consumption so that only as much as is needed is produced.

There's lots more to it, but I can't write the whole process out, it would take forever.

Some links:

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/writings/hahnelURPE.htm

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/introduction.html

The second link is a great comparison of ParEcon to capitalism.

[Smokey D]

So what happens if you're a prick who's pissed off your work-mates. Theoretically, they could deny you any credits just because they didn't like you.

[Reaganista]

No, anarchy works on the assumption that everything will always run smoothly.

[Der Übermensch]

I wouldn't go that far Tway, but it works in the assumption that people can get along.

[Smokey D]

5000 years of human history begs to differ.

[Reaganista]

People haven't getting along for much more than that. try 50,000 years.

[Maveryck]

Anarchism would be great, if everyone was able to get along. At this point in time, people are not all able to get along. Therefore, we need at least some measure of stable and democratic authority, in order to prevent a descent into chaos, and the rise of unstable and tyrannical authority.

If anarchism is total freedom, totally equal opportunity, and the total absence of authority, then surely it is better for the anarchist to work toward more freedom, more equal opportunity, and more democratic forms of authority, than to do nothing and wait for a revolution.

Hence, my support of social democracy and progressivism as political philosophies that can move society closer and closer to the ideals of anarchism, until we are as free and equal as our nature permits.

[Der Übermensch]

yes, history says otherwise... but thats why I believe, as previously stated, the education is the first step, not implementation.

[dustindow]

whoa man! I should check in more often......But alright NOFX.......I'm thinking I come back here more often and post more..

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

:Yawn:

Call me when the revolution occurs. I'm not quite convinced.

[thewrongsurgen]

not a question..but anyways..

im glad u had this post..i used to think anarchy was just no government..and we couldnt live in it...

but u explained it alot more..

and now im starting think think it wouldnt be so bad

EDIT: i got a question now


would we still have the amry and marines and stuff?

[Smokey D]

No, because a military would be a focus of authority, which would lead to the rudiments of government, which would lead to more sophisticated control, effectively re-starting the cycle we have endured since the beginnings of civilization.

[on 1 day release]

wow well don rep u def

my question is wat about education wud it not change?

[Der Übermensch]

um... In English please?

would we still have the amry and marines and stuff?
Depends... there wouldn't be a standing army, but militia's have been an integral part of past Anarchist societys, specificly Spain and the Ukraine. Unless World Anarchism prevails, the nature of International politics will require some form of National defense. So keep it egalitarian, I'd invision some form of national militia training, like in Switzerland, but It would really be up to the people living in the Commune.

[throughbeingcool]

Whats the deal with Ukraine and anarchism? I've been trying for quite some time to find Anarchism in history but I haven't really found much except for the Haymarket Riot and the Paris Commune. Do you have any links or resources for more anarchist history (not rhetoric, I've got lots of that)?

[Der Übermensch]

um... ya... I posted a bunch of them along with the explication.

[|~Iceb0x~|]

I wonder if this has been asked

What about health care benefits for the people who are too old to work, or they just killed at the age of 35?


How about social secruity?

And isn't possible weither you like it or not anarachy could end up causeing a Schism?

Is the Universe a Anarachy?

Have any of you realizied (I am not saying that you are) at your young age that you could be doing the same thing as prince harry?

Has Anacrhy ever tried to abloish the cathoilic church?

I remeber reading it in my history book that there where anarchist in italiy in the 1800's or 1700's I can't really remeber, Maybe that would explain why "anarchy" is regarded a bad thing, because the cathoilc church wanted it banned so the excommunitcated anyone who supported it.


What do you think the life span of a anarchy government?

[Der Übermensch]

After Retirment, u will be provided for assuming you did your part when you were still a functioning member of society.

If you don't like it, leave. Simple as that. No one makes you stay. You are welcome to go off and join another commune or group more to your liking.

The Spanish Anarchists had a habit of burning Catholic Churchs, although part of this was because they gave active support to Franco.

There was a Major Anarchist Movement in Italy in the 1800's, implanted by Bakunin. It was an Italian who first introduced Anarchism to Spain.

Life span could be anywhere from days to millenia. It depends on how effective its run, just like any group or nation.

[Reaganista]

If you don't like it, leave. Simple as that.

Provided they don't try to organize a community that's not structured on anarchist principles.

[Smokey D]

If you don't like it, leave. Simple as that.

From what you've said, anarchism depends on a global revolution, or universal ideological shift. If a new community was formed on principles differing from those of the anarchists, then the security of those anarchic societies would be compromised. This is especially true in the case of government dominated structures, which tend to be more effecient, if more perhaps more unfair, than communes.

And what you said about militaries and public militias remains unconvincing. For an army to be an effective, there needs to be an officer corps. Forming such an organization would make one group in society more influential than the rest (since they would control just who received weapons and training). Power, by its very nature, accrues in the hands of the powerful, effectively dividing the society into the rudiments of class. The moment someone charasmatic and machievellian arrives on the scene, such an easily abused system is bound to fail, and revert to the status quo. I cannot think of a single anarchic society where this hasn't eventually happened.

[Madcap.]

From what you've said, anarchism depends on a global revolution, or universal ideological shift. If a new community was formed on principles differing from those of the anarchists, then the security of those anarchic societies would be compromised. This is especially true in the case of government dominated structures, which tend to be more effecient, if more perhaps more unfair, than communes.

So you'd rather be unhappy than inefficient ?


And what you said about militaries and public militias remains unconvincing. For an army to be an effective, there needs to be an officer corps. Forming such an organization would make one group in society more influential than the rest (since they would control just who received weapons and training). Power, by its very nature, accrues in the hands of the powerful, effectively dividing the society into the rudiments of class. The moment someone charasmatic and machievellian arrives on the scene, such an easily abused system is bound to fail, and revert to the status quo. I cannot think of a single anarchic society where this hasn't eventually happened.

Surely if the commune members saw this abuse then they would expel said person from the commune ?

[Der Übermensch]

Provided they don't try to organize a community that's not structured on anarchist principles.
Actually, they are welcome to form it on any structure they want. As long as they are happy with the arangement, it (indirectly) still fits to Anarchist principals.

On the subject of militias, besides the fact that the Anarchist Militias in Spain were considered the best fighting on the sides of the Loyalists, and that the Ukrainians were the principal southern force fighting with the Reds for the early part of the revolution, an army can exist with limited orginization of command structure and still fit to Anarchist principals. Bakunin said that he would defer to a docter in medical matters. The same is true in the army. Just because someone makes the plans and such doesn't mean its oppresive. Its a matter of merit, and mutual respect of the ability's of the members of the service. (I believe in Spain most officers were elected by their units. Pay grades and uniforms were still the same, it was merely a matter of keeping order in combat situations)

[Smokey D]

So you'd rather be unhappy than inefficient ?

I didn't say that. I didn't even say anything close to that.

I simply pointed out that governments are more effecient than communes, and if that governmental society was hostile to the anarchic one, it would probably mop the floor with it, due to that effeciency.


Surely if the commune members saw this abuse then they would expel said person from the commune ?

... them and what army?



NOFXFreak, Lenin ordered Trotsky to abandon his socialist Red Army in order to create a viable fighting force in face of the Whites advantages. Electing of officers doesn't really change anything. For an officer corps to be effective, it needs training. Only a small amount of people would actually receive that training, and that same amount of people would have power vested in them by democratic elections.

This creates a dichotomy in society: those who are trained (the officers) and those who are not (the masses). Power would slowly accumulate in hands of the officers, and eventually lead to the formation of governing and governed classes.

At its very beginning, civilization was anarchic. Those who could protect themselves, and eventually exert influence over others formed the genesis of class division. Without a means to enforce anarchic ideals, the same thing would eventually happen in any modern attempt.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Anarchism would be great, if everyone was able to get along. At this point in time, people are not all able to get along. Therefore, we need at least some measure of stable and democratic authority, in order to prevent a descent into chaos, and the rise of unstable and tyrannical authority.

If anarchism is total freedom, totally equal opportunity, and the total absence of authority, then surely it is better for the anarchist to work toward more freedom, more equal opportunity, and more democratic forms of authority, than to do nothing and wait for a revolution.

Hence, my support of social democracy and progressivism as political philosophies that can move society closer and closer to the ideals of anarchism, until we are as free and equal as our nature permits.

Nice post. The one thing that I've always liked about you is that you seem to understand the worlds problems, but you don't accept them.
I hope that you get involved with politics in your future. I disagree with your stance on anarchism, but that doesn't really matter.

[Der Übermensch]

NOFXFreak, Lenin ordered Trotsky to abandon his socialist Red Army in order to create a viable fighting force in face of the Whites advantages. Electing of officers doesn't really change anything. For an officer corps to be effective, it needs training. Only a small amount of people would actually receive that training, and that same amount of people would have power vested in them by democratic election
Trotsky had no say over the Makhno's forces, but either way, I wasn't refering to the Red Army, but to the Spanish Anarchists in 36. Either way though, Makhno's forces were a more effective force then Trotskys untill mass conscription started, and they won several major victory's.

[veggie 3.14]

Good stuff.

This has persuaded me to take more of an interest in anarchism.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Excuse me for being cynical, but how on Earth could they be "makhno's forces" if they are anarchists? Doesn't a hierarchical structure form a paradox to anarchism?

[hypocracy hater]

Excuse me for being cynical, but how on Earth could they be "makhno's forces" if they are anarchists? Doesn't a hierarchical structure form a paradox to anarchism?

Because they where communists.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Tomaytoe - tomartoe

[hypocracy hater]

Communism - Totalitarian

Anarchists - Anti-Authoritive

Sorry about the spelling

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Communism is totalitarian? I better read das capital again. It seems as though I misunderstood a large chunk of it.

[Reaganista]

Probably the part about the dictatorship of the proletariat, you know, the part where everyone who's tried it ran totally out of control, killed tons of their own people and lapsed into autocratic fascism.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Ahh, the part which is called 'socialism'.

- but still, the dictat of the proleteriat would excuse it. What a silly idea that was.

[Der Übermensch]

Because Makhno was the militia commander and stratagist. He was the guy who met with Lenin and other Bolsheviks in Russia. As I said before, Anarchist militias don't mean its all of equal ranks, its just a matter of equal treatment.

[Alive]

Even though the idea of an anarchistic political system is cetainlny very interesting, I would have to say that it would never work. From the detailed explanations the threadstarter gave, in addition to ihs detailed arguments and counter arguments, i can see that you obviously have thought about htis etc, rather than just being one of those rebelious teenage posers, who when asked about their reason for supporting communism or anarchism say somehting along the lines of "Its like all being fair, innit..........."

Anarchy is an interesting theory, but as a practical system would never work. As you said, it relies on the theory that that Man is basically good, and can conform to a moral standard to help the community as a whole. But obviously, this is not a correct statement (as has been said). Many billions of people are good people, you, me, the guy next door, Joe Schmo. But there is a small percentage of people who are not. Not just the infamous ones, Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Genghis Kahn etc, but many, many others. And in an anarchistic society, these people are the ones who would rise to the top. Even though anarchism is supposed to be completly unheierachial (sp?), there will obviously be power games being played everywhere, whether their should be or not. Take bullys in a school for example. Just because the Bully is bigger than the victim doesnt mean that he should have power over him, and yet he does. The typical image of anarchy is not one with lots of technology, but if all technology was still at the same level, such as guns, this would only make it easier for people to take control like this, as the "bad" people would be the only ones who had the morals to threaten somebody at gunpoint. Thus, they would become in control of their own little community, and eventually either join up with neighbouring communities led by similar leaders, or very easily take over them if they only had "good" people in.

As far as I understand it, anarchism works with everybody having equal power. What if there is a dispute between two people? You said that the community gets to vote on it. But what if they are biased? What if they dislike one person and vote in favour of the other unfairly. This leads to rivalries between people, and eventually rivalry between the two people. Who decides who lives in which community? The person or the community? This leads to like minded people building a community with only, for example, blonde hair. At its extremes, this could generate groups of Neo-Nazis who teach the next generation a concentrated mix of hostility and hate. Not really a good thing.........

Another thing that I cant comprehend in this system is Justice. WHo decides whats right and wrong? A mob? "The intelligence of a mob is the lowest members IQ, divided by the number of mobees". Sure, its probably easy to decide things such as murder and theft (although possibly not......proof might be hard to find, it might just be a witness vs. defendant, leaving favouritism to decide who is "right".), but what about more complex problems, such as fraud. What is the punishment for that? THe community no longer provides for you? You dont get anymore healthcare from the doctor? Or no more food from the farmer? What if you are the doctor or the farmer? Furthermore, what if there is no doctor? Everybody dies? What if there is no Farmer? Everybody starves?

These are the main reasons that i feel Anarchy can never work, it is a nice theory to play with, but with no real practical use. Ill post some more tomorow if anybody wants to see them, but if anybody wants to answer my questions id be interested in reading them

[eddierulesVH]

i know you didnt write all that ohhhhhh plagerism you should of qouted you can be arrested

[Alive]

::Sigh::.............**** you dude, just try and find that anywhere on the internet. it took me ages to write, although i was doing other things at the same time. The spelling mistakes, bas punctuation etc should tell you i wrote it

[Smokey D]

Trotsky had no say over the Makhno's forces, but either way, I wasn't refering to the Red Army, but to the Spanish Anarchists in 36. Either way though, Makhno's forces were a more effective force then Trotskys untill mass conscription started, and they won several major victory's.


Interesting that you ignored the rest of my post though.

Anyway, the Revolutionaries were steadily losing to the Whites until the introduction of the new (old) style Red Army. Even then, the Ukraine was forcibly absorbed into the burgeoning USSR, indicating that a commune militia could not compete with a hierarchial military, which was my point.

As to the Spanish Anarchists: you will remember that they eventually lost because Stalin was able to abuse flaws in the anarchic system (and because they were confronted with powerful outside forces hostile to the ideology).

[Der Übermensch]

I ignored the rest because I am pretty sure I had already covered the issues brought up previously.

The Ukrainian Militias were BEATING the Whites in the area, not losing. As I said, They were the most effective units in the early stages. A commune militia can't compete with a better equipped military, it has nothing to do with orginization. There is also the fact that the entire militia council was arrested by Trotsky and shot and then the militias were ambushed unaware of the change in status.

Yes, the Spanish lost... why? Because the West refused to help the Loyalists. Germany and Italy helped Franco. The only country aiding the Loyalists was the USSR. The only loyalist forces therefor that got new stuff was the Stalinist Communists. When they decided to turn on the Trotskians and Anarchists, not only were they better armed (and with the element of suprise), but they split the Loyalists forces, letting Franco gain the upper hand. The Stalinist Communists lost Spain, not the Anarchists. (Read Homage to Catalonia)

But anyways, can people bring up NEW questions? Or read the links I so nicely provided, that can get more indepth then I can ever hope for (the nestormakhno site has very extensive documentation of the militias, as well as his writings and observations). I'm getting really bored answering the same stuff over and over... I dont see what so hard to grasp here.

[Smokey D]

The Ukrainian Militias were BEATING the Whites in the area, not losing. As I said, They were the most effective units in the early stages. A commune militia can't compete with a better equipped military, it has nothing to do with orginization.

Better organization tends towards better equipment. It also tends towards better strategists and tacticians (because they are specifically trained in miltary academies). This is not always the case, obviously, but is a general rule.


Yes, the Spanish lost... why? Because the West refused to help the Loyalists. Germany and Italy helped Franco. The only country aiding the Loyalists was the USSR. The only loyalist forces therefor that got new stuff was the Stalinist Communists. When they decided to turn on the Trotskians and Anarchists, not only were they better armed (and with the element of suprise), but they split the Loyalists forces, letting Franco gain the upper hand. The Stalinist Communists lost Spain, not the Anarchists. (Read Homage to Catalonia)


We're not in disagreement there. In fact, my point was that the anarchists lost because Stalin was able to abuse the flaws in anarchic society.



My only question is how does anarchy deal with the inevitable formation of classes, as society divides into groups with different motivations? It is naive to think that a global movement will always have the same ideals, as they are entirely dependent on enviroment, nurture and pre-existing culture.

[Der Übermensch]

Anarchy requires the belief that either A)People are good at base, or B)People at least have the ability to put aside differences for the whole of society when they see the necessity of it.
If you can't believe that, there is nothing I can do to answer questions to your satisfaction.

[Smokey D]

I understood that bit. I just don't see why you should think that, when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

From what I understand, the whole concept of Anarchism was built off a faulty premise. It's a laudable aim, perhaps, but a thoroughly impractical one.

[Der Übermensch]

Well it has shown that it can be implemented and work well internally. In both Spain and the Ukraine, the failures were not due to problems with the Communes themselves but due to overwhelming military opposition.

[Code Red]

When were mentioned the symbols, and how the original version was corrupted by punks and skaters... is this what you meant?

http://tinypic.com/1hqyaq

[Smokey D]

Well it has shown that it can be implemented and work well internally. In both Spain and the Ukraine, the failures were not due to problems with the Communes themselves but due to overwhelming military opposition.

Neither exampe existed for more than a few years, so I hardly think they qualify as representitive. Also, that military opposition is the very thing I'm talking about. The moment an anarchic system is confronted by a powerful enemy, it will collapse.

[Der Übermensch]

not the moment its confronted. Just when confronted by overwhelming forces. The Spanish for example had the misfortune of having to fight the military might of Germany and Italy along with franco, and then the Stalinists later on. All of Europe was defeated by Germany, so I don't see how you can claim that it shows weakness, as they managed to survive for a few years, which is longer then France lasted...

Edit: Ya, that's kinda what I was talking about with the "Anarchy A", although the ends would reach to the O in the original, just with no antennaes and with no angle on the cross.

[Smokey D]

The Italians were never a viable fighting force; they could barely handle Abyssinia (a source of no ending shame for Mussolini), let alone another European nation of comparable industrial development.

As for Hitler's contribution, he sent but one regiment, the Conodor Legion. Hardly an overwhelming show of German military might.


The point still stands. Anarchims has not succeded in the face of reactionary forces, and its unlikely that it ever will, given humanity's general proclivity to conservatism (in that we often prefer things to stay the same, even to our detriment, not the political doctrine).

[Der Übermensch]

Ya, the Italians were crap, but they still were giving Franco more modern weapons then what the Anarchists had. As for the Germans, Tell that to the inhabitants of Gurnica.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Why is this stickied? If I made a thread on 'the beginners guide to capitalism', would that be stickied, or is equal treatment not given to archists?

[Der Übermensch]

Because It was created after a series of "Guides to" were proposed, and ok'd by the mods. For some reason I seem to of been the only one to take it seriously. I dont actually know why this is stickied, as I thought it would be a central thread with links to each guide that would be stickied.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Ya, the Italians were crap, but they still were giving Franco more modern weapons then what the Anarchists had. As for the Germans, Tell that to the inhabitants of Gurnica.

Bombing a town of no strategic import shouldn't do much to any movement.

[Rage Against The Lavigne]

Because It was created after a series of "Guides to" were proposed, and ok'd by the mods. For some reason I seem to of been the only one to take it seriously. I dont actually know why this is stickied, as I thought it would be a central thread with links to each guide that would be stickied.

Nobody reads any positive threads about capitalism anyway. I was merely being malcontentious.

[Der Übermensch]

I was merely pointing out that the Germans commited more than a single regiment. The Lutwaffe bombed the **** out of that town.

[Smokey D]

The German force that bombed Guernica was made up of the Condor Legion.

But that's not the point.

[veggie 3.14]

How would buisnesses be run in anarchism? And would guitars still be made? And how would buisnesses survive?

Random, but I guess that's one of my problems with it; not knowing that much about how buisnesses will be run.

[Der Übermensch]

its not the point of this thread, but it disproves your point :p

as long as the buissness serves a need for the society, it would survive. If everyone was musicaly disinclined, then I doubt guitars would be made, as no one would want them. If there were people who had a use for them, then they would be made. Its no different from Capitalism in that way. Supply will only exist if there is demand.

[Smokey D]

its not the point of this thread, but it disproves your point

No it doesn't. I said Hitler contributed the Condor Legion. The Condor Legion bombed Guernica. There is no contradiction.

But my point was on how anarchy would deal with the growth of an officer class in times of war, and that the idea in general has not ever survived a protracted challenge by reactionary forces.

[Der Übermensch]

There was also German ground forces involved. I know at least one regiment was involved in the taking of Madrid.

[panasonic youth]

with anarchy, do you think in the world today, it is possible for it to work, without any type of chaos, for i am for freedom but I prefer to have a government (one that particularly works). By this I mean, is that many governments are corrupted and although there wouldn't be a government with anarchy ruling but do you feel like corruption could still appear, like it won't become a place of freedom, but more a place of confusion? Personally I'm more for communism and socialism then anarchy, and also I know a fair amount about it but not the most, so if I said something dumb dont bash me.

[Der Übermensch]

I addressed that earlier. I also have pointed out how (Marxist) Communism is easier to corrupt then Anarchism.

[Smokey D]

There was also German ground forces involved. I know at least one regiment was involved in the taking of Madrid.

Perhaps regiment was the wrong word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condor_Legion


That sums up everything I have to say on that particular matter.

[Der Übermensch]

20000 airmen is by no means a small number. esspecialy since the Loyalists had almost no airforce to couter with. But either way, I would stake my life on the fact that there were German shock troops in the assault on Madrid, since I have read first hand accounts of facing them...

[veggie 3.14]

its not the point of this thread, but it disproves your point :p

as long as the buissness serves a need for the society, it would survive. If everyone was musicaly disinclined, then I doubt guitars would be made, as no one would want them. If there were people who had a use for them, then they would be made. Its no different from Capitalism in that way. Supply will only exist if there is demand.
That's pretty ok.

What about the "how would buisnesses be run" question?

[Der Übermensch]

As seen fit by the people...
There are many ways in which it could be done. (Sydicalism probobly being the most used previously)

[veggie 3.14]

As seen fit by the people...
There are many ways in which it could be done. (Sydicalism probobly being the most used previously)
Ok, what's Syndicalism?

[Der Übermensch]

Anarcho-Sydicalism is based on Unions. Spain was very Sydicalist with some Anarcho-Communism thrown in.

[username77]

What makes someone do a dangerous job? (firemen etc...)

EDIT: And who decides how much stuff someone gets? Because some one who busses tables shouldnt be able to get a 3 story house, but who draws the line?

[italic zero]

Dude, haven't you been to kindergarten? EVERYONE wants to be a fireman.

[Der Übermensch]

Firemen I would think would be run as a volunteer unit (very common anyways). There are always people who are willing (or suicidal enough) to do jobs like that. Perfect equality is probobly impossible to manage, but it probobly gonna be based on need. A single man or woman isn't going to get a huge house, just like a family with 2 kids isn't gonna be stuck with a crummy apartment.

[themandontgiveafuk]

I think anarcism mixed with marxism would work

[Der Übermensch]

have you read anything here? Marxism and Anarchism are not to things you can mix. Anarchism depends on quick converstion that won't get booged down, while Marxism is about a slow change.

[TheNowhereman42]

Not to mention Marxism calls for a Dictatorship to slowly dissolve, which it never does, instead opting to just become a totalitarian regime instead.

thats probably already been said though.

[Der Übermensch]

Like I said

Nice Avatar btw. I have that hanging behind my bed :thumb:

[hypocracy hater]

What is the place of the Artist in Anarchism?

[Der Übermensch]

That which is appreciated by the public will survive.

Well, any kind of art can be done, but the artists who no one appreciates will have to do some other service as well.

[TheNowhereman42]

Well its been shown that culture and the state seem to have an inverse relationship.

So as the influence of the state goes down, culture goes up! Artists would most likely thrive.

NOFX, did you make it or did you buy it somewhere? I'd love to get one, and at this point I think I'm gonna go buy a big stick and some black/red material and just make one.

or buy one of those military POW flags and spraypaint over the middle logo with black.

[Der Übermensch]

I made it. Pretty simple pattern. I still plan on stiching CNT-FAI later.

[TheNowhereman42]

http://struggle.ws/pdfs/anarcho/anarchyorchaos.pdf

Good place to star for noobs

[rebel21]

Does greed exist in anarchy???No matter what you will allways have problems thats what makes the world suck.

[Der Übermensch]

I have answered that question way to many times. Read the **** thread. Thats what its here for.

[TheNowhereman42]

Has anyone heard about the thing going on a UCSD? I heard a bunch of student Anarcho-Syndicalists are doing something involving flags that is really pissing off the faculty, but I don't know the specifics.

Anyway, I just heard it from a friend, but it makes sense as on Saturday theres an Anarchist fesitival thing going on down there in San diego. Too bad its a 2:30 drive for me... :angry:

[SumDysturbedKid]

That which is appreciated by the public will survive.

Well, any kind of art can be done, but the artists who no one appreciates will have to do some other service as well.

sounds a lot like capitalism

oh and by the way, sorry if sum1 already asked this, but whats CNT-FAI?

[Der Übermensch]

CNT is the largest Anarchist Union to exist (it still does, but not like it used to), and was the largest subgroup fighting with on the side of the Loyalists in Spain. the FAI was the military wing of the CNT and underwhich the Anarchist militias were orginized.

[TheNowhereman42]

It was during the Spanish Civil War in the 30's, but most history books (at least mine) don't mention anarchist involvment.

[Der Übermensch]

Most do actually, they just try to downplay it.

[TheNowhereman42]

oh really? Mine makes absolutely no mention of it whatsoever, It just pretty much said that the fascists got pissed off so they overthrew the government, defeating the loyalists with the help of italy and germany.

Then is goes into a paragraph about how America rules because a few thousand Americans fought in the war even though the government wouldn't support it.

[Der Übermensch]

o wait, u mean General history. I was talking specific books on the subject. An America sucked when it came to supporting the Loyalists. I'm currently working on my APUSH project, which is on American involvement, and Inaction, in the Spanish Civil War, and how it helped in the rise of European Fascism.

[TheNowhereman42]

I'm currently doing a s'hitty project on Fransisco Franco, the bad guy, and trying desperatly to make it more interesting by sneaking in as much about the Spanish Civil war as possible.

[Uberman]

NOFXFreak, you say you live in Maine, and you have a community farm and all...I'm in Maine and I know nothing about that stuff...are you up in Aroostook or something?

[Der Übermensch]

Brunswick actually.
Where are you located?

[Uberman]

portland

[Der Übermensch]

cool 8)

[Der Übermensch]

Although the thread has died down, for the record, I'm on vacation as of a few hours from now, so won't answer future questions for a bit. I'm not running away, just absent...

[Mr. Ron]

Communism killed my parents and raped my wife. :upset:

[Cybrow]

:SADFACE:

Good topic btw. It's been very informative.

[TheNowhereman42]

I might hang out with the Evasion kid next weekend

[Adare]

I just read an awful lot of bull****.

[TheNowhereman42]

Im not sure if that was directed towards anarchism or me, either way I could really care less.

[imadopedude]

very good topic. and im amazed that i didnt see "iM tEh aNaRkY f00z, uP tEh pUnX HXC HXC HXC" very informative, and i learned something. however, i am sceptical. i guess maybe one day we will all be able to live in peace and harmony, something that we all want.

[TheNowhereman42]

what aspect of it are you skeptical about?

[Danish]

Although the thread has died down, for the record, I'm on vacation as of a few hours from now, so won't answer future questions for a bit. I'm not running away, just absent...

Where are you going?!?!

[Der Übermensch]

Where did I go rather... I just returned from a week in the British Virgin Islands. Had a great time :)

[TheNowhereman42]

I went there once, my uncle owns boat so he just sails around there for like...ever I guess.

Anyway, its really fun stuff, and totally free :thumb:

[anarchist punk]

What happens to jobs are there still jobs?

no there are no jobs because if there is no government then there is no need for money yet we barter we do not make money, because then we get back to the main problem...capitalism anarchy is aimed to have no government simply because of money if you dont have the money then you cant be poor and no one will fight over how much things cost, but if we barter then we have the equal chance of getting something, hope you understand what i mean
:thumb:

[anarchist punk]

Communism killed my parents and raped my wife. :upset:

im sorry to hear that man, communism is a very bueatiful thing when it is in the right hands and it makes me sick when other people abuse it, like i said the true version of communism is great and beautiful but im sorrry to hear that :confused:

[Danish]

Where did I go rather... I just returned from a week in the British Virgin Islands. Had a great time :)

Wow, you lucky duck!

[veggie 3.14]

Wow, you lucky duck!
Danish, please get on AIM. I wish to converse with you.

[Der Übermensch]

ya, it was really great. Got to go scuba diving with my dad which was really great..

But back on topic here "anarchist punk", **** off, your a idiot.

[Smokey D]

no there are no jobs because if there is no government then there is no need for money yet we barter we do not make money, because then we get back to the main problem...capitalism anarchy is aimed to have no government simply because of money if you dont have the money then you cant be poor and no one will fight over how much things cost, but if we barter then we have the equal chance of getting something, hope you understand what i mean
:thumb:


You missed the entire point of the thread.

[Der Übermensch]

he also missed out on punctuation

[TheNowhereman42]

no there are no jobs because if there is no government then there is no need for money yet we barter we do not make money, because then we get back to the main problem...capitalism anarchy is aimed to have no government simply because of money if you dont have the money then you cant be poor and no one will fight over how much things cost, but if we barter then we have the equal chance of getting something, hope you understand what i mean
:thumb:

wow.

[Danish]

no there are no jobs because if there is no government then there is no need for money yet we barter we do not make money, because then we get back to the main problem...capitalism anarchy is aimed to have no government simply because of money if you dont have the money then you cant be poor and no one will fight over how much things cost, but if we barter then we have the equal chance of getting something, hope you understand what i mean
:thumb:

But that would mean the end of industrial production, wouldn't it? I certainly don't want that. I think industrialized, highly efficient means of production are great. The problem I have is with the private ownership of those means.

[stikkis]

and why dont they teach anarchy is schools?
There is no political edeucation in schools (at least not where I live)

[TheNowhereman42]

There is no political edeucation in schools (at least not where I live)

I only get political education in Republicanism, Fuedalism, Democracy, Communism (the bad totalitarian kind, as opposed to Marxism), a tiny bit of Socialism, and I seem to remember a small part on Direct Democracy too.

[sketchyjoe]

Forget Marx, forget Chomsky. This guy (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6816116&postcount=63) is clearly the greatest political thinker of all time.
You will never read more insightful analysis of anarchy than that.

[Der Übermensch]

I assume you are joking...?

[Der Übermensch]

Yay! my thread has a clone! Imitation is a form of Flattery I guess :p

But anyways, when I get around to it, I'll write up an Appendix on a more indepth look at the Spanish movement

[Dave de Sylvia]

No. There is no government, not no order. The IRA, btw, are conservatives I think.

Slightly late, I know, but the IRA are generally socialist/Marxist these days, at least that's what Sinn Féin constitutes.

[Mega_Dave]

Would the only way to bring about anarchy be through revolution or could it happen through political parties as well?

[Der Übermensch]

ALthough Anarchists tend to stay away from participating in government as a party, a few CNT representatives joined the Loyalist Cortes (congress like body) in Spain in '36. They were kicked out once the Communists started consolidating power. But in general, a revolution is envisioned, although not nessicarily a violent one.

[LedZepChild999]

idk what a mod is.

[Der Übermensch]

I have no idea what that has to do with this thread, but its a Moderator, someone who moniters activity in the forum and makes sure everything keeps running well.

[LedZepChild999]

so you could consider yourself anarchist and be in a political party as well?
or if u do consider yourself an anarchist, do u consider yourself an independent?
you are obviously very educated towards this subject, and seem very inteligent. so dont u think that having a fully anarchist type society would be impractical and completely chotic, there would have to be some form of order enforcement. and if anarchy would be the main form of gov. wouldnt there be ppl who would eventually start their own group of followers and eventually gain power, thus canceling the anarchist basis?

[Der Übermensch]

Thats why, while I'm not one myself, I think Sydicalism presents the most realistic version. Its basis on the Union helps keep the wheels moving so to speak, which is the one major flaw of Individualist based Anarchist theorys.

[TheNowhereman42]

1) Anarchists consider anarchy to be independant usually, cept the Syndicalists

2) Anarchy is not chaos, quite the opposite. The circled A you see represents an old quote "Anarchy is Order". There is a form of enforcment, and that is, if an entire community wants someone out, he'll be kicked out. Whenever Anarchy has been instated, it has not been chaos.

3) If you look to the Spanish Civil War for an example, the anarchists were able to defend from an external threat for quite some time, but were destroyed ultimatly by lack of support from other countries, where as the Facists had the support of Italy and Germany.

4) If you acctually read this thing, you would have already known at least the last two

[Der Übermensch]

The Anarchists were actually mostly destroyed by their "Allies" the Communists, who turned on them in '38, (although lack of foreign support didn't help matters), but besides that, you got it the answers there nailed.

[TheNowhereman42]

d'amn commies

[Der Übermensch]

heres to that!

[Reaganista]

I agree.

[Noku]

How about anarchism and moral?

I've been thinking lately that the purpose of moral is to give people security amongst the mob. This anxiety created by the lack of law enforcement would drive people to act more morally. However, the problem is that those who are better off and have more imaginary power would be less anxious and less moral than those who would need some assistance. The major problem would be when the "rich" would become ignorant towards the "poor" and the "poor" would dehumanize the "rich".

[veggie 3.14]

2) Anarchy is not chaos, quite the opposite. The circled A you see represents an old quote "Anarchy is Order". There is a form of enforcment, and that is, if an entire community wants someone out, he'll be kicked out. Whenever Anarchy has been instated, it has not been chaos.


:lol:

I have that sign, along with the quote, on all my schoolbooks. :D

[xKaedonx]

Originally Posted by TheNowhereman42

2) Anarchy is not chaos, quite the opposite. The circled A you see represents an old quote "Anarchy is Order". There is a form of enforcment, and that is, if an entire community wants someone out, he'll be kicked out. Whenever Anarchy has been instated, it has not been chaos.


This is exactly true. Anarchy is based on concensus, not lack of law.

[TheNowhereman42]

How about anarchism and moral?

I've been thinking lately that the purpose of moral is to give people security amongst the mob. This anxiety created by the lack of law enforcement would drive people to act more morally. However, the problem is that those who are better off and have more imaginary power would be less anxious and less moral than those who would need some assistance. The major problem would be when the "rich" would become ignorant towards the "poor" and the "poor" would dehumanize the "rich".

but there wouldn't be any "poor" or "rich" because of an anarchist comunities social economy

[Der Übermensch]

Morality is at the core of Anarchism. People of similar moral codes no doubt will gravitate towred one another. What is "moral" would be decided by the community, as thats what morals really are, guidelines of society.

[Noku]

but there wouldn't be any "poor" or "rich" because of an anarchist comunities social economy

Yes but there would be differences on "wealth" between societies. It is impossible that everyone everywhere would have exactly same amount of food, luxuries etc. and actually I am not talking about just wealth but things like social status. Some have status and some doesn't, someone is popular and someone isn't. One gets more attention and it is easy to forget that you should share the attention or someone will get jealous. It all depends on scale of things and on a large scale it will result in bias and propaganda.

[Mr. Ron]

I am not that familiar with anarchy or communism, but how does real anarchy differ from real socialism?

[Noku]

Morality is at the core of Anarchism. People of similar moral codes no doubt will gravitate towred one another. What is "moral" would be decided by the community, as thats what morals really are, guidelines of society.

Now you need to put things in right perspective :D

Moral is a social phenomena which isn't in control of society but it has certain social factors and functions for a person.

Why do you believe people have developed morality, what is it's purpose for mankind?

How moral varies by events?

Those are two nice questions to think about and how it would relate to Anarchism, interesting. In my opinnion you tend to have too behavioristic image of humans. The mob isn't something that is in control, society can't control people, it is the people who controls the society and its developement. The misfits are the momentum of society, not the fits. Try to keep that perspective in your mind. I understand that you are young but you also have much potential, try to get wider perspective on things and you could study some sociology, it would be very good for you.

[Der Übermensch]

Many people have similar moral outlooks. Morality can be encoded into an Ethical System (ussualy religion) to keep it running smoother.
In Anarchism, instead of one unmoving Ethical System, its left to the community to create. This give the people more reason to live up to and exemplify it I would say, as instead of just being there, its something that they have had a part is.

[Smokey D]

I am not that familiar with anarchy or communism, but how does real anarchy differ from real socialism?

Really, not by much. The difference lies in its execution, ie, anarchists believe that society can and should be changed rapidly, while Communists believe that its a steady progression through various stages (feudal aristocracy, bougeousie, 'socialism' and then communism').

A minor note: 'Real Socialism', as you put it, is in fact Communism which is different from Socialism, though one is necessary for the other.

[Mr. Ron]

Really, not by much. The difference lies in its execution, ie, anarchists believe that society can and should be changed rapidly, while Communists believe that its a steady progression through various stages (feudal aristocracy, bougeousie, 'socialism' and then communism').

A minor note: 'Real Socialism', as you put it, is in fact Communism which is different from Socialism, though one is necessary for the other.
Thak you. I was confused as to the differences they all have. In the past I seemed to see them as one big entity.

[Styx]

Thanx 4 that

[Styx]

:lol:

[TheNowhereman42]

A minor note: 'Real Socialism', as you put it, is in fact Communism which is different from Socialism, though one is necessary for the other.

Socialists believe the means of production should be seized and used for the new regime, whereas Communists believe that the means of production should be destroyed and rebuilt for the regime's uses.