PDA

View Full Version : Anarchism



Óttar
08-26-2009, 08:31 PM
I have attempted to find something out about Anarchism. It seems to me as if Anarchists are completely disorganised. Figures. (:rolleyes:) One thing I can't wrap my head around is why are Anarchists rubbing shoulders with Communists (First International etc.)? It seems to me as if Anarchists are just Communists who have traded in a red flag for a black one. If you scrape off the black, red will be revealed.

If everyone is organised into private autonomous communities, what is to keep autonomous communities from raising armies, absorbing smaller, weaker communities, and ultimately re-establishing a "State" or other power structures? :confused:

I think I'll remain a Libertarian. :thumb001:

Fortis in Arduis
08-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Absolutely, scratch the black veneer and there is usually red beneath.

Most anarchists are anything but.

Manifest Destiny
08-26-2009, 09:31 PM
There are basically two types of anarchists.

There are right-wing anarchists, who believe that the elimination of government will result in a capitalist/Libertarian paradise.

There are also left-wing anarchists, who believe that the elimination of government will result in a communist paradise.

I think that if government was eliminated, it would result in something in between those two extremes.

Lahtari
08-26-2009, 10:21 PM
One thing I can't wrap my head around is why are Anarchists rubbing shoulders with Communists (First International etc.)? It seems to me as if Anarchists are just Communists who have traded in a red flag for a black one. If you scrape off the black, red will be revealed.

The goal of Marxism is the dissolution of traditional Western society in favour of an egalitarian utopia. For this it has spawned many children: peace movements that are against armies of nation states (though in here they also openly supported Soviet militarism..), human rights organizations that care about everyone except the white heterosexual male, feminists that attack the nuclear family and traditional values, nature conservationists who basically want to destroy the industry, animal rights activists who target traditional livelihoods, etc, etc... And also anarchists whose target is destruction of the power structures of Western societies.

I'm not saying that all organizations and movements of the above kind have Marxist roots, but a disproportionate number of them and their members follow really unbelievable Marxist double-standards.

Psychonaut
08-26-2009, 11:31 PM
I can't even begin to imagine how anarchism would be a viable concept, especially in this country. An anarchist "state" would have its borders defined not by any might of its own sovereignty (because it would have no military to assert that sovereignty) and would thus constantly lose territory to its neighbors and be awash in a flood of looting immigrants. Alternatively, some power hungry rising nation (*cough* China *cough*) might just decide that conquering a militaryless region rich in resources would be a good idea.

lei.talk
08-27-2009, 03:07 AM
I have attempted to find something out about Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)...

If everyone is organised into private autonomous communities,
what is to keep autonomous communities from raising armies,
absorbing smaller, weaker communities,
and ultimately re-establishing a "State" or other power structures? :confused:

I think I'll remain a Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). :thumb001:in deed,
each time such social experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man) are repeated -
why be surprised by the result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus)?

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve
and no direction is set for possible improvement:

and when experience is not retained,
as among savages, infancy is perpetual.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana)."

Fortis in Arduis
08-27-2009, 07:12 AM
I met a group of anarchists who were slowly buying a house together, using as a base for their activism.

Co-operative ownership of that house was the better part of their activism, but they were involved with all sorts of constructive alternatives, like bartering and growing vegetables.

Poltergeist
08-27-2009, 08:29 AM
There is a striking similiarity, nay, even overlapping, between anarchists and libertarians. Though the former claim - and are perceived as such - to be "left-wing", whereas the latter are generally considered "right-wing".

Ariets
08-27-2009, 09:55 AM
If everyone is organised into private autonomous communities, what is to keep autonomous communities from raising armies, absorbing smaller, weaker communities, and ultimately re-establishing a "State" or other power structures? :confused:Did you played a Fallout?:D There you have an answer:D:cool:

Well, under anarchocapitalism there would be high propability of creating such small "states" alike to ancient greek "polis", what would be loose community based of self-interest (safety). Its a bit like with Stirner's "Society of Egoists" (I don't remember the original name from the book "Ego and its own").

Anarchocollectivsts use to change context of the words of Stirner and other truly anarcho-individualists like Spooner or Tucker.



I think I'll remain a Libertarian. :thumb001:
Well I consider myself a Libertarian too, don't understand me wrong, but while Im libertarian and Im in favor or minimum state (minarchism), I belief in natural collapse of the state in future, especially if some global wars come into buisness...:coffee:

And as a monarchist in same time, I belief that only monarchy have legitimised right to govern the people, therefore if we don't have monarchy, no one have right to govern anyone, so we have anarchy...:p

SwordoftheVistula
08-27-2009, 10:23 AM
I met a group of anarchists who were slowly buying a house together...Co-operative ownership of that house

Sounds like a 'corporation', but don't tell them :thumbs up

Loki
08-27-2009, 10:33 AM
The goal of Marxism is the dissolution of traditional Western society in favour of an egalitarian utopia.

No, this is unfair to say so. Marxism has important positive influences on policy, and is not necessarily looking to destroy traditional society -- only the unfair elements thereof.

Ariets
08-27-2009, 10:48 AM
No, this is unfair to say so. Marxism has important positive influences on policy, and is not necessarily looking to destroy traditional society -- only the unfair elements thereof.
like what?:eek: I dont see any...:rolleyes:

Lahtari
08-27-2009, 12:03 PM
No, this is unfair to say so. Marxism has important positive influences on policy, and is not necessarily looking to destroy traditional society -- only the unfair elements thereof.

The whole point was to deconstruct everything to make something new - an ultra-egalitarian society. Needless to say, this is a dangerous utopia that will end up with nothing good.

Another thing is that the "unfair elements" are categorically seen everywhere where there is success and prosperity, and at the same time the things like minority crime and violence is understood because they're supposedly in a weaker position, "victims". It is dangerous because it appeals to our lover instincts like jealousy and greed and at the same time to our compassion.

Loki
08-27-2009, 12:55 PM
The whole point was to deconstruct everything to make something new - an ultra-egalitarian society.

The idea has some merit.

Brännvin
08-27-2009, 01:03 PM
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is also a utopia's book, not different of Marx's books in its idealistic essence.


The goal of Marxism is the dissolution of traditional Western society in favour of an egalitarian utopia.

Egalitarian utopia is not product of Marxism, it comes from since the ancient Greece sorry to say it already was born into Western civilization, each civilization has its weakness and suicidal tendency, it will not cease to exist if you do not like :tongue

Lahtari
08-28-2009, 03:34 AM
Egalitarian utopia is not product of Marxism, it comes from since the ancient Greece sorry to say it already was born into Western civilization, each civilization has its weakness and suicidal tendency, it will not cease to exist if you do not like :tongue

I get your point. But not the relevance: every modern idea is a product of human nature and has at least some parallels in history.

Wouldn't you like to have a sensible leftist party or labour movement that supports the welfare state and would be consistent in their opposition of big-capital interests like immigration that weakens the position of workers in the domestic labour market, instead of reincarnating the (industrial era) concepts of international class war and international solidarity of workers again and again?