Anarchism Discussion Thread

[ttomthebomb]

Note: This is not a thread for flaming or pushing your political ideologies on to participants.

So, anarchy. Usually radicals (my opinion) that have come to, or born to, hate every type of government. They find the only possible reform to be the complete annihilation of any given government. Let's take into example when I.W.W. workers (there were about 4 of them who were anarchists) took advantage of a strike by throwing bombs into a crowd of people. They killed police officers, fellow workmates, and innocent civilians.

That was just an example of how far anarchists MIGHT take it.

So how about we discuss?

 

[Oui.]

Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.

Spoiler

Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.

 

[ttomthebomb]

Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.

Spoiler

Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.

I seem to have been bit off.

Also, I was talking about the anarchist individualists.

I understand that it's not lawless, but I was under the impression that laws were not enforced, essentially seeing as how during a recovery period there would be no government facilities, such as services, like the police and what not.

 

[Oui.]

Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.

Spoiler

Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.

I seem to have been bit off.

Also, I was talking about the anarchist individualists.

I understand that it's not lawless, but I was under the impression that laws were not enforced, essentially seeing as how during a recovery period there would be no government facilities, such as services, like the police and what not.

By knowing history we know that no government is needed to protect us. No military is needed to protect us. No police is needed to stop crime.
My usertitle holds a nice quote. However lawlessness does not naturally come with the abolition of police or military forces. It is in the culture and a result of the society. As you were speaking of individualist anarchisms such as anarcho-capitalism or illegalism I will have to agree, it is very stupid. Most anarchists agree that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism as it is contradicting the rules of anarchism. The individualist anarchism is often based on "I mind my own business and care not of others' ". I very much dislike individualism as I think of it as immoral and plainly stupid.

 

[ttomthebomb]

Are we discussing the stereotype of anarchists or the idea of anarchy itself.
What you seem to think of anarchism is the individualist type such as Illegalism which in most cases is not what Anarchism stands for.

Spoiler

Perhaps you have seen that picture, where the A is inside an O. The A stands for anarchy and the O for Organized. Don't be confused, anarchism is usually not meant as the type of society which exists in Somalia or so.
It is very structured and it doesn't mean it is lawless. What most anarchists today suggest is the collectivist anarchism. What may be useful to know is that anarchy has worked several times on smaller scales but also bigger and more serious successful attempts were made in Spain and Ukraine. Today examples would be Christiania in Denmark I believe which has a similar system or a kind of syndicalism but also Twin Oaks in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

As you can see the latter one is very similar to communism in its last stage or in the goal and utopia of communism.

I seem to have been bit off.

Also, I was talking about the anarchist individualists.

I understand that it's not lawless, but I was under the impression that laws were not enforced, essentially seeing as how during a recovery period there would be no government facilities, such as services, like the police and what not.

By knowing history we know that no government is needed to protect us. No military is needed to protect us. No police is needed to stop crime.
My usertitle holds a nice quote. However lawlessness does not naturally come with the abolition of police or military forces. It is in the culture and a result of the society. As you were speaking of individualist anarchisms such as anarcho-capitalism or illegalism I will have to agree, it is very stupid. Most anarchists agree that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism as it is contradicting the rules of anarchism. The individualist anarchism is often based on "I mind my own business and care not of others' ". I very much dislike individualism as I think of it as immoral and plainly stupid.

Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.

 

[Oui.]

Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.

Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.

 

[ttomthebomb]

Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.

Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.

So if I pulled some one off a train track before they were hit, it would have to be questioned?

 

[Oui.]

Along the same lines as you, I found a quote by the individualist Benjamin Tucker: "If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." The seems somehow flawed and selfish. This seems to be a great contrast to anarchism in general.

Indeed, it is not all authority which is bad besides your own authority over yourself. My sister going down the street and a car approaching fast, I will pull her away to not get hit. This would be an action of authority as well so it is good to some extent but must always be questioned. Anarchists in general do not consider anarcho-capitalism part of anarchy most times. There is a major difference and there is no common struggle between them like there is between anarchists and communists.

So if I pulled some one off a train track before they were hit, it would have to be questioned?

That can not even be questioned as it is impulsive. "Do I really want this man to save me now?". If police existed to help for instance then that would need to be questioned. "Do they really help me, do we really need them?" etc. No authority should ignorantly be accepted. If you were to question the authority of the man who will save you, you will come to the conclusion that it is legitimate for him to attempt to save you as there is not much of other choices when you are about to meet your death. I don't really see your reasoning here.

 

[Provenance]

I don't know much about Anarchist ideals, but I think that there are cases where it could work.
A true communism is one example.