Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

What is anarchism?

by Anarchist Sunday, Oct. 02, 2005 at 4:57 PM

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

What is anarchism?...
faq_top.gif, image/gif, 328x55

An excerpt from An Anarchist FAQ. The full version is available at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

A.1 What is anarchism?

Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary.

In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle."

This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos. Or, as Errico Malatesta expresses it:

"since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order." [Anarchy, p. 16]

Anarchists want to change this "common-sense" idea of "anarchy," so people will see that government and other hierarchical social relationships are both harmful and unnecessary:

"Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." [Op. Cit., pp. 16]

This FAQ is part of the process of changing the commonly-held ideas regarding anarchism and the meaning of anarchy. But that is not all. As well as combating the distortions produced by the "common-sense" idea of "anarchy", we also have to combat the distortions that anarchism and anarchists have been subjected to over the years by our political and social enemies. For, as Bartolomeo Vanzetti put it, anarchists are "the radical of the radical -- the black cats, the terrors of many, of all the bigots, exploiters, charlatans, fakers and oppressors. Consequently we are also the more slandered, misrepresented, misunderstood and persecuted of all." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

Vanzetti knew what he was talking about. He and his comrade Nicola Sacco were framed by the US state for a crime they did not commit and were, effectively, electrocuted for being foreign anarchists in 1927. So this FAQ will have to spend some time correcting the slanders and distortions that anarchists have been subjected to by the capitalist media, politicians, ideologues and bosses (not to mention the distortions by our erstwhile fellow radicals like liberals and Marxists). Hopefully once we are finished you will understand why those in power have spent so much time attacking anarchism -- it is the one idea which can effectively ensure liberty for all and end all systems based on a few having power over the many.

A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean?

The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary:

"Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]

For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris:

"The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38]

Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he attacked "official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also when he said:

"Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271]

As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the 'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'" [Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement]

We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen from Proudhon's argument that "Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism as it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour" and, therefore, "that his [or her] inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50] Forty years earlier Bakunin made the same point when he argued that under the current system "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187]

Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op. Cit., p. 158] For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills" could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was that anarchism was born." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 19]

Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." [Op. Cit., p. 40]

And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers.

While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I, Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as they can.

A.1.2 What does "anarchism" mean?

To quote Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism is "the no-government system of socialism." [Anarchism, p. 46] In other words, "the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." [Errico Malatesta, Towards Anarchism,", p. 75]

Anarchism, therefore, is a political theory that aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies. Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's famous dictum:

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]

The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.

While there are many different types of anarchism (from individualist anarchism to communist-anarchism -- see section A.3 for more details), there has always been two common positions at the core of all of them -- opposition to government and opposition to capitalism. In the words of the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker, anarchism insists "on the abolition of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited by Eunice Schuster, Native American Anarchism, p. 140] All anarchists view profit, interest and rent as usury (i.e. as exploitation) and so oppose them and the conditions that create them just as much as they oppose government and the State.

More generally, in the words of L. Susan Brown, the "unifying link" within anarchism "is a universal condemnation of hierarchy and domination and a willingness to fight for the freedom of the human individual." [The Politics of Individualism, p. 108] For anarchists, a person cannot be free if they are subject to state or capitalist authority. As Voltairine de Cleyre summarised:

"Anarchism . . . teaches the possibility of a society in which the needs of life may be fully supplied for all, and in which the opportunities for complete development of mind and body shall be the heritage of all . . . [It] teaches that the present unjust organisation of the production and distribution of wealth must finally be completely destroyed, and replaced by a system which will insure to each the liberty to work, without first seeking a master to whom he [or she] must surrender a tithe of his [or her] product, which will guarantee his liberty of access to the sources and means of production. . . Out of the blindly submissive, it makes the discontented; out of the unconsciously dissatisfied, it makes the consciously dissatisfied . . . Anarchism seeks to arouse the consciousness of oppression, the desire for a better society, and a sense of the necessity for unceasing warfare against capitalism and the State." [Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, pp. 23-4]

So Anarchism is a political theory which advocates the creation of anarchy, a society based on the maxim of "no rulers." To achieve this, "[i]n common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy" [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46]

Thus anarchism is both positive and negative. It analyses and critiques current society while at the same time offering a vision of a potential new society -- a society that fulfils certain human needs which the current one denies. These needs, at their most basic, are liberty, equality and solidarity, which will be discussed in section A.2.

Anarchism unites critical analysis with hope, for, as Bakunin (in his pre-anarchist days) pointed out, "the urge to destroy is a creative urge." One cannot build a better society without understanding what is wrong with the present one.

However, it must be stressed that anarchism is more than just a means of analysis or a vision of a better society. It is also rooted in struggle, the struggle of the oppressed for their freedom. In other words, it provides a means of achieving a new system based on the needs of people, not power, and which places the planet before profit. To quote Scottish anarchist Stuart Christie:

"Anarchism is a movement for human freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian . . . Anarchism began -- and remains -- a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

"Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for the maximum accord between the individual, society and nature. Practically, it aims for us to organise and live our lives in such a way as to make politicians, governments, states and their officials superfluous. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

"Anarchists are not dreamers obsessed with abstract principles and theoretical constructs . . . Anarchists are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle lasts forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be . . .

"Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice. In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith, it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

"Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels of both individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places." [My Granny made me an Anarchist, pp. 162-3]

Anarchism, anarchists argue, is simply the theoretical expression of our capacity to organise ourselves and run society without bosses or politicians. It allows working class and other oppressed people to become conscious of our power as a class, defend our immediate interests, and fight to revolutionise society as a whole. Only by doing this can we create a society fit for human beings to live in.

It is no abstract philosophy. Anarchist ideas are put into practice everyday. Wherever oppressed people stand up for their rights, take action to defend their freedom, practice solidarity and co-operation, fight against oppression, organise themselves without leaders and bosses, the spirit of anarchism lives. Anarchists simply seek to strengthen these libertarian tendencies and bring them to their full fruition. As we discuss in section J, anarchists apply their ideas in many ways within capitalism in order to change it for the better until such time as we get rid of it completely. Section I discusses what we aim to replace it with, i.e. what anarchism aims for.

A.1.3 Why is anarchism also called libertarian socialism?

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism p. 32 and p. 34]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

Individualists like Benjamin Tucker along with social anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin proclaimed themselves "socialists." They did so because, as Kropotkin put it in his classic essay "Modern Science and Anarchism," "[s]o long as Socialism was understood in its wide, generic, and true sense -- as an effort to abolish the exploitation of Labour by Capital -- the Anarchists were marching hand-in-hands with the Socialists of that time." [Evolution and Environment, p. 81] Or, in Tucker's words, "the bottom claim of Socialism [is] that labour should be put in possession of its own," a claim that both "the two schools of Socialistic thought . . . State Socialism and Anarchism" agreed upon. [The Anarchist Reader, p. 144] Hence the word "socialist" was originally defined to include "all those who believed in the individual's right to possess what he or she produced." [Lance Klafta, "Ayn Rand and the Perversion of Libertarianism," in Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 34] This opposition to exploitation (or usury) is shared by all true anarchists and places them under the socialist banner.

For most socialists, "the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] For this reason Proudhon, for example, supported workers' co-operatives, where "every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" because by "participation in losses and gains . . . the collective force [i.e. surplus] ceases to be a source of profits for a small number of managers: it becomes the property of all workers." [The General Idea of the Revolution, p. 222 and p. 223] Thus, in addition to desiring the end of exploitation of labour by capital, true socialists also desire a society within which the producers own and control the means of production (including, it should be stressed, those workplaces which supply services). The means by which the producers will do this is a moot point in anarchist and other socialist circles, but the desire remains a common one. Anarchists favour direct workers' control and either ownership by workers' associations or by the commune (see section A.3 on the different types of anarchists).

Moreover, anarchists also reject capitalism for being authoritarian as well as exploitative. Under capitalism, workers do not govern themselves during the production process nor have control over the product of their labour. Such a situation is hardly based on equal freedom for all, nor can it be non-exploitative, and is so opposed by anarchists. This perspective can best be found in the work of Proudhon's (who inspired both Tucker and Bakunin) where he argues that anarchism would see "[c]apitalistic and proprietary exploitation stopped everywhere [and] the wage system abolished" for "either the workman. . . will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-promoter; or he will participate . . . In the first case the workman is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience. . . In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and citizen. . . he forms part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave . . . we need not hesitate, for we have no choice. . . it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two. . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [Op. Cit., p. 233 and pp. 215-216]

Therefore all anarchists are anti-capitalist ("If labour owned the wealth it produced, there would be no capitalism" [Alexander Berkman, What is Anarchism?, p. 44]). Benjamin Tucker, for example -- the anarchist most influenced by liberalism (as we will discuss later) -- called his ideas "Anarchistic-Socialism" and denounced capitalism as a system based upon "the usurer, the receiver of interest, rent and profit." Tucker held that in an anarchist, non-capitalist, free-market society, capitalists will become redundant and exploitation of labour by capital would cease, since "labour. . . will. . . secure its natural wage, its entire product." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 82 and p. 85] Such an economy will be based on mutual banking and the free exchange of products between co-operatives, artisans and peasants. For Tucker, and other Individualist anarchists, capitalism is not a true free market, being marked by various laws and monopolies which ensure that capitalists have the advantage over working people, so ensuring the latters exploitation via profit, interest and rent (see section G for a fuller discussion). Even Max Stirner, the arch-egoist, had nothing but scorn for capitalist society and its various "spooks," which for him meant ideas that are treated as sacred or religious, such as private property, competition, division of labour, and so forth.

So anarchists consider themselves as socialists, but socialists of a specific kind -- libertarian socialists. As the individualist anarchist Joseph A. Labadie puts it (echoing both Tucker and Bakunin):

"It is said that Anarchism is not socialism. This is a mistake. Anarchism is voluntary Socialism. There are two kinds of Socialism, archistic and anarchistic, authoritarian and libertarian, state and free. Indeed, every proposition for social betterment is either to increase or decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual. As they increase they are archistic; as they decrease they are anarchistic." [Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not]

Labadie stated on many occasions that "all anarchists are socialists, but not all socialists are anarchists." Therefore, Daniel Guerin's comment that "Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man" is echoed throughout the history of the anarchist movement, be it the social or individualist wings. [Anarchism, p. 12] Indeed, the Haymarket Martyr Adolph Fischer used almost exactly the same words as Labadie to express the same fact -- "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist" -- while acknowledging that the movement was "divided into two factions; the communistic anarchists and the Proudhon or middle-class anarchists." [The Autobiographies of the Haymarket Martyrs, p. 81]

So while social and individualist anarchists do disagree on many issues -- for example, whether a true, that is non-capitalist, free market would be the best means of maximising liberty -- they agree that capitalism is to be opposed as exploitative and oppressive and that an anarchist society must, by definition, be based on associated, not wage, labour. Only associated labour will "decrease the powers of external wills and forces over the individual" during working hours and such self-management of work by those who do it is the core ideal of real socialism. This perspective can be seen when Joseph Labadie argued that the trade union was "the exemplification of gaining freedom by association" and that "[w]ithout his union, the workman is much more the slave of his employer than he is with it." [Different Phases of the Labour Question]

However, the meanings of words change over time. Today "socialism" almost always refers to state socialism, a system that all anarchists have opposed as a denial of freedom and genuine socialist ideals. All anarchists would agree with Noam Chomsky's statement on this issue:

"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism." [Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 779]

Anarchism developed in constant opposition to the ideas of Marxism, social democracy and Leninism. Long before Lenin rose to power, Mikhail Bakunin warned the followers of Marx against the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" if Marx's state-socialist ideas were ever implemented. Indeed, the works of Stirner, Proudhon and especially Bakunin all predict the horror of state Socialism with great accuracy. In addition, the anarchists were among the first and most vocal critics and opposition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Nevertheless, being socialists, anarchists do share some ideas with some Marxists (though none with Leninists). Both Bakunin and Tucker accepted Marx's analysis and critique of capitalism as well as his labour theory of value (see section C). Marx himself was heavily influenced by Max Stirner's book The Ego and Its Own, which contains a brilliant critique of what Marx called "vulgar" communism as well as state socialism. There have also been elements of the Marxist movement holding views very similar to social anarchism (particularly the anarcho-syndicalist branch of social anarchism) -- for example, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxembourg, Paul Mattick and others, who are very far from Lenin. Karl Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain. There are many continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities from Marx to more libertarian Marxists, who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism and whose ideas approximate anarchism's desire for the free association of equals.

Therefore anarchism is basically a form of socialism, one that stands in direct opposition to what is usually defined as "socialism" (i.e. state ownership and control). Instead of "central planning," which many people associate with the word "socialism," anarchists advocate free association and co-operation between individuals, workplaces and communities and so oppose "state" socialism as a form of state capitalism in which "[e]very man [and woman] will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage payer." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 81] Thus anarchist's reject Marxism (what most people think of as "socialism") as just "[t]he idea of the State as Capitalist, to which the Social-Democratic fraction of the great Socialist Party is now trying to reduce Socialism." [Peter Kropotkin, The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 31] The anarchist objection to the identification of Marxism, "central planning" and State Socialism/Capitalism with socialism will be discussed in section H.

It is because of these differences with state socialists, and to reduce confusion, most anarchists just call themselves "anarchists," as it is taken for granted that anarchists are socialists. However, with the rise of the so-called "libertarian" right in the USA, some pro-capitalists have taken to calling themselves "anarchists" and that is why we have laboured the point somewhat here. Historically, and logically, anarchism implies anti-capitalism, i.e. socialism, which is something, we stress, that all anarchists have agreed upon (for a fuller discuss of why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist see section F).

A.1.5 Where does anarchism come from?

Where does anarchism come from? We can do no better than quote the The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists produced by participants of the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution (see Section A.5.4). They point out that:

"The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free non-statist society of workers under self-management.

"So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of the working masses.

"The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to specify and spread it." [pp. 15-16]

Like the anarchist movement in general, the Makhnovists were a mass movement of working class people resisting the forces of authority, both Red (Communist) and White (Tsarist/Capitalist) in the Ukraine from 1917 to 1921. As Peter Marshall notes "anarchism . . . has traditionally found its chief supporters amongst workers and peasants." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 652]

Anarchism was created in, and by, the struggle of the oppressed for freedom. For Kropotkin, for example, "Anarchism . . . originated in everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life itself." [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57] For Proudhon, "the proof" of his mutualist ideas lay in the "current practice, revolutionary practice" of "those labour associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been formed in Paris and Lyon . . . [show that the] organisation of credit and organisation of labour amount to one and the same." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 59-60] Indeed, as one historian argues, there was "close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable convergence [between the ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon. The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 164]

Thus anarchism comes from the fight for liberty and our desires to lead a fully human life, one in which we have time to live, to love and to play. It was not created by a few people divorced from life, in ivory towers looking down upon society and making judgements upon it based on their notions of what is right and wrong. Rather, it was a product of working class struggle and resistance to authority, oppression and exploitation. As Albert Meltzer put it:

"There were never theoreticians of Anarchism as such, though it produced a number of theoreticians who discussed aspects of its philosophy. Anarchism has remained a creed that has been worked out in action rather than as the putting into practice of an intellectal ideas. Very often, a bourgeois writer comes along and writes down what has already been worked out in practice by workers and peasants; he [or she] is attributed by bourgeois historians as being a leader, and by successive bourgeois writers (citing the bourgeois historians) as being one more case that proves the working class relies on bourgeois leadership." [Anarchism: Arguments for and against, p. 18]

In Kropotkin's eyes, "Anarchism had its origins in the same creative, constructive activity of the masses which has worked out in times past all the social institutions of mankind -- and in the revolts . . . against the representatives of force, external to these social institutions, who had laid their hands on these institutions and used them for their own advantage." More recently, "Anarchy was brought forth by the same critical and revolutionary protest which gave birth to Socialism in general." Anarchism, unlike other forms of socialism, "lifted its sacrilegious arm, not only against Capitalism, but also against these pillars of Capitalism: Law, Authority, and the State." All anarchist writers did was to "work out a general expression of [anarchism's] principles, and the theoretical and scientific basis of its teachings" derived from the experiences of working class people in struggle as well as analysing the evolutionary tendencies of society in general. [Op. Cit., p. 19 and p. 57]

However, anarchistic tendencies and organisations in society have existed long before Proudhon put pen to paper in 1840 and declared himself an anarchist. While anarchism, as a specific political theory, was born with the rise of capitalism (Anarchism "emerged at the end of the eighteenth century . . .[and] took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State." [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 4]) anarchist writers have analysed history for libertarian tendencies. Kropotkin argued, for example, that "from all times there have been Anarchists and Statists." [Op. Cit., p. 16] In Mutual Aid (and elsewhere) Kropotkin analysed the libertarian aspects of previous societies and noted those that successfully implemented (to some degree) anarchist organisation or aspects of anarchism. He recognised this tendency of actual examples of anarchistic ideas to predate the creation of the "official" anarchist movement and argued that:

"From the remotest, stone-age antiquity, men [and women] have realised the evils that resulted from letting some of them acquire personal authority. . . Consequently they developed in the primitive clan, the village community, the medieval guild . . . and finally in the free medieval city, such institutions as enabled them to resist the encroachments upon their life and fortunes both of those strangers who conquered them, and those clansmen of their own who endeavoured to establish their personal authority." [Anarchism, pp. 158-9]

Kropotkin placed the struggle of working class people (from which modern anarchism sprung) on par with these older forms of popular organisation. He argued that "the labour combinations. . . were an outcome of the same popular resistance to the growing power of the few -- the capitalists in this case" as were the clan, the village community and so on, as were "the strikingly independent, freely federated activity of the 'Sections' of Paris and all great cities and many small 'Communes' during the French Revolution" in 1793. [Op. Cit., p. 159]

Thus, while anarchism as a political theory is an expression of working class struggle and self-activity against capitalism and the modern state, the ideas of anarchism have continually expressed themselves in action throughout human existence. Many indigenous peoples in North America and elsewhere, for example, practised anarchism for thousands of years before anarchism as a specific political theory existed. Similarly, anarchistic tendencies and organisations have existed in every major revolution -- the New England Town Meetings during the American Revolution, the Parisian 'Sections' during the French Revolution, the workers' councils and factory committees during the Russian Revolution to name just a few examples (see Murray Bookchin's The Third Revolution for details). This is to be expected if anarchism is, as we argue, a product of resistance to authority then any society with authorities will provoke resistance to them and generate anarchistic tendencies (and, of course, any societies without authorities cannot help but being anarchistic).

In other words, anarchism is an expression of the struggle against oppression and exploitation, a generalisation of working people's experiences and analyses of what is wrong with the current system and an expression of our hopes and dreams for a better future. This struggle existed before it was called anarchism, but the historic anarchist movement (i.e. groups of people calling their ideas anarchism and aiming for an anarchist society) is essentially a product of working class struggle against capitalism and the state, against oppression and exploitation, and for a free society of free and equal individuals.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


hard to believe

by Ajusted to Reality. Sunday, Oct. 02, 2005 at 5:55 PM

First: that someone still admires this gibbering war criminal.
Second: That they or it is still foolish enough to waste their time peddling drone droppings.
I had all this crap thrown at me by clucking chickens like this one when I was younger and before I found out different.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hard to believe ...

by Cesar Chavez Tuesday, Oct. 04, 2005 at 7:51 AM

... anarchists haven't quite reached the wisdom of the animal kingdom!

Be it a pack of wolves, or a lion pride, AT THAT LEVEL of development the group is led by the strong, the skilled, the competent, the one, who has the know-how.

Yet, this bunch of losers, this lunatic fringe, who haven't quite managed to reach and convince 1% of the reasoning human beings of any practical value of their useless, failed believes, keep wasting time on preaching, and writing, and ranting and raving about it!

And they are aware of it, too: that's why they keep showing up wearing hoods, and masks, and shades and such on their rallies!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


eclipsed by human thought

by Hex Tuesday, Oct. 04, 2005 at 8:10 AM

> pack of wolves, or a lion pride, AT THAT LEVEL of development


perhaps the reason you don't see the light that people are more advanced than wild animals and *value animalistic activities* is because YOU are at or below the level of animals yourself

just a thought




> 1% of the reasoning human beings of any practical value of their useless, failed believes, keep wasting time


have any evidence to back that statistic up ?


wasting time - is that anything like the time wasted making prank phone calls ? what level of development does it take to find amusement in THAT ?

reading the comments after it was posted I wasn't laughing at the prank call like your buddies were - I was laughing at *you and them* for finding such childish activities so fulfilling.

and here you are attempting to trash anarchism - something you most likely don't even understand (or want to)

leaving your trail of failed arguments that seem to stretch endlessly behind you as you get yet another fresh start as yet another handle...

failed - like your business did

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


What the Hell?

by Fredric L. Rice Tuesday, Oct. 04, 2005 at 8:50 AM
frice@skeptictank.org

We saw what anarchism means in the aftermath of the Gulf States disaster. Why would anybody think that anarchy is something to be desired?

We also saw what Coimmunism and Socialism means and there are _still_ people who advocatre them.

Are humans broken? Can't learn from their mistakes or the mistakes of others?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A Common Misconception of Anarchy.

by Read the article Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2005 at 8:22 AM

Fredric L. Rice has the common misconception of anarchy. Social disorder, looting and rioting is often referred to by the media as anarchy. This is regrettable. Rice is confusing social chaos and lawlessness with anarchy.
Like the others, Rice would do well to read the posting instead of reacting to what he has been told about anarchists from the media. Anarchism is a political philosophy. It is widely misunderstood, even by many of its proponents.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


No, watch the news

by Fredric L. Rice Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2005 at 9:10 AM
frice@skeptictank.org

> Fredric L. Rice has the common
> misconception of anarchy.

And that's complete bullshit. Did anybody else happen to see what anarchy and anarchists mean to the nation of Greece last week?

If you missed it, the anarchists "fighting" for anarchy attacked police stations, set fire to buildings, cars, innocent people's houses, no end of violent activities as they "fought for freedom" from the oppressive State.

I read the article. It was a lengthy public relations lie spew that might well have come from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, a disjointed missive that expressed ideals utterly unlike what _real_ anarcy and what _real_ anarchists are like out in the street.

Actually that's not fair, either. A great many anarchists are great people who do a lot of good work here in California. Food Not Bombs and the like do a great deal of good work and I'm always happy to see anarchist flags at anti-fascism / anti-hate / anti-war protests.

But let's try to be a little more honest about what anarchy actually means in a political context and what anarchy means when anarchists take over when the fascist government failed -- as it did in the Gulf States.

Fuck anarchy, yes, but also fuck Sovialism, Communism, Republicanism, the Democratic Party, fascism, Theocracy -- absolutely fuck them all because none of them contain justice, heal;th, or safety or equal rights for all.

But let's not pretend that anarchy is some how better than the fascist regime we're currently laboring under. Playing pretend with the _ideals_ of cooperation for the common good and the good of the individual is a pipe dream, unobtainable, outrageously stupid, and historically such attempts have led to mass murder.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Freddy...I'm back!!!!!

by WHITE ON RICE Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2005 at 10:18 AM

Freddy, will you marry me? Your brilliance is just such a fucking turn-on, Frederico. You are the most well-informed white man I've ever known. Really. I really mean that. You're really just so fucking on top of things, how about you get on top of me and inject me with some of your hot, brilliant insights?

Anyway, for the non-somnambulents: check out Mike Davis' interview on KPFK last week or the week before (not sure which show exactly, look it up--if anybody knows, plz post here) in which he explains why going to New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricanes convinced him to be an anarchist, because what he saw was people there self-organizing effectively, efficiently, and WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FROM ABOVE. These are communities of thousands who, in the breakdown of so-called democratic government power, have taken care of themselves and governed themselves just fine, the way humans have done for tens of thousands of years naturally and instinctively. When asked how people make decisions, one older woman who is recognized as a "leader" of sorts in the community (in the sense of a kind of naturally respected authority, not superficially force-imposed authority), laughed and responded with something like, "We just do. We know how to cooperate."

Also, for those who actually read books: Check out David Graeber's book _Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology_. It is a must-read for anyone discussing anarchism these days, and I wish I could convince ignoramuses like Freddy the Freeloader here to pick up a copy, but I know that won't happen, unless I lie and say there are pornographic photos in the book.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Bush Admirer

by 1planet1people Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2005 at 7:04 PM

actually, capitalism didn't give us much until it was socialized with public schools, health care, and unions. Pure capitalism would have never allowed for a middle class at all. Pure capitalism is the dog eat dog world that lead to the great depression. Socialism, on the other hand, is just as responsible for our greatness as anything else. Here are some socialist programs:
1. Public Schools
2. OSHA
3. Public Utilities
4. Public Hospitals
5. Interstate Highways
6. Public Defenders
7. Social Security
8. Milatary
9. VA Hospitals
10. Police
11. Fire Department
12. Unions
13. Minimum Wage Laws
14. Child Labor Laws

Now granted, I would like to do away with some of the things (as I am sure you would as well). Nonetheless, they are all socialist organizations. Its never as black and white as the right tries to make it look.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


here you go white on rice dude

by Hex Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2005 at 9:49 PM

here you go white on...
mike.jpg, image/jpeg, 460x110

KPFK Wed. 9/21: Mike Davis, Live from New Orleans

Posted on Tuesday 20 September 2005

LISTEN ONLINE TO STREAMING AUDIO OF THIS SHOW:

http://64.27.9.54/archive/index.php?p=4pm_Jon_Wiener

http://64.27.9.54/archive/index.php?l=10&p=4pm_Jon_Wiener%2F09_21_05_4JW_Mike_Davis_in_New_Orleans_-_Adam_Shatz_on_Jews_In_France_-_Barbara_Ehrenreich_author_of_Bait_and_Switch.mp3


I'm downloading it now as "mike.mp3"

the playlist URL is tricky - most of my apps are confused and think it's HTML.. I'd upload it here as a plain MP3 but it's pretty large, about 13.MB and it would take over an hour on dialup, but if anyone has trouble listening to it, I can convert it to a lower bitrate and/or edit only the Mike Davis part using a lossless MPEG editor

this sounds like a great example for anarchism in action to debunk common myths so many people hold about what anarchism is really about

I'm not going to get in the middle of the debate between you two as I don't feel qualified in the subject - I have anarchist leanings and see it much the same way in light of cultural anthropology - that peoples throughout the ages have had what we now call anarchism but it just came naturally as people working together with no leaders..

I may not have much of a evolved sense about it - haven't read books or anything - but at least I have the right idea based on examples I've seen from anthropology which I have studied a bit..

As you stated , white on rice, explicidly the same ideas, I support you. Fred's version is repugnant to me too, but I don't have the knowledge and background to effectively refute him except in a very general way (and I hope I don't come off that way either - I'm starting to socialize with a few people at work along the same lines and hostile know-it-all attitude definitely isn't conducive to building relationships, so if you think it applies feel free to say so)

ah - download just completed so I'll shut my trap now and give it a listen..





Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Anarchist Principles In Everyday Life

by pointer Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 8:18 AM

See:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1577293_comment.php#1592936
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


What's to "refrute?"

by Fredric L. Rice Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 8:38 AM
frice@skeptictank.org

> Fred's version is repugnant to me too, but I don't
> have the knowledge and background to effectively
> refute him except in a very general way

What's to "refute?" The history of anarchy and anarchism is explicit, isn't it? Anarchy doesn't scale well. It sounds good for local communities but when scaled up, it devolves into mob rule, violence, mayhem.

If the facts are to be "refruted," an example of a successful moderate scale anarchism would need to be offered.

And while we're at it, Socialism and Communism also don't scale well. Historically they've been as monsterous as any other brand of government.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I'm not going to spar with you Fred

by Hex Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 9:25 AM

as I already said

I will say however that I'm immune to your jibes - both in general and knowing what I know about you

I've done some digging on you and what I found is disturbing, (to others not to me personally) not to mention the time & energy you invest on debate stretching back years..

I don't have that kind of time - matter of fact I have to go to work right now or I'll be late...

in 8 hours I'll reply at length but we're mostly on the same side, so I won't be fighting with you - just as I don't with several people I otherwise would be inclined to with on here..


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"It sounds good for local communities but when scaled up, it devolves into mob rule&q

by anarchist Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 12:59 PM

This is at odds with the historical record. Consider Spain. Anarchist principles worked fine in Spain. Not only was it on a grand scale, in the middle of a brutal war and under blockade by the so-called "free" world, but the workforce was largely illiterate and the young, healthy ones were at the front fighting.

All it takes is the will.

Anarchists liberated and collectivised the economy of much of northern Spain. Suddenly, the workers themselves ran everything from ranches and farms, to steel mills, locomotive factories and the telephone exchange.

French economist Gaston Leval toured the liberated zone. He visited hundreds of collectives. He studied their books. He observed their production methods. He attended their meetings. In his book, *Collectives in the Spanish Revolution*, he states his perhaps startling conclusions. He shows the numbers to back them up. In every case, after a brief period of adjustment lasting at most a couple months, the cost of production went down, the rate of production went up, and the standard of living improved.

How could this be?

The worker self-owned, worker self-managed workplace is the most efficient structure ever devised for the job. In part this is because just cutting the boss out of the equation means a lot more money for everyone else. In part this is because the people who actually do the work have a far better idea of what it actually entails than any boss ever could. The boss only knows what people tell him and everyone lies to their boss. As the old anarchist proverb says, "If you want to know how many widgets to order for next month, don't ask the boss. Ask the widgeteer."

For more about worker self management, click here:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717610_comment.php


For more Leval, click here:

http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/history/collectives.htm
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Fredric L. Rice

by 1planet1people Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 3:08 PM

Well, when friends diverge...

To be honest, pure socialism and/or communism have never been tried. According to Marx, socialism is a step towards communism. True communism does away with government all together and, in a way, becomes anarchism. The only model even close was the Native cultures (such as Native Americans) before westerners came here. Of course this is not true for Latin America, but North America it happened to a small degree. Of course, there was violence and wars, but with proper ethical education people may be able to live in such a way that laws are no longer necessary. But to arrive at this place, we as a people must grow some. As for mob violence, it has only been experienced when there have been systems of oppression and exploitation. If this mob violence ran its course (which would not be good for the haves), then eventually, the have nots would tear the system down to the point where everyone was on their social and economic and social level, then we could work as a people to rise up. This is all theoretical, so practical examples lack. But it was not too long ago that there was feudalism and the same was said about capitalism. So, while the anarchist model may seem far fetched, it is an ideal that is worth a serious look. Just because we haven’t done it before does not mean it is not possible or ideal. Just remember, we have yet to see a political model that treats all people fairly or is ethically, economically, or socially stable.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


opps....

by 1planet1people Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 3:11 PM

As an Anarchist, I should know more about the spanish history. I should have read "anarchist's" comment before writing mine. Maybe there is a model out there.....
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I found a computer on the way home

by Hex Thursday, Oct. 06, 2005 at 8:04 PM

anyway cultural anthropology provides many examples throughout history plus recently in Brazil as I recall when factories were ran into the ground and the owner took off with the profits, the workers themselves started running them - and the model they use is basicly anarchism

this works out so well in some cases the owners try to "take back" what they abandoned seeing how successful it is. this is because of 2 reasons ;

1.) every worker has an equal say

2.) the profits are reinvested back into the factory and everyone shares what's left

therefore there's much more money to go around and many more people are helped

I'm not very worldy or eloquent on this subject but I've seen enough working examples to know Fred does not know what he's talking about and seems biased against it for some reason - almost like he can't stand the idea of it working and closes(ed) his eyes to even the article at top

maybe if we enumerate actual examples using solid hard data and sources he'll "see the light"


my digging revealed that he's been "duking it out" with many different types of people for years, from USENET to here, and has posted a tremendous amount of material when added up

I basicly speed read or skim as I bring up hits (he's not worth an in depth detailed scour since although he's slightly annoying at times and seems to have "personality shifts" he's not been a major pain in the neck and doesn't do anything bad on a wide scale)


I find that he "spreads himself thin" by posting much the same retorts on many forums - using what appears to often be pastes (either that or he's a damn fast typist - according to timestamps)

although his own words, they tend to be redundant across forums..

he seems to find joy in insulting "right-wing retards" - abundantly


He sometimes directs this behavior at people like us - as if he's driven by an inner need to put people in thier place

one could say I do that - but only extremely selectively to only one or a few "targets" - only towards people I consider particularly deceptive AND against us. and only within a limited scope - I rule out a large number of people simply because we are mostly in agreement, on the same side.. And only in selected ways - I won't try to mind fuck anyone I think I might even possibly ever become friends with, and with the few left it's a very limited amount and ways

I believe to do otherwise would make me an ugly person, and as bad as the person in question (or worse even) and I myself am vulnerable to it within the context of anyone I consider potentialy a friend. Some people have a rather sophisticated manner where when they use it as a weapon (catty) can hurt others who never learned that (and actually wouldn't want to either)

I have a "kinder gentler" sensibility - naive, green, wet behind the ears, when it comes to that. Being mentally cruel was just something I never picked up on. This vulnerability only applies in the context of friendship however - otherwise I have the same hard exterior as anyone.. So people I like and respect are able to do this but strangers are not.

Anyway what I found is it's fairly common the world over - that Fred does it as well to a wide range of people but mostly in situations like here - forums, posts, boards - this result is skewed however because I don't have access to other data

Again it's pretty common though - lately I've been seeing blogs where the author "hates everyone" and makes cruel observations for amusement. When I first saw this I was kinda shocked and surprised, however the context is pretty impersonal (although sometimes the *replies* get quite nasty - readers will go on the attack occassionaly and be even crueler than the author)

since it's not my bag my reaction would be to withdraw and shrink away from it...

Fred engages in this - more often in less public contexts that I have less access to in datamining

But I can't condemn him as millions of other people do it too, BUT this makes him unsuitable for friendship as far as I'm concerned..

Think of me as the exact opposite - as my friends here can attest -

The group of people I work with here is a mini-model of anarchist structure - everyone just does what they want while I set up the technical means to do it then let them be. Sometimes I have to fix and clean up messes (like a few days ago one node was all clogged up with spam and kept BSOD'ing, several nodes have become infected with adware, spybots, BHO's, etc. One they keep using up all the HD space by turning off the computer causing lost clusters - things like that.)

We basicly have an "internet cafe" except it's spread around the neighborhood insted of all in one place..

We follow the same ideals of sharing, equality, freedom..

so even here there's a small example - Fred said doesn't scale well..

Think of big city wi-fi networks - thousands of nodes, they seem to scale pretty well..

This is the most relevant example I have..
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


What "jibes?"

by Fredric L. Rice Friday, Oct. 07, 2005 at 8:37 AM
frice@skeptictank.org

> I will say however that I'm immune to your jibes

Trying to pretend that the irrefutable facts of the matter are some how "jibes" merely evidences your inability to defend your position.

Indeed, the inability to find a government of Socialism or Communism that has led to anything other than injustice on a massive scale should also be a hint as to the indefensibility of the position.

No "jibes." No personal attacks. No unreasonable observations. There are simply no discernable historic or extant instances of such governments being perferable to any other system of governance.

Don't take being wrong so personally.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I can agree with that, 1p1p

by Fredric L. Rice Friday, Oct. 07, 2005 at 8:47 AM
frice@skeptictank.org

> To be honest, pure socialism and/or
> communism have never been tried.

This is also undeniably true. I agree with this assessment entirely. But you have to delve into the reasons why actual Communism hasn't been tried yet -- not at the macro scale.

The reasons you touched upon: "the proper ethical education." Translated into equal words, what you suggest is more formally called "indoctrination." You adxd that "This is all theoretical" and I also agree completely.

It's theory and ideology only because the concepts are unworkable, even with indoctrinationm of the young. The reason is because primate evolutional development over millions of years dictates human behavior that's contrary to such theories and ideals. The ideals sound nice but human nature drives humanity otherwise.

To be specific, corruption will _always_ be the primary governing factor of human dendeavor when government is scaled up. Accountability quickly becomes lost once a governing system leaves the local community and is expanded upwards. It's also why the Christian clergy is frought with pedophiles, if you examine the entirety of the human model of behavior.

We agree, 1p1p, on a great many things. Where we don't agree: I stipulate that human nature disallows justice for all, equality for all, and human nature disallows reason as a primary driving force. Greed, avarice, occultism, superstition, hate, and other emotions are what drive all primates, not reason, and not justice.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


just a quicky before I'm off

by Hex Friday, Oct. 07, 2005 at 9:19 AM

> What "jibes?"

refrute / refruted

I've posted working examples from even right here with people I know, other's brought up Spain..

I can dig up more examples too. (actual data mind you, not your trademark "only my opinion" which seems to have evaporated in this thread)

as to taking "being wrong" personally I'll leave that scuffle to other's better armed to duke out - nothing personal

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Well no, you're wrong yet again

by Fredric L. Rice Friday, Oct. 07, 2005 at 2:43 PM
frice@skeptictank.org

> I've posted working examples

No you haven't. And no, Spain isn't an example of a legitimate, non-monsterous anarchy. I'm sure the Spanish government would be amused. }:-}
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


lay off the poor guy

by WHITE ON RICE Friday, Oct. 07, 2005 at 8:59 PM

I was riding the subway today, thinking about this thread, and some of the stuff Hex was saying about Fred, and I was thinking, maybe we should lay off the guy and all the other endangered Flintstones like him.

Fred, you see, suffers from a quite common disease known as Whitemanitis.

It's a tragic thing. It affects everyone. Cases are concentrated most heavily in Europe, Canada, Australia, and, of course, the United States, but at this point in history, this devastating illness has traveled throughout the world and colonized virtually every population on the planet, where it has often mutated into stronger, more virulent strains.

Those afflicted with Whitemanitis are rarely cured, but the important thing to remember is that there is always hope. You see, part of the difficulty in dealing with Whitemanitis is that most if not all of the possibility of beating the disease lies with the afflicted himself. There are no medications, no treatment programs, no textbook instructions on how to combat this debilitating disease. Most Western doctors, in fact, are completely useless in battling Whitemanitis, since most of them are afflicted by it themselves.

In the end, as I stated above, the cure for this horrible illness can be found only within the afflicted. It begins with a recognition of symptoms and an accurate self-diagnosis: An impairment of vision, a deafness (to the ideas and voices of others), an inability to perceive the world and reality in anything but binary terms, a tendency to talk or write or express "ideas" excessively in a way that drowns out others and that almost always betrays a fundamental ignorance of the subject at hand, and, finally, a persistent image of oneself as the center of the universe and all existence, which is related to an obsessive indentification with the ego as though this persona constituted one's true self.

Of course, apprehending the fact that one even has this illness in the first place is itself a formidable task, since the vision of its victims is so horrendously impaired. This is the most frustrating aspect of Whitemanitis--built in to this vicious sickness is a self-protecting blindness that prevents the victim from even realizing he is ill in the first place.

The cure begins, then, with opening one's eyes and, most importantly, shutting one's mouth. As one learns to shut up and listen, one begins to learn, little by little, that he shares this planet and universe with other beings who are also thinking and experiencing and expressing themselves and their reality--often in ways that are quite at odds with his own conception of reality. Gradually, the patient must learn to open his mind and heart, to allow space--physical, emotional, mental, intellectual--for all those around him. He must learn to first recognize all the privileges he has, which his illness has conveniently blinded him to, and must then learn to abandon those privileges, to give up his position of power, and share the world with others.

It's a hard path. There is a lot more involved, but it is imperative that the patient discover for himself the rest.

One final note: It is absolutely essential that people remember that this disease is highly contagious. It is vicious, though it often appears quite benign. For this reason, others who are battling with the illness themselves, or who seek to protect themselves from it when it attacks through host bodies like Fred, must continually develop creative ways to respond to it. Some respond with data, facts, statistics. Some respond with sarcasm and cruelty which mirror the cruelty of the disease and its efforts to attack others. Some respond with reasoned debate. What is key is imagination, creativity, and, whenever possible, a sense of play, a sense of humor, a sense of fun. The disease appears to thrive on despair, anger, and hate. Humor, sarcasm, wit, and playfullness, are all powerful antioxidants to the rust and decay inherent in Whitemanitis.

Good luck to you, Fred. Yabadabadoo!!!!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Speak of the Devil...

by WHITE ON RICE Saturday, Oct. 08, 2005 at 7:27 PM

Speak of the Devil.....
image.jpg, image/jpeg, 288x458

"Reminder!!  Tomorrow night (Saturday 10/8) Jensen will be presenting his timely and much needed analysis
Of racism and white privilege.  7:30 sharp at 33 1/3 Books & Gallery!!

An honest look at U.S. racism, and the liberal platitudes that attempt to conceal it.

As devastating as the physical destruction brought by Katrina has been, it may turn out that one of the hurricane's most enduring legacies is the way it made visible the effect of racial and class disparities on who lived and who died, who escaped early and who suffered from being left behind. Such realities have always been clear to those on the bottom of the hierarchy, of course, and to others willing to face the reality of white supremacy. But now all of white America has an opportunity to see what racialized disparities in wealth and well-being look like, in painfully raw form.

Will we take that opportunity, or turn away out of fear? Do we have the courage to face the meaning of what we have seen?

This book offers an honest and rigorous exploration of what Jensen refers to as the depraved nature of whiteness in the United States. Mixing personal experience with data and theory, Jensen faces down the difficult realities of race, racism, and white privilege. He argues that any system that denies non-white people their full humanity also keeps white people from fully accessing their own.

The Heart of Whiteness is both a cautionary tale for those who believe that they have transcended racism, and also an expression of the hope for genuine transcendence.


   "Very few white writers have been able to point out the pathological nature of white privilege and supremacy with the eloquence of Robert Jensen. In The Heart of Whiteness, Jensen demonstrates not only immense wisdom on the issue of race, but does so in the kind of direct and accessible fashion that separates him from virtually any other academic scholar, or journalist, writing on these subjects today.” –Tim Wise, author, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son

"With radical honesty, hard facts, and an abundance of insight and compassion, Robert Jensen lays out strategies for recognizing and dismantling white privilege– and helping others to do the same. This text is more than just important; it's useful. Jensen demonstrates again that he is a leading voice in the American quest for justice." – Adam Mansbach, author of Angry Black White Boy, or The Miscegenation of Macon Detornay


Robert Jensen is the author of Citizens of the Empire. He is a professor of Media Ethics and Journalism at the University of Texas, Austin."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Socialism Successes

by johnk Sunday, Oct. 09, 2005 at 9:19 AM

If you're comparing real world Socialism to real world "Capitalism" (as in, not socialism) and real world Communism, you can't say the philosophies have failed or succeeded. Is Cuba a success or failure? Depends on whether you're living in Haiti, Honduras, or Miami. Compared to the poor countries, Cuba's doing okay: people are literate and fed. There's injustice and thuggery, but, you can say the same for the two capitalist countries as well.

There's also the question of degree. Are Norway, Libya, Sweden, and Japan socialist countries? In varying degrees. They all have large social states that provide services to the people. The two oil nations of Norway and Libya redistribute their oil wealth to the people. That's very fundamentally socialist, to treat things like mineral rights as a national treasure rather than as private property.

As for successes of Anarchism... it's not like there's been many Anarchist countries. Spain was a short term victory during a series of wars against Fascism.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


$$$ I $$$ think $$$$ about $$$ nothing $$$ else $$$$

by Hex Monday, Oct. 10, 2005 at 1:14 AM

$$$ I $$$ think $$$$...
this_is_your_god.jpg, image/jpeg, 415x157

> If you're a street person (a bum) and you win the lottery then I guess you can call yourself successful (even though you haven't achieved anything).


depends on your defination of "success" and "achievement"


boxed into a narrow, shallow materialistic (biased) way perhaps, but many inventors were poor, many artists were poor yet they achieve more than a million average working stiffs (with average working stiff values) ever do.

And only the lottery (money) is equated with success, not the arts, science applied for the betterment of mankind or spiritual advancement.

then we have these narrow, shallow values applied to whole societies in selected countries - vast generalizations

when you judge the person only through the eyes of money you then see the whole world that way too - art, culture, science, religion all ignored..




> someone who has a job as a boxboy at Safeway looks like a success if his friends are all chronically unemployed derelicts. That would be Cuba.


again success is equated ONLY with money, once more seeing through only the eyes of a working stiff (see above)



> I need to buy Ann Coulter's book 'How to Talk to a Liberal, if you must.'


She's very ignorant - (narrow minded and materialistic) if you feel you have something to learn from her I feel sorry for you.

Matter of fact, I do anyway


consider who would WANT us to think in terms ONLY of money, ONLY of jobs - think outside the box

it's the capitalist that gains from this kind of thinking - if they can keep us all boxed in *worrying only about money - thinking money is all that matters* and thinking having a job equals success, while they make 850 % profit (average) off of that job and/or tax 1/3'rd of your efforts to fund the *war machine* which simply ends up in thier pockets as well (defense contractors), then we aspire nothing more than making them rich

we waste our lives and buy worthless trickets they advertise to us as their version of success and happyness - that they *also* make huge profits off of...


think outside their box - and think for yourself

don't buy a materialist's book and dumb down further, study higher learning and smarten up



Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy