What is Anarchy?

Denerick

They're probably collective anarchists. Man seriously. You people need to read more.

We've read plenty. The problem is that while you're still stuck on Bakunin, we've moved on to Locke and Rousseau.

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

We've read plenty. The problem is that while you're still stuck on Bakunin, we've moved on to Locke and Rousseau.

How rude of you.

I am not a Russian revolutionary. I dont see a point in debating with you if you arent going to be civil. I base my beliefs on experience and rational though. I started off with classical liberalism and moved on from there. I wouldnt even quote Bakunin or recommend him to anyone. The revolution failed and as I have presented links to books, I would prefer to copy successful models.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

They're probably collective anarchists. Man seriously. You people need to read more.

Some are. In my own experience, sheltered kids from public sector backgrounds lean towards anarcho-socialism, sheltered kids from wealthy private sector backgrounds lean the other way. I disregard both from my social-democratic ivory tower.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm a big punk fan. Seen Pistols a few times. Saw them first when I was knee high.

Lucky bollocks. I'd love to have seen Rotten live. The rest aren't really worth bothering with. Never Mind the Bollocks had a couple of good songs and was mostly filler IMHO. That said, God Save the Queen is a masterpiece.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't have much time for anarchy myself (be it anarcho-socialism or anarcho-capitalism), so I'm really not the best source of info. Squatting is fairly common in the scene anyway. There were a few squats on my street when I was a kid, loads of mohawks and stuff hanging around smoking dope and flying pirate flags out of the window. Eventually the cops came and kicked everyone out and bricked up the doors and windows.
A few of my friends live in squats in England and it's not the sort of life I'd choose. One of them left his squat for a week to visit Ireland and when he came back, someone else had taken over the room in the squatting complex. Too unstable for my liking.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Free market libertarians. (I have a rough idea of your definition of libertarianism so I wouldn't try to mislead you there)
I know a few left-libertarians (mostly in the punk cene) but these are less prevalent than free market libertarians in my experience.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Some are. In my own experience, sheltered kids from public sector backgrounds lean towards anarcho-socialism, sheltered kids from wealthy private sector backgrounds lean the other way. I disregard both from my social-democratic ivory tower.

What about those from mildly decent working class backgrounds that have been reject by the system everytime they go for their "entitlements"?

Your comment looks a tad ridiculous when you look at the backgrounds actual anarcho-capitalists come from.

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

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

What about those from mildly decent working class backgrounds that have been reject by the system everytime they go for their "entitlements"?

Can you prove that these exist in numbers? Or even that the represent a significant minority?

Hazlittle wrote: »

Your comment looks a tad ridiculous when you look at the backgrounds actual anarcho-capitalists come from.

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

Seriously?
You give one example and use the plural for the background of anarcho-capitalists. You'll need to do better than that.

There is no mention there of his background (except that he went to Columbia)

On another note,
I always liked this little cartoon;

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Can you prove that these exist in numbers? Or even that the represent a significant minority?

You didnt present any stats nor shall I. I was talking about myself anyway.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Seriously?
You give one example and use the plural for the background of anarcho-capitalists. You'll need to do better than that.

There is no mention there of his background (except that he went to Columbia)

On another note,
I always liked this little cartoon;

I gave reference to the person that invented the phrase anarcho-capitalism. The other famous Austrian economists like Mises and Schumpeter didnt come from rich backgrounds.

You're just trolling now.

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I always liked this little cartoon;

It's a funny cartoon, I guess, but I don't like the misconception that libertarians come from privileged backgrounds. My father is a primary school teacher; my mother was always a housewife. I don't think that that's at all privileged, or as rich as many detractors would like it to be. Personal liberty ideals don't appeal to me because I'm well-off (I'm a student with no job, in fact). They probably appeal to me because I consider myself responsible and strong enough to stand up for myself. You could equally criticise that kind of motivation too, of course. I have been told that my political beliefs fail to take account of the way other people are, which is fair enough I suppose.

wiseguy

I would consider myself to be Libertarian.
I came from a very poor background,
If anything it made me work harder, appreciate my education and gave me the will to move up in the world, something that leftie socialists would have no concept of, since the path forward is to take from the more successfull and to hand it over to the more lazy, killing the will to innovate and work harder.

To answer the opening post, Anarchy is paintbrush for socialists sitting in their ivory towers to paint Libertartians with. Every thread on Libertarianism on this forum seems to be hijacked by a few insisting on deliberately confusing it with Anarchy.

PS: “Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” - Thomas Sowell quotes (American Writer and Economist, b.1930)

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's a funny cartoon, I guess, but I don't like the misconception that libertarians come from privileged backgrounds. My father is a primary school teacher; my mother was always a housewife. I don't think that that's at all privileged, or as rich as many detractors would like it to be. Personal liberty ideals don't appeal to me because I'm well-off (I'm a student with no job, in fact). They probably appeal to me because I consider myself responsible and strong enough to stand up for myself. You could equally criticise that kind of motivation too, of course. I have been told that my political beliefs fail to take account of the way other people are, which is fair enough I suppose.

I don't think libertarianism necessarily equates to being from a well-off background. I do however, think that there is something about sheltered wealthy backgrounds which seems to encourage a sort of extremism and clinging to unworkable ideals (like anarchism). I wouldn't put libertarianism in the same category.
Libertarianism I would fundamentally disagree with, but can see some merits in it's defense of personal liberty and promotion of entrepreneurship. They at least recognise the necessity of the state in things like defence and policing.
Anarchy does not and I would view it as overly idealistic and utopian.

wiseguy wrote: »

I would consider myself to be Libertarian.
I came from a very poor background,
If anything it made me work harder, appreciate my education and gave me the will to move up in the world, something that leftie socialists would have no concept of, since the path forward is to take from the more successfull and to hand it over to the more lazy, killing the will to innovate and work harder.

I would be lying if I said I came from a poor background but I certainly do not come from wealth, both of my parents work part time and have 4 kids to look after. Luckily, due to the Irish welfare state, I want for little. I attend the nearest university to my house, benefit from a tax funded education and healthcare and work part time to fund my way through college. It's a comfortable life and I recognise that it would not be possible (or made much more difficult) under a libertarian system. It shows that me, a fairly typical young person, can succeed and be given a leg-up and safetey-net, without stifling drive or independance.
I know a fair few libertarians (as well as socialists) and both groups tend to lie about their family background in order to appear from poorer backgrounds than they are (the libertarians to attempt to make it seem like they are self-made, the socialists to show their working-class credentials) I'm not saying you are though. Merely something I have noticed so feel free to disregard this as anecdotal.
Likewise, my father would broadly share my political beliefs while coming from a poor rural background himself (his father was a taxi driver and his mother worked in a chicken farm, thanks to governmental grants, he was able to attend university and study economics, Irish and history as well as going onto recieve an MA and PHD)

wiseguy wrote: »

To answer the opening post, Anarchy is paintbrush for socialists sitting in their ivory towers to paint Libertartians with. Every thread on Libertarianism on this forum seems to be hijacked by a few insisting on deliberately confusing it with Anarchy.

Then you would be wrong. This thread clearly shows that anarchists exist and differ from libertarians.

wiseguy wrote: »

PS: “Most people who read "The Communist Manifesto" probably have no idea that it was written by a couple of young men who had never worked a day in their lives, and who nevertheless spoke boldly in the name of "the workers".” - Thomas Sowell quotes (American Writer and Economist, b.1930)

I'm not a communist but that's completely untrue. Marx was a writer and a journalist (with a PHD) if my memory serves me correctly. Unless you would see them as not real jobs.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

You didnt present any stats nor shall I. I was talking about myself anyway.

I didn't present stats as you need a definite statement to provide facts for; "George Bush is not a heroin addict" "God does not exist" "Working class people are not mostly anarchists"
All are things that are to be assumed false unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. But fair enough if you were referring to yourself.

By the way, I tend to be automatically suspicious when persons refer to themselves as working class.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I gave reference to the person that invented the phrase anarcho-capitalism. The other famous Austrian economists like Mises and Schumpeter didnt come from rich backgrounds.

You're just trolling now.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't Von Mises from a fairly wealthy family? One of Rothbard's parents was a chemist (not really a sign of poverty) Also, were'nt all three academics? I'm sure you would agree that academics are fairly notorious for being locked away in ivory towers.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I didn't present stats as you need a definite statement to provide facts for; "George Bush is not a heroin addict" "God does not exist" "Working class people are not mostly anarchists"
All are things that are to be assumed false unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. But fair enough if you were referring to yourself.

By the way, I tend to be automatically suspicious when persons refer to themselves as working class.




You're just trolling now.

Wasn't Von Mises from a fairly wealthy family? One of Rothbard's parents was a chemist (not really a sign of poverty) Also, were'nt all three academics? I'm sure you would agree that academics are fairly notorious for being locked away in ivory towers.[/QUOTE]


I dont base my opinions on notions.

You first claimed anarcho-capitalists usually come from privileged backgrounds with no supporting evidence. Rothbard came from the Bronx anway.

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CCCP

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There's a few anarchy advocates in my university. Only one of whom I can concievably see surviving in an anarchist society. All are the kids of highly paid public sector workers.
The irony never ceases to amaze me.

Amazing idiots, and in a uni that would never exist if anarchy reigned (or didnt reign, whatever way you look at it)

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont base my opinions on notions.

What do you base them on then?

Hazlittle wrote: »

You first claimed anarcho-capitalists usually come from privileged backgrounds with no supporting evidence. Rothbard came from the Bronx anway.

Oh, I don't mean the founders. The founders of Labour Parties were from extremely tough backgrounds, whereas nowadays they attract numerous middle class voters. However, your examples of anarcho-capitalists certainly don't seem to come from hardscrabble childhoods.
Also, the Bronx in the 20s is a very poor example. It was a respectable neighborhood at the time, like many regions in the US, it hasn't always been a slum.
My grandfather was born in the US and he had a fair few relatives from the Bronx, none of whom were poor. It was a different place back in the 20s and 30s and was a fairly important commercial area.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

How's about you give a good example of a working anarchist system?
I've seen you try to use Gaelic Ireland as an example of a working anarchist system. I refuted this and you didn't respond so forgive me if I am somewhat suspicious of a pie-in-the-sky, idealistic idea which goes against human nature.
Seriously now; in the abscence of a police force, what happens to someone who is unable to afford a private defence company? You claim that in the wild west, you had to avoid doing things that would make people want to shoot you but don't be so naive. What if my being Irish, tall, tattooed, Catholic or whatever causes someone to want to shoot me?
I know you'll probably come out with some utopian idea like "Noone would hire a company that killed people arbitrarily" which avoids things like the Mob or militias as we see in places like Somalia.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

Liberal democracy works extremely well. It's current system is a trainwreck after decades of cronyism, corruption and privatised gain/socialised losses. This does not mean that all forms of social/liberal democracy are bad.

Funnily enough, the last time I heard the phrase "Our current system works so well" was by a fascist lad I worked with who was advocating a dictatorship.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm dealing with someone that makes daft statements like "anarchy isnt workable" Man lasted longer without governments. On this thread, this bloody thread I know you have read, you have been given workable anarchist systems. Why dont you even try to make any attempt to research a topic before you comment on it? Like hundredths of examples on anarchist systems. You mightnt like those societies but they still functioned. Some for hundrethd of years.

Cause socialism and the current nameless system has work so well?

There have been no workable anarchist systems. In fact you haven't addressed how it was that every human society has inevitably decided to embrace government as their state of nature.

Hobbes had it all figured out, so long ago. We need to sacrifice some liberty for personal safety. The world has had enough experiments in political utopianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sensibleken

kickoutthejams wrote: »

To give the Sex Pistols their due, the only one who advocated anarchy in any actual way was Johnny Rotten, and he was from an extremely poor background himself.
The Sex Pistols aren't really seen as proper anarchists in the anarcho-punk scene anyway.

I spent a lot of time hanging out with anarcho punks and the hipocracy was astounding. I used to get into regular arguements about it. Such as how could they be anarchists and draw the dole at the same time. I did and still do admire the culture of squating and DIY that said

It seems to me from nearly every anarchist ive met that the idea has sprung from a complete lack of trust in government, understandable, but also an opertunism to take benifits if they can without questioning where it comes from. I must point out this was during the boom years when jobs were plentiful.

Denerick

Where did I pass a value judgement? I just made the statement that there have been no workable anarchist systems. Whether people genuinely believe it is plausible is another matter - I tend to think that they'll grow out of such delusions when they get older and stop getting the free education the State so egregiously forced upon them for a tiny registration fee.

sensibleken

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If they're anarcho capitalists maybe. But a lot of anarchists (the non capitalists types) reject private property.

The squaters I've known I have had a lot of respect for. They would find an abandoned property, usually in an advanced state of disrepair, move in, repair floors, ceilings etc and basically make it habitable.

rent in dublin at the time was astronomic and they found a way around it. fair play to them. The owners of these places had let places rotting, quite often in desirable locations such as leeson street and rathmines. Whats the point in having empty buildings when so many people were looking for somewhere to live they thought.

Another example was I was recently in leeds helping out on a squat of an old victorian school. It was a beautiful building in a very deprived area that has a lot of problems, some of the 7/7 bombers were from there.

It was being cleared out and done up to open as a community centre. but the local councilers wanted the building demolished and redeveloped into apartments, a completely mad decision. sufice to say the council one and several of the 'leaders' got sent down.

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I heard the exact same argument above, but used by Joe Higgins in a defence of socialism.

wiseguy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I heard the exact same argument above, but used by Joe Higgins in a defence of socialism.

Yet you continue to insist that socialism is given yet another "chance"

Anarchy is not a system, its a lack of one, see the very definition of the word

To expect something of "anarchy" is like expecting an atheist group to go to church on Sunday mass.

Anyway's wikipedia has a lot of definitions:

"Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"No rulership or enforced authority."[1]
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder.) But is bound by a social code ."[2]
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[3]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." [5]

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


Tho' it seems once again that certain posters are deliberately trying to equate Libertarianism with Anarchy in order to polish their "ivory tower" or some other weird reason?

Eliot Rosewater

I'd be interested to hear about how anarchy, in the socialist sense, is freedom from authority. Even in theory, the phrase "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is inherently coercive. There is no way for a regular joe soap to go off and do what he wants to do, inevitably the "community" will vote to force him into working at something they want to do.

The more I think about socialism the more utterly preposterous is seems to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Seriously now; in the abscence of a police force, what happens to someone who is unable to afford a private defence company? You claim that in the wild west, you had to avoid doing things that would make people want to shoot you but don't be so naive. What if my being Irish, tall, tattooed, Catholic or whatever causes someone to want to shoot me?

In Ireland people worked on peoples land to earn protection.

I already posted a link to a PDF on a detailed report on the wild west. People are prone to cooperate when they see it as profitable. Democracy doesnt prevent racism either.

CCCP

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see your point, would that include communism?
Ive been to Ukraine many times and asked many people over 40 the same question : Was life better or worse for you and your family in Soviet union? the answer is always the same, life was much better in soviet Ukraine then it is now in post soviet "capitalist" Ukraine. everyone had a job, and a home, and money, life was hard, but lifes hard anyway, at least it was a functioning and working system . Not the best but it did function. Inside corruption was the downfall, as it always is in any system including our own.

from an evolutionary and biological point of view, the idea the human beings do not need a society with rules is preposterous . It's a proven fact (check it out yourselves) that the homo-sapiens survived because of teamwork, a social system and the exchange of ideas. The neanderthals however , despite being better at making tools and have better "technology" so to speak, died out as they failed to form a social system, instead living in isolated groups that didnt strive to work together at all.

The result, when times got hard (ice age) we survived and they didn't. Anarchy is absolutely stupid as an idea and not worth entertaining in my opinion.

can Anarchy even be compared to socialism , communism, and capitalism as a political system?

sensibleken

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear about how anarchy, in the socialist sense, is freedom from authority. Even in theory, the phrase "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" is inherently coercive. There is no way for a regular joe soap to go off and do what he wants to do, inevitably the "community" will vote to force him into working at something they want to do.

The more I think about socialism the more utterly preposterous is seems to me.

what is anarchy in the socialist sense? I would consider myself a socialist and regard anarchy as the complete opposite of it. Socialism involves more state control and regulation of basic services. Anarchy is the opposite

Denerick

CCCP wrote: »

I see your point, would that include communism?
Ive been to Ukraine many times and asked many people over 40 the same question : Was life better or worse for you and your family in Soviet union? the answer is always the same, life was much better in soviet Ukraine then it is now in post soviet "capitalist" Ukraine. everyone had a job, and a home, and money, life was hard, but lifes hard anyway, at least it was a functioning and working system . Not the best but it did function. Inside corruption was the downfall, as it always is in any system including our own.

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt political systems that has emerged from the Soviet Union. They do not have a free market - they have crony capitalism. The differences are vast. Organised crime is rife in Ukraine and it permeates every segment of the political, business and legal world.

CCCP

Denerick wrote: »

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt political systems that has emerged from the Soviet Union. They do not have a free market - they have crony capitalism. The differences are vast. Organised crime is rife in Ukraine and it permeates every segment of the political, business and legal world.

your absolutely right, but croney capitalism is not indigenous to ukraine, we've seen examples of it in Ireland ,USA an UK.

Although I'm not saying it's a better system, my point was that communism did function as anarchy never could.
Anarchy can't ever be anything but an idea, and a slogan for the fantasy prone.

Denerick

CCCP wrote: »

your absolutely right, but croney capitalism is not indigenous to ukraine, we've seen examples of it in Ireland ,USA an UK.

My point was that communism did function.

LOL! My point is that Ukraine cannot be compared to Ireland, the US, or the UK. In fact, making such a comparison displays a mind incapable of distinguishing between subtleties.

Communism didn't function, if it did, it wouldn't have collapsed under its own weight and millions of people wouldn't have died for daring to speak out against a tremendously unjust system.