No Government... Then What?

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

the biggest myth is that leaders brought us peace and that money brought us freedom, it was human endevour that did that, we also form society, would you trust a marketer who used nazi propagandha methods or will u get wise recognise orgnanise and use u're hands and feet and wat u know to 'fight' for all and not just for you

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

This is a very good topic. It has often struck me how little people who claim to be anarchists know of their own history. Yeah sure we all got to start out somewhere but looking back can show us where things went wrong, and indeed when they went right.

Although anarchist ideas can be traced back to the Greek City States at the birth of Western Civilization or to Lau Tzu in ancient China, what we know as anarchism came as a response to socialism's failure to address the industrial revolution and the vast destruction it was causing.

We can look to William Godwin but Pierre Proudhon's idea's of mutualism and Bakunin's collectivism paved the way for the anarchist-communism of Kropotkin and Malatesta. This is where anarchism begins proper, and anarchist-communism is the most popular theory among anarchists in general. But the thing about it is that far from being a utopian daydream anarchist-communism was proven to work in the field - with the Makhnovistas in the Ukraine in 1921, on the large scale involving millions of people in Spain 1936-39. We might also look at the worker's uprising in Hungary in 1956 or even the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico today. All of these areas are worth looking at it if you want to find out not just about anarchist ideals but where they might be going wrong.

One poster talked about militias - this will be a necessity. If there is a revolution the State will try to crush it throwing its various henchmen (cops, soldiers) at it. Workers will need to defend themselves against this might. Indeed where a revolution succeeds in one particular place it will have to respond to those States still under the jackboot of capitalism or state communism. People will need to learn to defend themselves. But examples of this can be seen from Nestor Makhno's writings or from the workers militia's of Spain such as the Durutti Column.

Central to anarchism is the removal of ALL leadership as we know it, effectively the complete removal of party politics. THis leaves people to decide how they want to run things in ALL aspects of their lives. Direct democracy allows everyone a say in how things are run. THis may even include the establishment of governing bodies, say in charge of the distribution of food or the allocation of property. But such bodies would have been appointed by the people, given a job to do by the people and if they don't do it within an established time then they are recallable. This is bottom-up organisation as opposed to top-down hierarchy. Workers in a factory might elect their own boss for example, someone good at co-ordination. The difference is that people control everything and all appointees are instantly recallable.

If you look at the anarchist collectives in Spain, villages came together and pooled their efforts in the production of food and goods - making what people actually need - they expropriated lands but importantly anyone who was not in agreement was given a small piece of land to provide for themselves. WE need to remember that people have many different ideas and experiences - there is no one size fits all!

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

This is historical and we are in a diff time and great lessons can be also learnt from mistakes. We need the people, we need each other, and what will militias become, its shown not to work or they should be made up by all. If not, it gets crushed and can be used to say, 'see they are violent we must crush them', which is NOT we're about at all, so why not use the premise of party bolitix to create a mandate following the anarchist line, corporations to great writers have sung its praises and that the people can agree on, cause not seen not heard and you need to cross peole over. When you speak to most, people agree with the basic principles if you don't use strong! language, they are already scared to bejseus by the other side, show some goodwill and the goodwill shall follow.

The more sympathiser's the better and it will make the racists... etc stand out for the enemies off all peoples everywhere they are, I also do not aim to shoot em all, thats ignorant.

We need something different cause so far rightly, we ain't done shit on the bigger scale but we got the goods, the people, nearly everyone else is also willing to work With us as many have broken down the old twisted by media 'perception' of us being combatants to the hilt which we are not, i'm willing to work for a just world but we gotta get wise be in the now and recognise.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

I'm sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean?

But this:

"so why not use the premise of party bolitix to create a mandate following the anarchist line"

that's not anarchism, it's Marxism - anarchists don't accept political parties of ANY kind. It's condescending to sugest that people need leadership as if they were incapable of doing it themselves. Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

I'll disagree about militias - if I understand you you're saying they are "shown not to work". By whom? I'm not talking about a few punks throwing bricks at the cops at an anti-G8 riot, I'm talking about an actual revolutionary situation where the State sends the cops and the army to break up your little pantomime. The Spanish collective formed militias to fight back against Franco and the fascists. In the anarchist vision we need to be actually organised, anything else is just wishful thinking. Yes, they should be "made up by all" too!

I think all of us want to see a better world but I think if you're serious about it then you need to look hard at the actual organisation that may be involved. Largely this involves agitation in the workplace and encouraging industrial action - radicalisng workers, creating strikes and wildcat action - not to create better conditions but to completely remove the need for the State.

Somebody mentioned Parcicipatory economics - this is a much more pro-worker system and is an interesting development but it doesn't challenge capitalism at the end of the day.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

Community leaders representing small communities, with regular gatherings to iron out any differences.

No land ownership.

Free housing.

A requirement that all able bodied/able minded people contribute to the society in whatever way they can.

An emphasis on farming and cottage industries to supply local communities with essentials...again EVERYONE must be involved, and prepared to do whatever work is required, when it's required.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

thanks back to front but i think we need to change our lines, remember 'state' communists fought us back in the day but alot of uninoists now agree on the power structure but we will always face disagreement so we have to be maleable for peace. we would only be towing the party bolotix line under an anarchist mandate to give a 'political' mandate to the people, not touching it at all is folly in our time, i'm not saying we should be like them at all but theres 6 billion people in the world, no leaders! as nothings changed, its come full circle NO! haha as those against u aren't your friends and we are for all, we have to show goodwill, we need to come down off our high horse, of history, lets make history.

and thankyou your post was awesome cheers yall

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

Karl Marx suggested that workers needed a revolutionary party with a revolutionary mandate. Bakunin countered that Marx would only replace one State with a new State and the same old problems would occur. Marxists still argue about the need for a revolutionary party, a political mandate to use your words, but if you look at the places which followed this line you'll notice that they all turned into disctatorships - USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba etc - Bakunuin is right you can't have a revolutionary party take power, there's no such thing as temporary dictatorship. The Russian Revolution was originally led by anarchists but they made the crucial mistake of allying with the Bolsheviks who pretended to push for workers councils when all they wanted was state power.

Anarchists have long argued that people themselves must take responsability for running their own lives. We don't need another party or another beurocrat to tell us how precisely because these are the things that have kept us in chains for millenia. We have a new world in our hearts, a world where there are no parties representing narrow economic interests. When you suggest "not touching it is folly in our time" you are towing the Marxist line, you are inevitably promoting the same agenda that you seek to destroy.

Don't get me wrong, I think anarchism needs a good kick up the arse and I think it's easy to disapear into pseudo-intellectual arguements which bore people to death by their inability to actually mean anything tangible but I don't accept, and never will, that we need someone to take us by the hand and lead us up the garden path.

If you look at the DiY ethic, it's not just about making our own records and zines but controlling every part of our lives. We have been denied this - it's a constant insult that people who never meet us, nor could care less about us, make decsions that afect our lives. Why do we let them get away with it?

Our spoonfed society has taught us and manipulated us into a society of dependence. This is something we need to seriously address. The State does not supply us, workers do. The State simply profits from the labour of everyone else. But there's still this need that we need 'better' leaders or 'revolutionary leaders' - we don't ,we never did, we only need ourselves.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

anarchists don't have 'leaders' so a mandate rules, not individuals, BIG differance, and previously all else has failed in the end but the idea is the best! there is which is why its so often coopted and twisted, so why not be maleable with sympathisers as we claim to be or we'll be here typing when we're 80 and yes the people should control their own lives, most people would agree but they've also had years of brainwashing so what ya gonna do bash em over the head huha, wait for bush 3 or the river to die, people power it is then under an anarchist mandate, we have to bite some! bullets or we're a bunch of individuals telling everyone else how it should be, ummm

there are no 'anarchists', just people.

our society has also played on anarchists original individulism and turned it on its head to mean competitiveness and selfishness, 'do what ya want, well the industrialists(capitalists) think the same thing and their ideology literally leads to murder.

agreed on last paragraph but ya gotta start somewhere or ya nowhere at all.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

"A mandate, not individuals, BIG difference"

- indeed!

But you can keep your Maxism.

Anarchists don't have a mandate. Anarchists are against voting and getting a mandate to justify what they already know in their hearts.

Really - it's a fundamental concept of anarchism. That's why I was saying earlier if you want to talk about what would happen without government, you might look at anarchism in the past. But if you want to say 'things never change,' well it's precisely because people keep telling us we need leaders or mandates. We need neither. Only ourselves.
All the best

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

anarchists are not against 'voting', voting doesn't mean party bolotix, take language back too, you sit in a committee and vote for someone who wil suit the job that needs doing until the torch is passed but there is no set time and mandate says it can be redecided on and not impunitive if the actions are being carried out and meaning no need for dismissal or personal issues or sle you do get LEADERS telling evey1 else wat to do, then argument, then divisiveness, then failure, i don't deal with utopia, i aim for it by dealing with realities.

if you want o change the word, anachism itself perse is a mandate or wat you may call laws, if you want to be just an individulist doing actions here and there, sweetas but it won't chnge the big pictures, which is what its about, a leader can also mean diff things, if someones good at fixxing a bike, they;re aleader in fields , what you don't do is give them powere but ask them to pass on the knowledge, education is also free.

chicago riots: and yes we have learnt the lessons, have u learnt capitalisms lessons, been involved in it long enough.

marx had some good ideas but i ain't no marxist i am an anarchist and sometimes the means do meet the ends, call me an agnostic anarchist, might as well use the wrong words all over haha, chomsky shuda taught ya someit even if disagree with him, oh and i'm not a chomskiest eives, i like ya steez.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

Hey maybe I've taken you up wrong. Maybe English isn't your first language and I'm misunderstanding you? In which case that's my fault. A 'mandate' is a word usually associated with party politics, when an electorate votes for a politician to represent them the politician has 'a mandate' but yes if we stop tripping up over words, anarchists could vote for a representative (though NOT in the way the current system operates and hence my tone). Marx said that a revolution would come by people voting for a revolutionary party. It will come by people taking control, not by voting for somebody, That's all I mean,

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

agreed, naa my thoughts just race ahead of my hands if ya know what i mean, cheers.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

no govenment....then we all somehow stop anybody else trying to replace it(i mean all not just a few because that would give us too much power)
cos that'd be what'd happen..there'd allways be someone to try and occupy a vacant seat of power.
i think it's essential that one of the basic guidelines where to be accept no person who wants power..
hm that gives rise to a question...could it be considered anarchy if people freely decide they want a leader....i think yes until they intronize said leader then it's democracy

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

'Power to the one who doesn't want it' - Clawfinger

I don't know, I think it COULD potentially work, but free association would be an issue, as soon as said leader decides he is the only one you're allowed to follow... well that'd fuck up the anarchy quite a bit, no?

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

well if the appointed leader decides that he is the only one you're allowed to follow, then get rid of that person. like oibobbo said, one of the main basic guidelines is to prevent any person from obtaining power over others.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

I think that if the government eventually collapsed the most sensible thing to do would be to use all currently capitalist establishments for what they were intended for just without the capitalism. For example... you find an empty factory, you gather the required amount of anarchists needed to operate such factory and then instead of exchanging goods for currency you exchange goods for goods as the only fair payment for labour is the raw fruits of said labour. This would encourage a more social attitude to trade as different collectives of anarchist "factories" would have to network to be able to gain items essential to living. A pair of boots for some bread sounds good to me. Obviously this would never work without acceptance or a mutual desire for an international peaceful community. But then again there is always going to be at least one greedy fucker who wants everything.

 

Re: NO GOVERNEMNT... Then What?

To me another important aspect of anarchism is free association, I can move freely from one organisation to another without anyone holding me back. The actual effect of me leaving one organisation would be something to consider, but anyway. If said organisation wanted someone as a representative or spokesperson, for instance, that's actually kind of the way that modern democracy is supposed to work, but due to the fact that I or anyone else can leave at any given moment that would undermine said modern system of democracy, thus eliminating the position of power the spokesperson or representative is in.... uhm yeah, hope that clears my idea up a bit anyway.