My name's Mark; I'm sixteen. Although I love anarchist music and the concept itself, I don't label myself as an anarchist. This site just seemed really interesting, so I joined with the hope of being with like-minded people and getting some questions that I have about anarchism answered. As for my other beliefs, I am. . . Nihilist Atheist Anti-theist Anti-racist Anti-sexist Anti-xenophobic Anti-capital punishment Anti-authoritarian Anti-war Anti-nationalist Pro-choice Pro-separation of church and state Pro-euthanasia Pro-gay rights Unlike some other political-oriented forums that I've joined, I doubt I'm the only person here with those beliefs, so I hope to meet people of the same mind here.
Welcome to APN Mark and please bare with us while we iron out the recent kinks and bugs on the forum...we've been operating for years without problems and are just going through some growing pains...
My View on Anarchism This is how I view anarchism: Anarchism in theory is good because it's the only ideology (that I know of) that implicitly grants complete freedom to everyone, but anarchism in practice would ineluctably fail. It sort of hurts me to say this because I'm always the first one to say fuck the government, fuck authority, fuck this, fuck that, but it's what makes most sense to me: you need to have some kind of governing body to have a civilized society. The primary reason why that is true is because humans are innately irresponsible. Everybody has, at least, a modicum of wickedness, an iota of iniquity, a little bit of evil, and, in most cases, that all culminates in the absence of authority. The result of an anarchist society would be total chaos. If we lived in an anarchist society, somebody would realize, "Hey, people are killing each other; we need laws that say that's a no-no. Hey, we're hungry; we need food. Hey, we can't get to the places that we wanna get to; we need infrastructure. Hey, we don't have access to certain necessary resources; we need diplomatic ties." Then, some person or group or entity would rise up and say, "We'll make the fuckin' laws. You go build a fuckin' road. You go open a fuckin' grocery store. You go create fuckin' diplomatic ties with another region of the world," and it would start to morph into an organized society and would therefore no longer be an anarchist society. Anarchy is just the transitional stage between one form of government and another. If we lived under a dictatorship, and we didn't like that, we would overthrow the government, have a brief period of anarchy, and then, another form of government would inevitably emerge. Anarchy has never and will never exist as a permanent societal state (at least on a large scale); it has always acted as a temporary societal state and always will. I would love to live in anarchist society. I know how to behave myself, and I wouldn't be running around fucking shit up, but I can't say that for others, and because of that and the other aforementioned reasons, I view anarchism as just a nice thought, nothing more. Am I wrong? If so, where is my reasoning flawed? Thanks. - Mark
Re: My View on Anarchism If you can behave yourself, everyone else can. If not, he needs help, and the ones who can behave should offer them help. Name some evil things that people would do in anarcho-society ? Murder ? For what ? Steal ? For what ? Lie ? For what ? Destroy ? For what ? Make laws ? For whom ? You're talking about people with some sort of mental problems, as I see it. And yes, it represent a problem, and I think many anarchists conflict about these things, though I'm sure every organization would handle them. I see you as a pessimist, not necessarily wrong. I was never a fan of reading, but I would recommand you some. ( Anarchism : From Theory to Practise : http://zinelibrary.info/anarchism-theory-practice ; never read the whole book, just part of it but I like it though. Not sure if it's what you need but..give it a shoot) Don't lose hope, don't lose sense of humanity and - do something ! :anarchism:
Re: My View on Anarchism Not to mention some examples of real anarhist movement like Chiapas, Spanish Civil War, Paris commune.... Sorry, I'm not able to edit my own post due to server problems
Re: My View on Anarchism I'd be absolutely convinced that anarchy is the way to go if you could give me an example of a long-lasting anarchist society (on a large scale) in which everything ran smoothly.
Re: My View on Anarchism Define long-lasting. There are no, and you should know the answer why. You can't make anarchy in a world full of capitalist / dictatorship systems. But if revoltuion comes, I think there will be 'chain-reaction' in every other country.
Re: My View on Anarchism All I'm saying is that it seems to good to be true to live in a completely anarchist society in which everyone lives in peace and harmony; it doesn't seem realistic to me in the least bit. If there was a chain-reaction of anarchist revolutions, how long would those anarchist societies last?
Re: My View on Anarchism there's no cure for cancer at the moment, doesn't mean it wouldn't be desirable....
Who told you that? You must breath and eat and (I hope so) interact with your social enviroment - anarchism won't change that, it just shows you how to deal with your personal freedom: No gods, no masters... but the fucking responsibility to keep it that way and live amongst the others as one amongst equals, working for their living - paradise is a christian superstition... Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins - if they respect your freedom. What are you actually doing - xcept to say fuck...? As long as you think this way, your're the perfect slave - you need to be ruled over, because you still refuse to take the responsibility for yourself. As Bakica said: Mutual help to make things easier and more interesting for everybody, solidarity, even love sometimes? Humans aren't monsters, our species is 260.000 years old - how should we have made it so far without natural qualities enough to get things right? What would happen if nobody would listen to the fuckin' laws or the you go...? To be ruled over is a two-sided agreement simply unnecessary if one rules her/himself, again: No gods, no masters... Again, what are you doing? & How many "others" do you really know?
My request still stands; give me an example of anarchy working on a large-scale for a long time. If you can't, then I just see anarchy as a nice thought.
Re: My View on Anarchism The Chiapas situation is kinda complex, its kinda semi-autonomous. There are some Zapatista communities in Chiapas, some aren't. But yeah, the Spanish Civil War, Paris Commune, Makhnovists in Ukraine, Zapatistas are examples of fleeting or limited anarchist/ic communities, amongst countless others. The 'failure' of these communities (with the exception of the EZLN, still going strong since 1994...) is due to the violent suppression by organised counter-revolutionary forces, be they Capitalist, Fascist, Marxist-Leninist, etc, etc. Thus the point is not to say that 'anarchism is doomed to fail' and resign ourselves to living under systems of governance founded on, and maintained by, violence. Rather it is to say, if anarchism is both possible and desirable, then how do we defend it against counter-revolution?
And that would be entirely your right, however as anarchists, we have never been in the business of recruiting converts. Every single anarchist uprising in history and the present has been completely autonomous, we are not the Catholic church trying to convince you that our way is the only way and otherwise you are doomed to hellfire as opposed to 'paradise'. Your 'request' for immediate answers and instant satisfaction is something you should search out and study at your own pace and understanding. We will still carry a new world where many little worlds fit in our hearts.... Also this implies that you are for a State, which is in direct conflict with 'Nihilism' and 'Anti-authoritarianism'
How large of a scale are we talking? Because I would consider Christiania, Denmark quite self sufficient, 'successful' and autonomous.
Just because I want a separation of church and state doesn't mean that I want a state. It could just mean that I've realized that there will always be a state and that I don't want religion part of it.
I had Christiania in mind too, but KUS asked for a large-scale example Societies have gotten by without strict forms of government before, But we've yet to see a large scale, long lasting society in which anarchism is prominent and recognized by all One ought not to think that something which hasn't happened in the past, can't happen in the future
I can accept that tiny areas like Christiania that have 850 residents living on eighty-five acres can survive as autonomous, but a large-scale totally anarchist society in which everyone lives in peace and harmony just seems way too far-fetched to me.
You state: Do you realise that there hasn't always been a state? The modern Nation State is a relatively new phenomenon (I live in Australia, for example, its only been a state since 1901), as is Global Capital. Yr conclusion that an anarchist society is too far fetched relies upon the dominant ideological discourse of the State & Capitalism's permanency. Such discourse, of the State's continued existence ad infinitum, is, historically speaking, far more far-fetched than believing that something, at some point, will replace our current social relationships (State and Capital mediation), although whether that something is anarchism is contested. Were you to inform a Medieval European Monarch that their regime (as an expression of their God Given Right To Rule) would be overthrown by a bunch of merchants and factory owners, the response you may have received would probably be two-fold: 1. 'What's a factory?' 2. 'Bullshit'.
