Anarchists...

[Velociryx]

Not in 100% agreement with you there, but I think your principle is sound.

Capitalism is, IMO an invention to express the human desire for control. In the abstract, "buying stuff" is exerting control over various aspects of your day to day life...structuring "your place" how you want it, and such.

Control IS an inherently human trait...the desire for it, I mean. It's the root of all power.

For groups to deny that in themselves is...silly. It would be like me going outside naked in the Alaskan winter, swearing up and down to everybody that it wasn't cold outside, all the while my appendages are turning blue and freezing off.

Yeah...that's convincing.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Here’s an interesting one. Osweld’s post got me thinking….there’s just something about the words: “anarchist’s ideology” that sounds cool together, you know? Fun pair of words to say together, so I figured I’d amuse myself further with the whole notion.

Having discerned that an anarchist (see above definition), is one who practices anarchy, I re-visited Webster….

Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

Ideology
1 : visionary theorizing

2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

What’s interesting to me here is the way the two words above stand in opposition to each other.

In order for a code of thought to be considered an “ideology”, it must have systematic (orderly) conceptualizations of society, which stands at the polar opposite of the anarchist’s “beliefs.” Thus, there can be no such thing as an Anarchist’s Ideology, despite the fact that it’s a fun phrase to say.

-=Vel=-

[General Ludd]

And he continues this absurd, one-sided "debate".



You don't even attempt to understand what anarchism is, you just say "oh those silly anarchists, doing those silly things!" and make absurd rationalizations about how they don't really know what they believe in, or how they are 'just wrong', with out even attempting to know anything about what you are talking about.



This thread conjures images in my head of a bunch of rich, old, white guys sitting around a 19th century gentleman's club talking about the hardships of black people.

[- Groucho -]

Harumph, steady on there, Osweld old chap. Seems a bit presumptuous of you to denigrate the very institution you're currently using to communicate. After all, you're a member of this particular club.

Now, where did I put my pipe? Harumph.

[Shai-Hulud]

Capitalism is, IMO an invention to express the human desire for control. In the abstract, "buying stuff" is exerting control over various aspects of your day to day life...structuring "your place" how you want it, and such.

Capitalism is in my humble option a system that allocates resources and power in a human society by the success of an individual. A freedom of competition over limited resources in orderly society. The cornerstone of democracy and individual freedom.

Control? I think you're talking about individual's the need of sovereignty. I could agree with your opinion. I think it's just the same thing, in the end. Desire to own, desire for control.

Dictatorship is an expression of human desire for control...so it's not really particularly characteristic to capitalism alone. Only capitalism ensures the freedom of individual to "buy stuff".

[Velociryx]

Osweld, two things. First, hello again! It seems strange to be on the opposite side of an issue from you, since when I was last here regularly, we often shared similar views.

At any rate, thing two is simply this: I believe you misunderstand me. It's not that I don't care what their views are, simply that, having LOOKED on the 'net...having come to an understanding of the meaning of the words...of the language used to describe their "ideology," I have come rapidly to the conclusion that there's not much to it.

The definitions of the words themselves are pretty clear, and speak volumes about the whole notion of an "Anarchistic Ideology"

If, perhaps, you think I tweaked the definitions, by all means, hit the webster's site yourself and have a look!

Shai - Agreed....sounds like we're on the same page, even if we're approaching it using different words...

-=Vel=-

[Shai-Hulud]

And he continues this absurd, one-sided "debate".

This debate could have even more sides than two if you would define your vision of anarchism. After all, there are several different interpretations of this ideology.

[Zoid]

I have to disagree with Vel. There is an anarchist ideology with thinkers like Proudhon, Krapotkin, Bakunin and Stirner.

The "anarchists" can be roughly divided into two categories

1) The "ideological", they often move out into the countryside and start farmcollectives and stuff. They don´t really participate in the class struggle.

2) The "not-so-ideological", they often have only rudimentary or nonexistent knowledge of the classics. And some are more inspired by RAF and other urban guerillas (who isn´t really anarchists at all ) It´s basically these guys (and girls) who riot and they think that they can overthrow the capitalist system by burning a few banks and smash the windows of McDonalds They think they participate in the class struggle, but they´re not. In fact they´re hurting it


Not all anarchists is opposed to private property. Not all commies either , I like to buy stuff and I like to own stuff (books, movies, CD´s...)

[- Groucho -]

It's interesting that in your taxonomy it is the anarchists who actually know somehting about anarchism that don't participate in the class struggle. Kinda suggests something about the legitimacy of that "struggle", doesn't it?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Echinda
It's interesting that in your taxonomy it is the anarchists who actually know somehting about anarchism that don't participate in the class struggle. Kinda suggests something about the legitimacy of that "struggle", doesn't it?

Eerr, no. But it says something of the legitimacy of anarchism as an ideology

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....well, you *have* piqued my curiosity with the mention of some web-searchable names, so I shall go do some reading after I check in on my latest venture and see what their writings have to offer....

-=Vel=-

[Timexwatch]

Obviously some people forgot what they learned in comparative politics...

The definitions of the words themselves are pretty clear, and speak volumes about the whole notion of an "Anarchistic Ideology"

Just looking up the definition in the dictionary doesn't do you any good. Let me break down the political scientist's definition of ideology (roughly speaking, there's no completely agreed upon definition):

An ideology is a political term that contains several different aspects, including a view of the current social and political situation and a definite view of the future which is usually materially better than the current situation. Ideologies also give specific direction on how to make the desired situation come about. Finally, ideologies are usually presented in simple terms so that the 'masses' can understand it.

In order for a code of thought to be considered an “ideology”, it must have systematic (orderly) conceptualizations of society, which stands at the polar opposite of the anarchist’s “beliefs.” Thus, there can be no such thing as an Anarchist’s Ideology, despite the fact that it’s a fun phrase to say.

There is nothing that says that ideologies have to be orderly or that the intended result has to be orderly. Fascist ideology, for example, deserves more to be studied like theology than political science, IMHO.

If you use ideology in a political science sense, then individualist, pacifist and radical Anarchism all can be considered ideologies.

Anarchist:
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

Anarchy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER

Once again, the dictionary definition completely misses the boat. Anarchy does not equate with anarchism. Anarchists contend that people have outgrown the government and that people should govern themselves. This doesn't mean that they desire the complete absence of government, only the absence of institutional government.

Anarchism is also a cross-spectrum ideology. Leftist anarchists believe that government should be stripped down and that people, regardless of class, should contribute the most when government is least. Some, like Tolstoy, advocated passive resistance of state power an an adherence to the principals of "Christian Peace and human fraternity" (quote from one of my polisci books). Others like Bakunin emphasized a violent revolution by the lumpenproletariat that would create a society of maximum personal freedom. Only Nihilists like Sergi Nechayev sought the complete destruction of the state through violent means. Men like William Godwin and Pierre Proudhon espoused syndicalism as the solution to the intrustion of the state. Individualists like Max Stirner proclaimed the "soverignty of the individual" and for people to act without regard to society at large. Ayn Rand promoted objectivism and rugged individualism..


So, anarchism runs over both sides of the fence. It's a big ideoligy that's impossible to sum up in a simple sentence.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....well, you *have* piqued my curiosity with the mention of some web-searchable names, so I shall go do some reading after I check in on my latest venture and see what their writings have to offer....

Good, then my work here is done

[Velociryx]

Timex, interesting post!

And correct me if I'm wrong here but:

One of the key differences between us and the other monkeys is the fact that we can use *language* to communicate ideas.

In order that we can communicate effectively, is it not a pre-requisite that we have standardized meanings to words? Otherwise, how can ideas be communicated at all?

I do not deny that your words contain truths....they most assuredly do.

I take issue with the words used to describe a belief system.

Politics *implies* a group. A guy on a deserted island cannot create politics. Just doesn't happen. (well...okay, if he has multiple personalities, perhaps, but that's another topic! lol)

So...if you can't have politics without a group, then such "ideologies" as *Individualist* tho it can be a personal ideology, cannot very well be a political ideology on the basis of the definition of the root word (individual = 1---> 1 = Not a group----> Not a group = No Politics ----> No politics = No political ideology).

Thus my earlier statement that ideologies (specifically POLITICAL ideology) requires and implies a group, and groups, by their nature have structure.

The word anarchy (root word of anarchist) implies the lack of structure. No structure = No group. No group, and we're back to the individual, in which case there is no politics.

-=Vel=-
(havin' fun, killin' time, posting on the clock, and bein' an "anarchist" in general)

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Shai-Hulud
I believe people have an inherent desire to own, the desire for capital is a fundamental part of human nature. The socialists anarchists are fighthing against their own nature(not all anarchists are against private ownership). But I want to own and I openly admit it

As much as I agree with you, just because something's natural that doesn't mean it's right.