Anarchists...

[Velociryx]

Hiya Ramo!

I know...I know....you prolly just skimmed the thread before you posted, BUT....

Had you read more closely, you would see that I did, in fact, at the recommendation of another poster, do some more web-searching and reading on the topic. Thus, to say that I based my entire opinion of the matter on the dictionary definition (webster's online, btw) is....ummm....completely false?

And, having read more on the topic by some thinkers who weighed in on it, I came to my own personal conclusion that there was a lot of noise and quite little substance.

Since you have provided me yet more names, I will also have a look at what they have to say on the subject.

If it's anything like my earlier reading, I suspect my opinion will be unchanged, but it's been an interesting little side trip....

As to your own views....I don't see that there's much to debate on, frankly. In the first place, they are your own, and in the second, the verbage used conveys a much deeper sense of what you believe in than the almost generic term "anarchist," which by definition (even in the greek, since when the word was coined all political power came from a king...thus encompassing ALL order, even with your own definition). Aain, if you go back and take a bit of a closer look, you'll see was my point to begin with (now re-stated for the third time).

-=Vel=-

[General Ludd]

Threadjack in progress.

How would you clasify Velociryx?

I'd say that he's the (some what predictable) combination of Nitpick and Artful Dodger

[Ramo]

As to your own views....I don't see that there's much to debate on, frankly. In the first place, they are your own,

And is shared by the vast majority of anarchists (though we tend to disagree in the specifics).

and in the second, the verbage used conveys a much deeper sense of what you believe in than the almost generic term "anarchist," which by definition (even in the greek, since when the word was coined all political power came from a king...thus encompassing ALL order, even with your own definition). Aain, if you go back and take a bit of a closer look, you'll see was my point to begin with (now re-stated for the third time).

The existence of a "ruler" is not the same thing as the existence of "order." Order can be voluntary or involuntary. For example, I consent to obeying the wishes of my mom. Ruling is, by definition, involuntary. I do not consent to obeying the wishes of state; it coerces me into obeying (if I don't, it could throw me into prison).

"By definition," capitalism means "belief in capital." That doesn't make me a capitalist.

Had you read more closely, you would see that I did, in fact, at the recommendation of another poster, do some more web-searching and reading on the topic. Thus, to say that I based my entire opinion of the matter on the dictionary definition (webster's online, btw) is....ummm....completely false?

I'm sorry if I was wrong, but frankly, you still have no clue what anarchism means, and all you know about the subject seems to be limited to popular biases without any appreciation for history or politics.

And, having read more on the topic by some thinkers who weighed in on it, I came to my own personal conclusion that there was a lot of noise and quite little substance.

Which writings have you read? Whose writings have you read.

[Velociryx]

Cute site Osweld!

I'm not sure though, where you came up with the classification.

Perhaps you were unaware, but debate is, after all, conducted via...ummm...language, yes? By that I mean we do not implant thoughts in each other's minds telepathically, nor do we gesticulate madly at the screen.....we type in WORDS and make SENTENCES...or at least, that's generally how I've understood the process, after several years of debate. And the first step in any debate is to codify and clearly outline the language to be used to define and describe the positions involved.

::musing now:: Perhaps the rules have changed tho....something else that should make an interesting side trip.

Nonetheless....having begun with the basic premise that "anarchist" is a misnomer (at best) in terms of describing a political ideology....having read more on the topic based on the names of deep thinkers who have written about it....having formed my own, more solidified opinion on the matter based on that further reading, and decided for myself that there's a) not a lot TO the whole "ideology" and b) very definately using the wrong word to describe what little there is, and further, having re-re-re stated that quite plainly, in a pretty close approximation of the Queen's English....I'm just not sure I get where you're coming from.

To each his own tho....

-=Vel=-
It was a cute site tho...thanks for the chuckle!

[Velociryx]

Hey again Ramo!

The example of obeying your mom is a good one, but, would you not agree that in any case, you mom has no *political power* over you?

Political Ideologies, by definition must be couched in terms of their relationship to political power, would you not agree?

And, while it is true that rule and order do not have to be mutually exclusive, I think you will find that, historically it has mostly been the case (King/Warlord of a City-State/whathave you lays down the law and enforces order). Non-voluntary order, yes. You either obeyed or were killed or sent to a MOST uncomfortable place.

Especially in ancient times when there was, in general, little value placed on life, if you disobeyed the King or an agent of the king, you got killed, and that was pretty much the end of that.

So...in terms of *political power* yes. In ancient times, when the word in question was formed (and since we took it back that far), The King, or Lord, or big dog with an army was the source of all political power. There were groups that certainly had varying degrees of influence, but all politcal power was centralized in that one authority, parceled out to his faithful servants who (supposedly) acted in his name/on his behalf. That's pretty classic Feudal structure at work.

So....to defy order per the definition of the word, is not just to get rowdy against the notion of rule enforced by might, but to rebel against the entire substructure which held the society together. ALL order (again, per your root definition). Anarchists in the first place, do not believe that themselves from what I have read, and thus, my initial statement that they're simply using the wrong term to describe what they are and what they believe in.


If in fact, most "anarchists" believe in libertarian socialism, then why not say that? Why use a word whose root definition is NOT what they stand for.

For example....if I tell you I have an uncle who is a fireman, is it not reasonable for you to assume that he probably spends his time either a) at a firestation, or b) putting out fires?

Would you have any particular reason to picture him in a 3-piece suit trading bonds on Wall Street?

Of course not! Because the language I descirbed him in was quite clear.

As to where I began my search - Since a quick websearch on the abovementioned names (not the ones you listed, I have not gotten the chance to look yet...I refer to the names listed somewhere on page one of this thread), I looked where I could find data, starting with:

http://www.spunk.org

Including:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/brown/sp001735.html

And chasing links from there.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

So...in terms of *political power* yes. In ancient times, when the word in question was formed (and since we took it back that far), The King, or Lord, or big dog with an army was the source of all political power. There were groups that certainly had varying degrees of influence, but all politcal power was centralized in that one authority, parceled out to his faithful servants who (supposedly) acted in his name/on his behalf. That's pretty classic Feudal structure at work.

So....to defy order per the definition of the word, is not just to get rowdy against the notion of rule enforced by might, but to rebel against the entire substructure which held the society together. ALL order (again, per your root definition). Anarchists in the first place, do not believe that themselves from what I have read, and thus, my initial statement that they're simply using the wrong term to describe what they are and what they believe in.

Huh? You're saying that because in certain special cases, coercion completely held a society togther (which I don't agree with; there have always been voluntary bonds in every society in every time), to be against coercion is equivalent to being against society? Uhh.. that makes no sense at all.

If in fact, most "anarchists" believe in libertarian socialism, then why not say that?

Actually, in the 19th century, a synonym for anarchism was libertarianism.

Why use a word whose root definition is NOT what they stand for.

Because words tend to change over centuries and over hundreds of kilometers of land. You might as well ask why languages change.

[Ramo]

You might want to check this out for more information:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

Keep in mind that I disagree with a whole lot of the opinions presented there....

The example of obeying your mom is a good one, but, would you not agree that in any case, you mom has no *political power* over you?

I obey through my consent, so she has no "power" over me.

And what's the import of the distinction between a political and nonpolitical power? Why shouldan armed thug that calls himself the state be set in a different class from one that doesn't?

[Velociryx]

Getting ready to hit the hay here, but I will reference this thread tomorrow and check out your link.

I'm curious though...if the 'vast majority of' "Anarchists" believe as you say (and in the same things that you yourself believe in) why are you in disagreement with a 'whole lot' of the opinions on this site?

As to the notion of those "Certain special cases" when coersion in one form or another held a society together....since those "certain special cases" represent the vast majority of human history....yes, I'd say my statement makes a fair amount of sense.

Differences between political and non-political power: So....in your mind then, there is no difference between the concensual agreements and structure made in a familial group to society as a whole? That's...interesting to me.

I *am* genuinely curious to know more, however. I have a thirsty mind, and your postings here have stirred up my curiosity, so I was thinking of some questions.....I have no real sense of what any of this would look like, and since they are YOUR beliefs, I figured I'd ask. Here goes:

Let's say that, tomorrow, the USA suddenly caught "anarchistic fever" and became fully, 100% anarchistic.

What would, say, General Motors look like, post anarchy? How would production schedules be handled?

Military. Submission to forced order is a big no-no, and yet, the military requires such. What would the military look like in such a state?

How would foriegn affairs be conducted after the change?

Hypothetically, what would happen if we dropped twenty anarchists onto a patch of forested and hilly land with two shovels, two axes, a bow with a quiver of arrows, and some random seed packs, and nothing else save the clothes on their backs, what would happen on day one?

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I'm curious though...if the 'vast majority of' "Anarchists" believe as you say (and in the same things that you yourself believe in) why are you in disagreement with a 'whole lot' of the opinions on this site?

Like I wrote earlier, we mostly agree on the generalities, but it's such a broad category that I disagree with a lot of the specifics.

As to the notion of those "Certain special cases" when coersion in one form or another held a society together....since those "certain special cases" represent the vast majority of human history....yes, I'd say my statement makes a fair amount of sense.

Point to me a single society in which there were no voluntary bonds.

And the vast majority of human society was uncivilized. Hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be rather free.

Differences between political and non-political power: So....in your mind then, there is no difference between the concensual agreements and structure made in a familial group to society as a whole? That's...interesting to me.

I don't know what you're asking...

What I did write was that there's no substancial difference between a state that extorts you and a gang that extorts you.

What would, say, General Motors look like, post anarchy? How would production schedules be handled?

It would be a worker owned and controlled business.

Military. Submission to forced order is a big no-no, and yet, the military requires such. What would the military look like in such a state?

Remember when I wrote about anarchism being a broad category? Well, I do believe in a reasonable military (without drafts, of course). I think of anarchism as a rough outline of a society. Some people are more... dogmatic.

How would foriegn affairs be conducted after the change?

In a similar manner that it is conducted today, with less power to the executive.

Hypothetically, what would happen if we dropped twenty anarchists onto a patch of forested and hilly land with two shovels, two axes, a bow with a quiver of arrows, and some random seed packs, and nothing else save the clothes on their backs, what would happen on day one?

I think you've seen a wee bit too many episodes of Survivor.

Seriously, the people who wanted would organize into some kind of syndicate, while the people who didn't want to participate would be left alone.

[Ramo]

By asking me how foreign affairs'd be conducted, did you intend to ask me what foreign policy changes I would make, rather than the mechanisms for the decisions to take place?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

You mean like the American revolution

Frankly, I think the whole idea of worker owned business (like a worker owned GM) is absurd (well, it could happen, but it'd be a total and utter failure). And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

However, saying that, most of these people protesting the World Economic Summit, saying they are 'anarchists' are simply using the word without thought for what it really means. They think it is some cool thing where they can break things and start talking about no order and chaos. They just use the term without any understanding of what that means.

[Ramo]

The Americans had the French, Prussians, etc. helping them, while the Catalonians were facing Soviet assistance.

Frankly, I think the whole idea of worker owned business (like a worker owned GM) is absurd (well, it could happen, but it'd be a total and utter failure). And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

Need I point out the syndicates of Barcelona?

[DinoDoc]

I love the Troll Song

Originally posted by Ramo
Nevermind of course, being outnumbered and outgunned.

Nevermind of course, the ill concieved alliance with the Stalinists that led to that very situation.

[Ramo]

Nevermind of course, the ill concieved alliance with the Stalinists that led to that very situation.

Nevermind, of course, that the Stalinists weren't that powerful in the Republican gov't when the war began. And nevermind, of course, that the liberals and socialists also participated in the reaction against the CNT-AIT and POUM.

And I don't think anarchism can would anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

And I don't think libertarian capitalism can work anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Need I point out the syndicates of Barcelona?

Point them out. They were no where near the scale of GM, and they only lasted 2 years. If they were allowed to last 20, the economy would have been utterly ruined. Just wait until worker owned companies have to deal with boom and bust, they'd never be able to do it.

And I don't think libertarian capitalism can work anywhere out of a utopian ideal.

No ****, sherlock. At least I admit it .