Anarchism

[CIPHER_one]

Can someone "school" me on anarchism? I've never really gotten a clear explanation. Pros and cons maybe?

thanks ;)

[Plagiarism]

read this paper (http://www.crimethinc.info/media/fighting_for_our_lives.pdf)

[villain]

That's a pretty broad subject. Which is probably why you never got a clear answer. Anarchism is pretty much what you make of it. And that's really what it's all about. However if you are into certain schools of thought, two of my favorites are ontological anarchy and green anarchy... but there are tons of brands out there.

[BROWNer]

go here for the basic rundown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[CIPHER_one]

thx

[seeking]

anarchy, atleast any version of anarchy that i've ever seen, is the biggest crock of shit in the universe.
i wish it would die.

[CIPHER_one]

yo dude

preach it. i got a buddy who's going that route, and I wanna be able to discuss it intelligently. so all points are appreciated.

[ODS-1]

http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html

[seeking]

just use common sense, it's anarchisms arch enimy.

you have a society with no set laws and no set order. who fixes the roads? who controls traffic? who mediates when someone gets in an accident? who forces someone to pay their debt? who insures children are not used as slave labor? who insures adults are not used as slave labor? who insures that dr's. are really dr's? who stops someone from just taking everything you own at gun point? who insures that airplanes are safe? that busses and trains are safe? who funds schools? who helps kids go to college? who insures colleges are anything more than diploma mills?

ive yet to find a brand of anarchism that could even begin to stand up to half of those claims, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

anarchism is just suicide with bad haircuts and tight jeans.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 07:37 PM
just use common sense, it's anarchisms arch enimy.

you have a society with no set laws and no set order. who fixes the roads? who controls traffic? who mediates when someone gets in an accident? who forces someone to pay their debt? who insures children are not used as slave labor? who insures adults are not used as slave labor? who insures that dr's. are really dr's? who stops someone from just taking everything you own at gun point? who insures that airplanes are safe? that busses and trains are safe? who funds schools? who helps kids go to college? who insures colleges are anything more than diploma mills?

ive yet to find a brand of anarchism that could even begin to stand up to half of those claims, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

anarchism is just suicide with bad haircuts and tight jeans.
Quoted post

If we were no longer a hierarchical global superpower why would anyone attack us? I mean anarchism has it's flaws, and I personally don't think the world is ready for it, is the alternative really to keep living in this
And you misspelled enemy.

[im not witty]

www.crimethinc.com or perhaps even .net if youre feeling frisky

[villain]

Christiania seems to function pretty well.
But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.
I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM
Christiania seems to function pretty well.
But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.
I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.
Quoted post

exactly

[Plagiarism]

one thing that people dont understand is that anarchism, socialism, and communism all have the same end. Of course its idealsitic to think that anarchism is possible right now, thats why people try socialism and communism. People right now, especially in america have a way too messed up view of the world, human nature, etc that it would never work right now. thats not to say that the goal isnt worth fighting for

[POIESIS]

chomsky intro'd me to the concept of
anarcho-syndicalism...peep>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

oh, and wikipedia is the greatest. browner knows whats up.

[im not witty]

Your Politics Are Boring As Fuck
by Nadia C.

Face it, your politics are boring as fuck.
You know it's true. Otherwise, why does everyone cringe when you say the word? Why has attendance at your anarcho-communist theory discussion group meetings fallen to an all—time low? Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation?

Perhaps, after years of struggling to educate them about their victimhood, you have come to blame them for their condition. They must want to be ground under the heel of capitalist imperialism; otherwise, why do they show no interest in your political causes? Why haven't they joined you yet in chaining yourself to mahogany furniture, chanting slogans at carefully planned and orchestrated protests, and frequenting anarchist bookshops? Why haven't they sat down and learned all the terminology necessary for a genuine understanding of the complexities of Marxist economic theory?

The truth is, your politics are boring to them because they really are irrelevant. They know that your antiquated styles of protest—your marches, hand held signs, and gatherings—are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. They know that your post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. They know that your infighting, your splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world they experience from day to day. They know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what "ism"s the intellectuals march under, the content of their lives will remain the same. They—we—know that our boredom is proof that these "politics" are not the key to any real transformation of life. For our lives are boring enough already!

And you know it too. For how many of you is politics a responsibility? Something you engage in because you feel you should, when in your heart of hearts there are a million things you would rather be doing? Your volunteer work—is it your most favorite pastime, or do you do it out of a sense of obligation? Why do you think it is so hard to motivate others to volunteer as you do? Could it be that it is, above all, a feeling of guilt that drives you to fulfill your "duty" to be politically active? Perhaps you spice up your "work" by trying (consciously or not) to get in trouble with the authorities, to get arrested: not because it will practically serve your cause, but to make things more exciting, to recapture a little of the romance of turbulent times now long past. Have you ever felt that you were participating in a ritual, a long-established tradition of fringe protest, that really serves only to strengthen the position of the mainstream? Have you ever secretly longed to escape from the stagnation and boredom of your political "responsibilities"?

It's no wonder that no one has joined you in your political endeavors. Perhaps you tell yourself that it's tough, thankless work, but somebody's got to do it. The answer is, well, NO.

You actually do us all a real disservice with your tiresome, tedious politics. For in fact, there is nothing more important than politics. NOT the politics of American "democracy" and law, of who is elected state legislator to sign the same bills and perpetuate the same system. Not the politics of the "I got involved with the radical left because I enjoy quibbling over trivial details and writing rhetorically about an unreachable utopia" anarchist. Not the politics of any leader or ideology that demands that you make sacrifices for "the cause." But the politics of our everyday lives. When you separate politics from the immediate, everyday experiences of individual men and women, it becomes completely irrelevant. Indeed, it becomes the private domain of wealthy, comfortable intellectuals, who can trouble themselves with such dreary, theoretical things. When you involve yourself in politics out of a sense of obligation, and make political action into a dull responsibility rather than an exciting game that is worthwhile for its own sake, you scare away people whose lives are already far too dull for any more tedium. When you make politics into a lifeless thing, a joyless thing, a dreadful responsibility, it becomes just another weight upon people, rather than a means to lift weight from people. And thus you ruin the idea of politics for the people to whom it should be most important. For everyone has a stake in considering their lives, in asking themselves what they want out of life and how they can get it. But you make politics look to them like a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives they are living out.

What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter. Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And "politics" should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining, exciting, joyous—because political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives. No more time should be wasted debating over issues that will be irrelevant when we must go to work again the next day. No more predictable ritual protests that the authorities know all too well how to deal with; no more boring ritual protests which will not sound like a thrilling way to spend a Saturday afternoon to potential volunteers—clearly, those won't get us anywhere. Never again shall we "sacrifice ourselves for the cause." For we ourselves, happiness in our own lives and the lives of our fellows, must be our cause!

After we make politics relevant and exciting, the rest will follow. But from a dreary, merely theoretical and/or ritualized politics, nothing valuable can follow. This is not to say that we should show no interest in the welfare of humans, animals, or ecosystems that do not contact us directly in our day to day existence. But the foundation of our politics must be concrete: it must be immediate, it must be obvious to everyone why it is worth the effort, it must be fun in itself. How can we do positive things for others if we ourselves do not enjoy our own lives?

To make this concrete for a moment: an afternoon of collecting food from businesses that would have thrown it away and serving it to hungry people and people who are tired of working to pay for food—that is good political action, but only if you enjoy it. If you do it with your friends, if you meet new friends while you're doing it, if you fall in love or trade funny stories or just feel proud to have helped a woman by easing her financial needs, that's good political action. On the other hand, if you spend the afternoon typing an angry letter to an obscure leftist tabloid objecting to a columnist's use of the term "anarcho-syndicalist," that's not going to accomplish shit, and you know it.

Perhaps it is time for a new word for "politics," since you have made such a swear word out of the old one. For no one should be put off when we talk about acting together to improve our lives. And so we present to you our demands, which are non-negotiable, and must be met as soon as possible—because we're not going to live forever, are we?

1. Make politics relevant to our everyday experience of life again. The farther away the object of our political concern, the less it will mean to us, the less real and pressing it will seem to us, and the more wearisome politics will be.

2. All political activity must be joyous and exciting in itself. You cannot escape from dreariness with more dreariness.

3. To accomplish those first two steps, entirely new political approaches and methods must be created. The old ones are outdated, outmoded. Perhaps they were NEVER any good, and that's why our world is the way it is now.

4. Enjoy yourselves! There is never any excuse for being bored... or boring!

Join us in making the "revolution" a game; a game played for the highest stakes of all, but a joyous, carefree game nonetheless!

[POIESIS]

..yikes.

[KaBar2]

Nadia knows what's up. That has got to be one of the best criticisms of political activism I have ever read. BRAVO! BRAVO! Very good.

All I can say is I used to be an anarchist. ^^^^"Guilty as charged." What an enormous waste of time it was. "My life is MY responsibility." Wow, what a concept. "The working class could not care less." What a revelation! "Life is short, don't waste it on stupid theoretical nonsense."

There you go.

[villain]

I'm not too familiar with anarcho-syndicalism but i do know it's pretty well established and respected.

That was a good article. It actually does promote anarchy by advocating grassroots, local, direct action contrary to any impressions it may give. It's just a word. A word for the same thing.

On the other hand. Instead of the movement seeming so marginalized, I have never felt such a singleness of purpose with what is probably more than half the population. I guess when corruption becomes this obvious it's hard for people to ignore. I don't feel like such a wacko conspiracy theorist now. It's pretty nice. I never felt so much a part of anything in my life.

[MOOGLE?]

woo



i was gonna start typing this huge thing about anarchism.

but all this political talk hurts my brain right now..

but nadia's on point though..even though i rather the whole chaos-universe-aply-to-human-social-structure-type stuff more


guh.

[<KEY3>]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 11:41 AM
anarchy, atleast any version of anarchy that i've ever seen, is the biggest crock of shit in the universe.
i wish it would die.
Quoted post


I came into this thread just to see your comment,
because I could predit withing 99% exactly what you would say.

the use of 'crock of shit' was a bonus.

[seeking]

have i become that predictable?
ha.
i'm gonna have to switch it up like eazy-e and have dinner with the president or something.

[Ckit]

Originally posted by villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM
Christiania seems to function pretty well.
But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.
I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.
Quoted post

exactly exactly. i have a couple friends that live in anarchist co-op houses and it actually works quite well. those kids writing the the A in the circle(which represents unity) talking about blowing up the government give it a bad reputation.

[villain]

Originally posted by Ckit+Nov 18 2004, 06:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ckit - Nov 18 2004, 06:44 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM
Christiania seems to function pretty well.
But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.
I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.
Quoted post

exactly exactly. i have a couple friends that live in anarchist co-op houses and it actually works quite well. those kids writing the the A in the circle(which represents unity) talking about blowing up the government give it a bad reputation.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Yeah those co-op community houses work real nice actually. I stayed at one for a while in detroit. That Trumbullplex.

[Juan Fuentes]

DEMOCRACY=HYPOCRISY
COMMUNISM=THE GUY THAT DOESNT WANT TO JOIN AMERICA ECONOMICALLY...
IS A BELIEVE CREATED IN YOUR MINDS TO HAVE AN ENEMY AND FIGHT FOR THE WORLD, AND YOUR GOD "MONEY".

[Plagiarism]

The peice that im not witty posted and more can be found at www.crimethinc.com click on the reading library.

[KaBar2]

Villain---Welcome to the "Sixties." Oh, wait. That was thirty-five years ago. Never mind. This is all totally different and the young people of today are going to change the world. Good luck.

[seeking]

this juan fuentas character is fucking annoying.

christania functions, but it's not a truly 'autonomous' society. it is pretty much completely dependent on the drug trade and the 'tourist' trade. not all anarchist co-op's would be so lucky. they also utilize the danish medical facilities i assume, since i dont remember noticing any hospitals when i was there.

when a house full of 8 like-minded people manage to co-exist, that is not an example of sucessful 'anarchism', it's 8 motherfuckers managing to get along. ever tried getting 10 people to agree on someplace for dinner, without one person just stepping up and playing dictator? it doesnt happen.

anarchy is gay.

[villain]

I don't think it's so much about getting people to agree as it is to accept peoples differences.
Hakim Bey describes "normal" society as homogenous and separated from one another.
Anarchist society as different and unified.
Not the most detailed explaination but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
And well Kabar I would say grassroot movements have been making alot of change. For instance the importance of the internet for democratic campaigns and also this current voting fraud investigations going on. We cannot expect much help from up top with all three branches of government controlled by republicans.
And in the sixties there was much social change as well. So it's not like these efforts are in vain. Difficult yes, hopeless, no.

[KaBar2]

Villain---

This is quite true, social changes in increments are possible. I wasn't interested in struggling thirty or forty years for minor changes, back in 1968. I wanted immediate and all-encompassing revolution. Fuck reform---Smash the State!

I can only plead the insanity of youth.

I also was very unhappy with the attitudes and social mores of a lot of my fellow anarchists. I was as much in love with the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish and Italian anarchists of the 1930's-WWII period as I was with anarchism itself. I especially admired the anarchist hold-outs who continued to fight well into the mid-1950's (I was about seven when Sabate was finally killed, but of course, I knew nothing about it, being a kid.) It was all so romantic and brave, sort of like a good John Ford movie.

But the reality is considerably less attractive. I grew sick of anarchists who bitched about the State, but lived on welfare. They were selfish, self-centered, lazy little bitches. I knew several who scorned marriage (this is part of the anarchist philosophy--they do not marry, pay taxes, serve as soldiers or police officers, vote, press criminal charges or lawsuits against others, own capital or businesses, or employ others in an exploitative economic relationship.) I had several male anarchist acquaintences who impregnated women, but who refused to support the child or it's mother, and who felt absolutely no obligation to serve as a father to the child. It was straight-up wrong, in my opinion. I knew numerous "communes" or "collectives" in which two or three people did 90% of the work, and the rest of them contributed virtually nothing, off busy being "free" while somebody else carried the load. The entire thing became an exercise in self-centered self indulgence.

They talked a ton of bullshit about revolution and struggle and all that crap, but not one of them could fight worth shit. They knew absolutely nothing about military tactics, strategy, organization or anything else. "Armchair revolutionaries" TO THE HILT. It was really all about getting high, having a good time and avoiding any sort of work or responsibility. As I grew older, I realized that my years as an anarchist really were a complete waste of time and effort. In fact, my years as an anti-war activist against the war in Vietnam were also a complete waste of time. I should have been in college earning a university degree, like my mother begged me to do, rather than frittering away years in self-delusion that I was making some sort of difference.
In all, I wasted about twenty years as an active revolutionary anarchist.

But some of the things I learned have come in very handy.

I became a certified arc welder. I learned to work on my own vehicles, to drive standard shift and automatic cars and trucks. I learned to operate a bulldozer and a backhoe. I learned to read blueprints and to frame houses. I learned to accurately shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns. I joined the Marine Corps and went to armory school, where I learned to repair all manner of infantry weapons. I learned about demolition and explosives. I learned to teach marksmanship, and have used that skill to instruct many people.
I went to machinist's school, and got a degree as a machinist. I went to nursing school, and became a registered nurse. I learned quite a bit about radio and electronics. I've learned a little about computers.

The skills I learned are valuable and satisfying. But the political tendency that started it all is way behind me now.

[villain]

Hmmm... interesting kabar. I can't say I've met any anarchists like this. Sure there is the no-work ethic but most of the anarchists i've met are very, very active. Social work, active in the community, politics, protests, some hardliners who would actually fight. It's like instead of working for some company and someone else you work for stuff that means something to you.

[KaBar2]

I've never been there, but there is a town in Italy, Carrera, which is populated by 95% anarchists. Ironically, the main activity in Carrera is quarrying marble, and their #1 customer is the Roman Catholic Church, the arch-enemy of the anarchists.

Carrera marble is the finest marble, the most beautiful marble in the world. Carrera is so far up in the mountains, up a winding, twisting mountain road (ever heard of the Porche "Carrera" sports car? It's named after this town) that it's sort of out of the jurisdiction of the regular Italian authorities. The anarchists are such a pain in the ass to deal with that the Italian cops generally leave them be. For one thing, they will not press criminal charges or any kind, no matter what. They will not testify in court. They will not be witnesses. So it's pretty much impossible to carry out any sort of investigation, since nobody will cooperate at all, ever. They settle problems among themselves. They hate the Mafia, and the feeling is mutual. Whenever they discover Mafia near them, they kill them. It's a small town, everybody knows everybody else. Strangers stick out. Everybody knows everybody else's business, what family they are from, etc.
The quarry is the town's largest business, and is run collectively. Men go to work there as teenagers, and immediately recieve a man's full wages, even at age 16. As they get to be older, more skilled and more mature and more productive, their wages do not increase. And as they age, and are less productive, their wages do not diminish. When they retire, and go on the Italian version of Social Security, then they are no longer paid by the quarry.
Almost all the businesses in Carrera are family-owned, and are related in some way to the quarry (welding, carpentry, automotive repair shops, trucking firms, etc.) It's a sort of compromise with capitalism. Nobody works for wages, they work for an "equal share."

Because the anarchists refuse to vote, Carrera's city government is dominated by the 5% of the population that is Communist Party (the right wing parties don't even bother). On Election Day, the anarchists go to the polls and stand outside with their arms folded, pointedly refusing to vote. Nobody votes but the Communists. The police are usually all Communists too, but since nobody reports crimes, there's not much for them to do.

Anarchists do not marry, but they do go down to the Department of Health and register their union in the genetics files, to avoid accidental unions of people who are biologically related. Since there is no marriage, there is also no divorce.

I heard that the anarchists have been in Carrera since the 1880's, and that during WWII, they had a resistance group against the fascists and the Nazis. After the war, they buried their weapons rather than surrender them to the Government.

Seems like my kind of town, actually.

[ODS-1]

The whole not voting thing bothers me a tad because alot of people died for the right for blacks and minorities to vote, and to dismiss that is lame. I saw something that said "Don't just vote". That's a great point, because people's involvement in the system that controls their lives should be more than one day in November every 4 years.
I really hope that made some sense to someone.

[KaBar2]

Anarchists do not vote for the same reason they refuse to report crimes, be a witness in a trial or imprison people. They consider voting to be the commission of a grave injustice against human freedom. Real anarchists will not even vote among themselves. They operate by consensus, and if they cannot agree upon some point, they just keep talking, talking, talking until finallt they reach a mutal agreement. It's extremely time consuming.

In any vote, there must be the domination of the losing side by the winner's side. To anarchists, this is akin to gangsterism.

They do not marry, because marriage (especially in the 1880's) was the ownership of one spouse (the wife) by the other (the husband.) Anarchists consider the foundation of the "family" to be the foundation of the State. You cannot have one without the other.

The same is true of The Church and The State.

There's a lot more to anarchy than that cute little "Circle-A" symbol (which was invented, by the way, in 1956, as a spin off of the symbol of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. The symbol of the ND movement was a take-off on the Civil Defense (CD) insignia, which was a yellow-and-black representation of three radioactive rays beaming off of a round radioactive "molecule." this symbol had three "rays" coming off of it (you may have seen this "CD" symbol on old stairwells leading to a basement.
In grafitti, the three-rays design became a simple circle with three radii going from the center to the periphery, abd the "CD" was changed to "ND." The anarchists borrowed this general idea and changed the three-legged peace symbol into both the peace symbol and the "Circle-A" symbol,

[villain]

I like this place.

[Plagiarism]

bump. kabar: tallk more please.. your posts are great!!

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by Plagiarism@Nov 28 2004, 02:44 AM
bump. kabar: tallk more please.. your posts are great!!
Quoted post

......... :hatred:

[KYU]

I agree, his posts are pretty interesting

[KaBar2]

I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.

Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:

"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."

And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"

"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."

"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"

Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.

I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."

If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?

I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.

I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.

[Plagiarism]

hey kabar: where did you hear about carrera italy. I searched on the internet for about an hour and found absolutely nothing. do you have a source?

[masaka___]

Originally posted by Plagiarism@Nov 28 2004, 03:30 PM
hey kabar: where did you hear about carrera italy. I searched on the internet for about an hour and found absolutely nothing. do you have a source?
Quoted post


It's spelled Carrara.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 28 2004, 08:48 PM
I spent a lot of years of my life as an anarchist (from 1968 or '69 til about 1988, but from 1976 to 1988 I wasn't active.) The last eight years I was increasingly critical of my ideals and the shortcomings and failures of the anarchist movement. We saw the rise of punk rock music and the revival of angry alienated youth as a chance for the anarchist philosophy to once again become preeminent on the left. Unfortunately, the social excesses of the punk movement were more important that actually learning something about anarchism. Going around bombing the word "ANARCHY!" and the Circle-A all over the place, going to punk concerts and working on one's punk attire was more important to them than political education, organizing anarchist groups, confronting the State, etc., etc. They could not understand why we thought it was important to try to understand economics, or to try to reach the working class, or to attend university and become educated, or to experience military training.

Talking to the punks was a lot like trying to converse with a drunk person. We would say:

"It's important to develop viable social alternatives to working for wages or exploiting the labor of others."

And they would reply; "YEAH, LIKE FUCKIN' PA-A-ARTY, MOTHERFUCKER! FUCKIN' YEAH!"

"It's important that we recognize women and other people in society who are oppressed and marginalized as equals, and value their opinions and respect their contributions."

"YEAH! SOME BITCHES CAN REALLY FUCKIN' SING, MAN! I"D LIKE TO FUCK THAT BLONDIE, NO SHIT!"

Obviously, I'm exaggerating for effect, but it was very frustrating. Their personal politics and philosophy was really a lot mor nihilistic than anarchistic. They were usually very confused about what "being an anarchist" meant, and a lot of the time we were dealing with people who were much closer to being fascistic than anarchistic.

I had an additional problem with people whose personal behavior as anarchists seemed to lack integrity and who seemed to view anarchism as a real good reason to misbehave instead of a political cause. Anarchists that shoplifted, anarchists that used drugs, who burglarized people's homes, who were sexually exploitive, and justified it all under the umbrella of "No rules" and "Smash the State." When I tried to argue that if they could justify burglary of individual homes, why not armed robbery? Why not murder? Why not rape? If it's okay for Andy Anarchist to burglarize someone's home, why is it not then okay for the homeowner to lynch Andy if he captures him? If it's okay for Andy to impregnate his girlfriend and then refuse to support her and the child, why is it not okay for her father or brothers to beat him senseless for dishonoring and abandoning her? If it's okay for Andy to sell drugs to young teenagers, why isn't it okay for the kids' parents to hunt him down and kill him for it? If 'Anarchy" means "absolutely no rules" then Andy is opening the door to fascism--the rule of the mob, "Might makes Right."

If we were going to have rules of behavior, we might as well start by examining the rules that already existed. If we were going to have trial by worker's councils, or something like that, how was that so different than a trial by a jury of one's peers?

I lived in several communes and "collectives." In a commune, you share all income as well as all assets; in a collective, you share the rent and expenses and the group usually operates some sort of economic enterprise. In our case, an "underground" newspaper and a combination "head shop" and news stand. Our collective split up when some of the men wanted to open a construction company as well as operate the paper and the news stand. I felt like it also split along ideological lines, with the guys that I considered to be anarchists in the construction faction, and people who were more Marxist-Leninist and feminists in the other side. They felt like if we started a construction company we would be beyond their influence, which was largely true. When one of the avowed "lesbian feminists" found out she wasn't nearly as lesbian as she thought and sided with John, me and the other anarchists, the other women in the collective attacked her politically. She and I left the collective and hitchhiked and rode frieght trains to the West Coast, and after a year or so, got married. (I know, anarchists aren't supposed to marry. What does that say about my political integrity?) The split also fell out along the pro-gun/ anti-gun line. The Marxist-Leninists-feminist faction was adamantly against guns. The anarchist faction was definately pro-gun. I think the split was inevitable.

I never accepted "feminism" as a separate and distinctive political idea, just as I never really accepted Black Nationalism. There were a few black anarchists, but for the most part it was a very Caucasian movement. I could see no legitimate reason for feminism as a political movement. Anarchists believe in no State, no Church, no Family. They believe in EVERY PERSON being a free individual, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, national origin, etc. They believe every person should have equal access to the resources of the world, such as food, housing, transportation, and the basic means of production. They do believe in chattel possessions, but generally hold personal possessions in rather low regard. They do not believe in exploiting others, not economically, not politically, not sexually, not intellectually, etc. No exploitation. Anybody who is personally responsible for exploitation is considered to be fair game, including capitalists, authoritarian Communists, Nazis, religious authoritarians, etc. My understanding of anarchism is far from perfect. I studied it when I was very young (late teens) and it has been a long time, but I would recommend my acquaintances Stuart Christie's and Albert Meltzer's book "Floodgates of Anarchy" as a good starting point. I would follow that with Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Then I would branch out into the writing of Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (Karl Marx's contemporary and principal rival in the First International,) Prince Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Voltarine De Cleyre, Errico Malatesta, and Nestor Mahkno. My memory isn't too great, I probably left a few important ones out. There were a few important American anarchists as well, but a lot of them were killed during the American War Between the States, fighting for the Union. Anarchism developed here mostly as a part of the American labor movement, especially the I.W.W., which is why so many modern anarchists are members of the I.W.W. today. I was, until 1976. I resigned when I joined the Marine Corps.
Quoted post

I agree with a lot of what you said. There's people that call themselves anarchists, and people that are anarchists.

[seeking]

^^and both of them are a waste of time.

wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.

anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.

this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.

anarchy is dumb.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 29 2004, 08:19 PM
^^and both of them are a waste of time.

wow, 'anarchism' worked in one tiny town at the top of a mountain in italy that is blessed with a (seemingly) endless supply of economic stability. remove any of those variables and the place will crumble, guranteed.

anarchy is indeed a crock of shit. life can never be maintained when it's lived that far out, it's impossible. half of the marriages in america end up in divorce because two people couldnt get along, and i'm supposed to believe that 560 million of us will? mmmmmm, no.

this weekend at my 10 year HS reunion i ran into an old friend. he stood there lecturing me about 'selling out' because i didnt believe in anarchy. he was wearing a suit, i was wearing jeans and a sweater - the same jeans i'd worn all week. but i was the sell out. ha.

anarchy is dumb.
Quoted post

I never said that it would work.

[villain]

Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore. Under the vast umbrella of anarchy, something entirely new could be born. Like the primordial ooze.... the endless chaos of nonestablishment.

[BROWNer]

^i'm with villain.
*blah

[seeking]

Originally posted by villain@Nov 30 2004, 10:52 AM
Ahh... anarchy is not a perfect political system.... but it is possibly the best political medium to work within because there are many, many possibilities to explore. Quoted post


care to expound on this a bit? because as i see it, anarchism is just about the most far fetched, short sighted excuse for political ideology i've ever come across.
it's like communism but without a snowballs chance in hell of ever working. infact, even on paper it doesn't work.


ods,
i know, i was just ranting, it had nothing to do with you.

[villain]

well seeking.... there is no definition of anarchy per se. There are SO MANY varieties of anarchy, that good ideas abound aplenty.... it is precisely this freedom, while on the surface looks to be out of control, that allows for many various manifestations of political ideology. The ideology is that there is no ideology. So it is a blank canvas. Sure there are some who would like to trademark their ideas and call it anarchy but that is against the intrinsic nature of anarchy.

[seeking]

if it is a 'blank canvas' then it is devoid of any ideology, and therefor shares equal relivance with a bucket of fried chicken (IMO). if anarchy itself has no structure and nothign cehesive to hold it together, it will never stay together. this is where the whole thing loses me and becomes so unbelievably idiotic. as far as i can tell, anarchy relies on some 'magical' ant-colony like dilligence and adherance to the community that is unquestioned, yet at the same time born of free will. never going to happen, ever.

further more, the way you describe anarchy, as having so many varieties and manifestations...you might as well just be describing politics themselves, which does nothing to answer my question, and IMO, only further proves the irrelivance of 'anarchism' as anything other than a t shirt logo.

the idea of anarchism has been around for decades (you know what i mean) yet in all that time no one has come up with a viable 'plan' or even manifesto that is generally accepted by most 'anarchists'? and i'm supposed to think this is a system that might to govern the world as it stands now? c'mon villian, you're much too smart to even be toying with this waste of time bullshit.

if there is something i'm missing, i honestly would like to understand it, because the more i think about it, the more i'm begining to think that a society structured around the ideology of the care bears is more likely than one built upon anarchism.

[seeking]

actually, here. let me make it easier for you to humor me.

under an 'anarchist' system, how will the following be addressed:

hospitals.
snow removal.
food inspections.
water.
banking.
landlord tenant disputes.
auto related death.
crime.
immigration.
foreign affairs.
education.
mental health services.
'social security'.
credit card fraud.
environmental protection.
child labor.

actually, since i realize thats a long list (although still less than 1% of the services the government shoulders) go ahead and pick any 3 and answer them.

[KaBar2]

Unfortunately, Carerra is not famous for anarchism, it's famous for MARBLE. Try a search for Carerra marble, and try different spellings, I may not be spelling it right.

The Italian anarchist movement is huge. If you look for that, you'll probably eventually find something on Carerra.

Like I said, I've never been there. Much of what I know I heard second-hand from other people, and from British anarchist publications from about 1973-76.

[seeking]

it's also famous for it's Tia.
but that's sort of different i guess.

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 30 2004, 05:30 PM
actually, here. let me make it easier for you to humor me.

under an 'anarchist' system, how will the following be addressed:

hospitals.
snow removal.
food inspections.
water.
banking.
landlord tenant disputes.
auto related death.
crime.
immigration.
foreign affairs.
education.
mental health services.
'social security'.
credit card fraud.
environmental protection.
child labor.

actually, since i realize thats a long list (although still less than 1% of the services the government shoulders) go ahead and pick any 3 and answer them.
Quoted post

Snow removal. People should take it into their own hands and shovel their own neighborhoods as a community effort. It would help people get to know each other and people would be doing something for thier neighborhood. I know that sounds corny.\

Credit card fraud. There wouldn't be credit cards under anarchism. Credit cards are given to people without any expanation of how to carefully use it, and they end up driving people into debts they can never pay off in their lifetime.

Immigration.
Anarchists are against having borders on a global scale. If land was claimed by one system or one particular group of people. This would eradicate wars over what land belongs to who, which is usually the cause of most wars and ethnic cleansing, which creates a large number of refugees.

Hospitals. Say a doctor operates on you during a four hour surgery. When you get better, you would then provide four hours of service to this doctor for saving your life. I don't really think this would work on a mass scale though.

Okay that's four. These are more just personal theories, and I don't consider myself an anarchist.

[seeking]

snow removal: ok, so it snows all night...6 inches or so...time to break out the shovel! now...who is going to be doing all the jobs of the people who are now forced to spend their entire day shoveling the snow from every street in the city? and how are those people going to get to those jobs with the freeways gridlocked due to bad road conditions? and who is going to do the jobs of the people who are replacing the people who are shoveling the snow? who is going to buy a salt truck with their own money (or barter for it with corn or whatever) just so they can salt the roads of their 'community?' (which is really just a collection of individual people, because 'community' implies some sort of social order or coherency, which there is none of, otherwise it might put one person in a position to dictate the actions of another, by you know....'voting' or something insane like that.)


credit cards: no credit cards under anarchism? so you're telling me that under a system without laws, there will be laws as to who can lend what, and for what price? lets say we do 'switch' over to an anarchist system, what will happen to all the credit card debt? what will happen to the investors who are now holding hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless stocks? what will happen to the stock market, which completely controls not only our economy, but a huge percentage of the entire worlds economy? all of that is run on a system of credit in one way or another.

immigration: i honestly cant believe you even attempted to tackle this one.
"If land was claimed by one system or one particular group of people. This would eradicate wars over what land belongs to who..."
how exactly would this group of people 'claim' the land? would they just wander around the country untill they came upon a plot of land that no one had ownership of? earth to anarchy, there is no such thing. which means they would have to take the land from someone, and if not by war, or the threat of war, then how? and would this not leave a large segment of people angry that their land was taken from them by a system they might not believe in? wouldnt that just create more war? and if anarchists dont believe in borders, then in theory there is no such thing as an 'immigrant', so really this is a trick question. but just to take it one step further, in this new borderless, policeless, lawless land, people could come and go as they pleased, doing whatever they liked along the way, because there would be no one to stop them. no one but the citizens that is. well, lets say i organize a big group of citizens who all want to take your shit, and my group is bigger than your group...i guess that makes you pretty much SOL don't it? thanks anarchy!

hospitals: is a landscapers 4 hours just as valuable as a dr's? if so, why would anyone become a dr. when they get no more out of it than a landscaper? sure, some people might do it 'on the love' but they will be few and far between. also, who will train the dr's? who will insure that the dr. is really a dr. and not a landscaper pretending to be a dr? obviously it will not be a panel of people elected to function as a governing body, because anarchists do not believe in governments or elections, right? so that means that anyone who wants to say he's a dr. can be a dr, because under your own ideology, no one can tell me i'm not a dr if i say i am. you ever see 'who's the man'? dennis leary would not be having me just pretending to be a dr. he wouldn't let me eat donuts over some shit like that. anarchy is shitty, donuts are good.



wow, that was even easier than i expected. anarchism is seriously the dumbest thing i've ever heard of. it might work on a very small, very limited scale under a specific set of conditions, but it would offer no advantages over a democracy in the same climate.

[KaBar2]

First of all, it is impossible to create a condition of "no state" overnight. Even in the places in the world where whatever minimal government theretofore existed was extinguished, "anarchy" does not reign. CHAOS is what prevails, not anarchy, and this is because what occurs when a state disintegrates is not "no government", but "many little governments," especially when all the people who have a degree of power over others desire to start up their own little dictatorship. A perfect example of this is the "Shithole Formerly Known as Somalia."

We cannot go backwards in time to find the State of Nature, assuming that it ever actually existed. We must start from where we are now. It is the nature of the modern National Security State to continuously expand it's degree of control and authority and power. The governments which the original anarchists fought against did not have a thousandth of the power and control that exists today. And, at the same time, many of the original goals of the anarchists have long since been accomplished, things like "the eight-hour work day," "Unemployment Insurance," "Disability Insurance," "an end to Marriage and the Patriarchical Family." (We still have families, but they are a mere shadow of the institution's former self.) They wanted to break the power of the Church, and finally to break the State itself. Capitalism adapted and transformed itself. Communism thrived until Reagan outspent them. Unable to adapt, it collapsed from within. Now we have McDonald's, Starbuck's and UPS on Red Square in Moscow. And you can buy Kalashnikov-designed rifles at every sporting goods store in America.

As individuals become more independent and more empowered, the power and authority of the State shrinks and shrinks. It makes more noise and smoke, but less light and heat. More and more people are choosing to live "off the grid." I think in some places, government may just become increasingly irrelevant. It will never disappear completely, I don't think, but anti-statism is a growing trend. Eventually, we may find ourselves in a state of Practical Anarchy.

[seeking]

again kabar, i think you're greatly overestimating american society based on your circle of friends. more and more americans are not 'chosing' to live off the grid. they're either being pushed off, or they're becoming completely enveloped in it. this past election is proof positive that people actually want more government with more control over us. hardly a step in any direction you're claiming.

the govt's the 'original' anarchists fought against didn't have a tenth of the power....ok, but the society was not a tenth as advanced or complex as it is now.

which group of 'anarchists' brought us the 8 hour work day and 'unemployment insurance'?

finally, i would hardly use the word 'thriving' to describe the state of USSR's brand of 'communism'.

[omar]

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 03:41 PM
anarchy, atleast any version of anarchy that i've ever seen, is the biggest crock of shit in the universe.
i wish it would die.
Quoted post



i could not have said it better myself.

what i always say whenever i come across some little "Punk RAWK" bitches is that hey anarchy is cool, you think, but i can walk up to your whole family and kill them and nothing would happen (jail wise)

its the biggest bunch of bullshit

[omar]

yeah as far as the comments from Kabar and other "anarchists" go, you guys are going to end wars? wow, shit maybe you should run in the next election if your system can end wars and land disputes. what you think people areound teh world like Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Sierra Leone, Sudan, etc. etc. are just going to stop fighting?

you know what if we did actualyl swtich over, id put a fucking bullet in every motherfucking anarchists head. simple as that.

but hey if a doctor works on you for 5 hours, maybe you can pay him back, seeing as how you probably have no medical skills anyways. when i heard that i laughed, what are you going to do, assist him in the OR? SHovel his driveway?

no i stand by my point that i will kill any anarchist who tries to change my way of life

[ODS-1]

Originally posted by omar@Dec 2 2004, 12:45 PM
yeah as far as the comments from Kabar and other "anarchists" go, you guys are going to end wars? wow, shit maybe you should run in the next election if your system can end wars and land disputes. what you think people areound teh world like Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Sierra Leone, Sudan, etc. etc. are just going to stop fighting?

you know what if we did actualyl swtich over, id put a fucking bullet in every motherfucking anarchists head. simple as that.

but hey if a doctor works on you for 5 hours, maybe you can pay him back, seeing as how you probably have no medical skills anyways. when i heard that i laughed, what are you going to do, assist him in the OR? SHovel his driveway?

no i stand by my point that i will kill any anarchist who tries to change my way of life
Quoted post

You are quite possibly a bigger idiot than I am.

[seeking]

in kabars defense, he's not an anarchist, he's a republican.

[villain]

History has proven that anarchy only lasts a short while. Usually following the overthrow of a corrupt state/monarchial power. But it provides the impetus for something new and better. For this reason I see anarchy as the birthing ground of all people oriented systems. Just like the US.... following the revolution they decided to keep some of english law that they felt worked and wrote new laws and gave more individual freedoms.
There are rare cases where "anarchy" has had a lasting impression, notably the pirate haven of Sale, but even that had some form of governance.

You can call it politics... but if you start from politics, the first thing you do is form a party or join a party, and all parties have a designated platform. If you start in anarchy it is largely an exchange of ideas and theories (plenty of which are very good) much like what we are doing now. Look at all the discussion anarchy is provoking!

[KaBar2]

The anarchist fight to achieve the 8-Hour Day started in 1882, if memory serves. At that time, the standard American workday was 14 hours with 30 minutes for lunch, and the work week was six days, with Sundays off. If you ever heard of the infamous Haymarket Riot, it was a rally for the 8-Hour Day that was attacked by the police. The "Haymarket Martyrs" were all anarchists, every one, who spoke at the rally. They were hanged for inciting a riot and murder, although they did not do the crimes of which they were convicted.

The I.W.W., which was substantially an anarchist organization after 1924, fought for Disability and Unemployment Insurance to be administered by the government and paid for by the employer. I'm not sure when they started organizing for it. I'd need to look it up, but I think it became law in the 1930's.

[seeking]

villian,
i guess i just dont look at that as 'anarchism', it's simply the interum between two different forms of government. any time there is a new state created, or a collapse of one system, there will always be a period of 'self rule', but it's never the intended ends.

kabar,
even if they were 'anarchists' of some form, the fact that they were anarchists is irrelivent, since the things they fought for have nothing what so ever to do with 'anarchism'. pettitioning the government to regulate business is not 'anarchism'.

[villain]

Originally posted by seeking@Dec 3 2004, 10:40 AM

pettitioning the government to regulate business is not 'anarchism'.
Quoted post



Ummm.... why not? Have you seen the Regulations, or Constitution, or Manifesto, or Codex of Anarchy? Isn't this the point I'm trying to make? Alot of different anarchists believe in alot of different things. The only similarities are probably that it's all people oriented.

[KaBar2]

You Enjoy Myself-- "No."

Anarchism, what is sometimes termed "classical" or "philosophical" anarchism, developed from the early ideas of socialism. The two principal theorists of Socialism at that period of time (1860's) were Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin. They were both leading lights in the International Working Men's Association (IWMA) which still existed in the middle 1970's ( I don't know about today--maybe.) The IWMA was the organization that gave birth to the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and so forth.

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels advocated what was then termed "scientific socialism." It was an authoritarian form of socialism that eventually came to be known as "Communism." This is because Mikhail Bakunin and his followers, who vehemently opposed Marx and his authoritarians, were having great success organizing workers with their ideas of a non-authoritarian form of socialism that they called "communism (small "c".) Unfortunately, the working class of that time wasn't very sophisticated, and plenty of them could not even read, or could not read well enough to follow complicated political treatises and arguments.
Marx and his scientific socialists ripped off the Bakuninist's name, and started calling their authoritarian brand of socialism by the designation "Communism." They also ripped off Bakunin's idea that the State itself was oppressive. Thus was born the irrational idea that the State would eventually "wither away" from the ministrations of one of the most authoritarian forms of government ever conceived by the mind of man. Bakunin resisted Marx's efforsts to dominate the First International Congress of the IWMA (known as the "First International") but he was unsuccessful, and the authoritarians managed to carry a vote expelling the Bakuninists. Marx called them "anarchists" which was intended as an insult (at that time, the word "anarchy" was synonymous with "chaos.") The Bakuninists repaired to another meeting hall, and set up what they considered to be the legitimate meeting of the IWMA, which they called the Second International (some anarchists today mark up a "2" inside of a diamond--a reference to the Second International.) Since Marx stole their name (communists) and tried to insult them by calling them anarchists, Bakunin and his followers adopted the insult proudly and "anti-authoritarian socialism," also called "libertarian socialism," has been called Anarchism ever since, and it's proponents have been called "anarchists." BUT IT IS A BRANCH OF THE SOCIALIST TREE.

One of the first expressions of philosophical anarchism was a satirical essay by Edmund Burke published in 1756, Vindication of a Natural Society.

In 1883, Joseph Lane---a long time labor activist, freethinker, atheist and anti-statist---published a pamphlet called An Anti-Statist Communist Manifesto. In it Lane defended liberty, equality and solidarity--what would today be called libertarian socialism. He attacked all forms of authority, whether religious or political, and declared himself both atheist and anti-statist. This was (and is) expressed in the anarchist slogan, Neither God Nor Master! Lane did not like the word "anarchist," prefering to call himself a revolutionary socialist or a free communist.

Although he was happily married with several children, he lambasted marriage as what was wrong with private life and Parlaiment as what was wrong with public life. He also rejected imperialism (the real deal--British imperialism), emigration, cooperatives, land "nationalization", "tee-totalism", vegetarianism, Malthusianism (birth control, and an early form of eugenics) and the eight-hour day and public relief for the unemployed (which many other anarchists supported on humanitarian grounds) as "mere palliatives that only delay the social revolution."

By 1885, there were two internationally well-known anarchist newspapers, The Anarchist and Freedom (which still publishes today, in London.) In 1887 there were two terrible tragedies, the Haymarket Martyrs, innocent of any violence, were hanged in the U.S., and a police riot against an anarchist rally in Great Britain known as "Bloody Sunday." These events triggered a big increase in anarchist organizing and from 1887 until the mid-twenties, the anarchist movement roared to life. Laws were passed in many countries making advocating anarchism or organizing anarchist leagues or disseminating anarchist literature as felonies.

There are a lot of different anarchist strains, from the individualism of Stirner, to Kropotkin's agrarian collectives, to anarcho-syndicalism. The CNT-FAI, in Spain, fought the fascists on the behalf of the legitimate Spanish government, as soldiers. Does that make them "not anarchists?"

Anarchists generally advocate:
--No State
--No Church
--No Marriage
--No conscription into the armed forces
--No taxes
--No prisons or jails
--No Laws restricting behavior, except cultural norms (in other words, one may defend oneself, but not attack others.)
--Ownership of the means of production in common
--Society should share the burden of illness or injury, and also the abundance of social production.

There are other important points, but this covers the basics.

[KaBar2]

BTW, I'm a Republican and a Christian. Maybe not too good of a Christian, but a Christian nevertheless. I haven't been an anarchist for years.