Are Anarchists Missing The Point?

I'm betting the crap will hit the fan sooner rather than later. At the end of the day thermodynamics trump debt creation.

 

Everyone already sees the enormous pie staring the entire world in the face and, according to the scientists, global warming could produce extreme results within two decades. What most don't see, is that the computers are about to spit out the mathematics for a Theory of Everything, and the crap is about to start hitting fan sooner than they think. Academics are about to prove that they are full of crap, that 42 is as good an explanation as any other and, despite doing most of the talking, hardly anyone ever listens to them, which is why one in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth.

 

Hmmm . . .

 

"I have a free standing offer to teach anyone how to use a dictionary and a search engine, so they no longer have to guess at what words mean to most people."

Oh, cool. I have an offer to teach people how not to be a dick. Can we just trade maybe?

 

You can't give dicks away for free, people only want the expensive kind that make money.

 

hyuck yuck yuck Chuckles

 

I think they are missing the point long term. Eventually you are going to need public services or structure. Eventually someone is going to have a dispute and need resorption. If no one answers to anyone it's not good.

It's really a juvenile rebellious philosophy that does not hold up in large groups or long term. I find it similar to libertarians in the idea that only you matter therefor no one should do anything about anything. And we see that that philosophy also looks best on paper. They are both fantasies that remove one's obligations to fellow man. You can be selfish and it's ok and the natural flow of the world.

If a small group want to try it maybe it works. But look at all the punks in the 80's who lived 25 to a house and thought it worked. They all got sick of it when they found there is no solution to problems and they are sick of sleeping on a floor. They found that their peers who were really into the idea of it were also into the idea of causing trouble for everyone else as long as they were happy.

In theory it's a nice idea though.

 

Yes

 

Considering a considerable amount of human history has been spent in anarchistic societies, even to this very day, then no. If anything, anarchy is literally the most down to earth social organization out there.

 

Which current societies are you thinking about when you say this?

 

Is not communism born out of anarchy.?
And we all know how that ends up.

 

Born out of anarchy doesn't mean anarchy. There was a lot of control and plenty of hierarchy in the average communist society. There's a reason its not called anarchy

 

You ask a rhetorical question. The answer seems to be No. In order to proceed further, it's necessary to make sense of what you just said. What do you mean by communism? A totalitarian system brought about by revolution and guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism".? Or just a cooperative society governed by the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'? And what is "anarchy"? A system devoid of even informal authority and hierarchy and characterized by political and social disorder? Or a highly decentralized political system based on consensus and informal authority? I can see communism as cooperative sharing being born out of anarchy as consensus/informal leadership in certain social settings, like utopian communities, Rainbow gatherings, primitive hunter-gatherer societies, and religious communities. And I can see a totalitarian regime emeging in reaction to political and social disorder resulting from a complete breakdown in leadership.

 

My point was simply how the initial anarchy ended up. I wonder how the Russian people would have voted, had they been allowed a second referendum after the revolution and they began so see the reality of what was in store for them.
Corrupt capitalism is not easy to put right. Any country needs capitalists to create industry and jobs, along with a government to ensure that workers are not exploited.
After a violent uprising, few people seem to stop and think that they cannot build cars in their backyard.
I suppose that this simply poses a question about the fine lines between democratic protests, civil disobedience and total breakdown of law and order.

 

You are correct in what you say. France managed to form a democratic government following the revolution, but the are the exception, rather than the rule.
All to often, anarchy is stirred up by people with corrupt ulterior motives.

 

To be clear, this doesn't mean these societies had no authority or hierarchy, although it was minimal. Chiefs might be chosen by consensus from time to time to direct the society for specific purposes like war. As usual, there's the problem of definition. So we want to accept Muray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism as ancachist. Even in so-called acephalous (headless) societies, like the traditional Dinka, Nuer, Igbo, or Trobriand Islanders, there is informal authority rooted in custom, norms and social pressure.

For example, in the Rainbow Family, in operation for over four decades, there seem to be several centers of authority. Officially, the Council, which all people at the gathering can attend and participate, is the ultimate legislative authority. It's governed by consensus. The different "tribes" attending have their own councils that make decisions for their particular group and can serve as voting blocs in the Council. Executive authority is exercised by focalizers and elders. The focalizers are simply volunteers, who operate the medical service, the various kitchens, latrine digging, etc. Theoretically, they follow the guidelines of he Council, if there are any, but sometimes the Council will be debating where the latrines should be dug and somebody has to inform them that focalizers have already dug them. Then there are the elders, usually seasoned members who are respected for their experience and wisdom. This, however, is subjective and depends a lot on natural leadership ability. One person's elder may be another person's nonentity. And then there is the security function, exercised by Shanti Sena (literally, peace force). Theoretically, everyone is Shanti Sena, but in practice a particular group of focalizers called the Shanti Sena Family exercises the function, and joining requires, in practice acceptance by the other members. To outsiders, this may seem like a chaotic arrangement, but it works relatively well for the limited context of holding and managing national, regional, and local gatherings several times a year.

Anarchist societies tend to be small-scale; those that aren't tend to be temporary. I live near a successful co-housing community that is basically anarchist. People join because they like togetherness and want to make it work, but it isn't for everyone, and it operates in the context of the local, state, and national governments. The Twin Oaks community in Virginia is an example of a larger intentional community operating along these lines. There is also Freetown Christiantia in Denmark, that has been operating for over four decades.most anarchist societies are small scale and/or short-lived. https://listverse.com/2016/06/29/10-instances-of-anarchist-societies-that-actually-worked/

 

All of your replies are very interesting and show many things in a different light.
I tended to think of anarchy as where whole countries set out to topple their leaders or governments, but on a smaller scale things can be very different.
The examples in your last paragraph illustrate to me, where large governments have failed to meet the needs of local communities and people have stepped in to plug the gap. In these cases, I imagine that most governments do not see this as a threat and provided that the communities are not involved in organized crime, I imagine that although they may not openly admit it, the governments are quite pleased that these communes have fulfilled a need that they were unable to deal with.
I would hardly class such positive actions as anarchy in the traditional sense.

 

Prince Pyotr Kropotkin - a Russian anarchist, exiled from the Soviet Union spent some time here in Brighton. Whilst volunteering at a neighbourhood Law centre, we used his desk, an enormous leather inlaid top to it and his chair.

 

mis-defining is missing the point.
we only need hierarchy, because and as long as, we remain unwilling to be sufficiently universally considerate, to not do so.
and that, absolutely is a choice. "evil" is the CHOICE to cause suffering and harm.
it is only in our universe as long as the statistical consensus of our behavior, creates it.

aggressive inconsiderateness is not an expression of freedom. it is the reason we don't have the freedoms that we don't.

tyranny is CREATED by inconsiderateness, regardless of what forms by which means, we attempt to impose upon and regulate our relationships.
and harm and suffering, are not avoided, cannot be, when we are told all will be well, made well even, by hating the very logic, they cannot be prevented without.

nor does it take rocket science to have what is called a conscience. which is simply realizing and living, the dependence of our own happiness and well being,
on universal and impartial consideration, and logic in the service of that consideration.

honesty of course, is that without which there is only ignorance, and imagination, that without which there is no joy in life.

it is true you will never make hierarchy go away by attacking it. replacing one with another is all this ever achieves.
but it can be diminshed and transmuted, by a popular enough practice of consideration.

and of course, there are those who feel they gain by keeping people ignorant of this,
and for a very long time they've done a very effective job of doing so.

whatever they call themselves, none of us have to shame ourselves, by perpetuating tyranny, by choosing and aggressively choosing, to be inconsiderate.

 

anarchists are fucking sick of it all
yet want to live

not ununderstandable

do as thou wilt