Neither Masters Nor Slaves

Discussion in 'Anarchy' started by broony, May 31, 2011.

  1. broony

    broony Banned

    Messages:
    15,458
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    Anarchy does not mean "chaos" or "without order" this is simply a misunderstanding that has been stereotyped by society over decades from their government since they will do everything in their power to hold you down and keep you enslaved.

    1st - The Theory

    Anti-Hierarchy

    Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, the absence of a master or sovereign. In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society which is without political, economic or social hierarchies, and within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. Anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be they communist or capitalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality, as well as unnecessary.

    The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority."

    However, "anarchism" and "anarchy" are undoubtedly the most misrepresented ideas in political theory. Generally, the words are used to mean "chaos" or "without order," and so, by implication, anarchists desire social chaos and a return to the "laws of the jungle." This process of misrepresentation is not without historical parallel. For example, in countries which have considered government by one person (monarchy) necessary, the words "republic" or "democracy" have been used precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Those with a vested interest in preserving the status quo will obviously wish to imply that opposition to the current system cannot work in practice, and that a new form of society will only lead to chaos.

    Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. Anarchism is also sometimes called libertarian socialism.

    Anti-State
    As the state is the delegation of power into the hands of the few, it is obviously based on hierarchy. This delegation of power results in the elected people becoming isolated from the mass of people who elected them and outside of their control. In addition, as those elected are given power over a host of different issues and told to decide upon them, a bureaucracy soon develops around them to aid in their decision-making. However, this bureaucracy, due to its control of information and its permanency, soon has more power than the elected officials. This means that those who serve the people's (so-called) servant have more power than those they serve, just as the politician has more power than those who elected him. All forms of state-like (i.e. hierarchical) organisations inevitably spawn a bureaucracy about them. This bureaucracy soon becomes the de facto focal point of power in the structure, regardless of the official rules. This empowerment of a bureaucracy, and so the marginalisation and disempowerment of ordinary people is the key reason for anarchist opposition to the state.

    The main function of the state is to enable the ruling elite to exploit lower social strata, i.e. derive an economic surplus from them. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the state is the extractive apparatus of society's parasites.

    The state ensures the exploitative privileges of its ruling elite by protecting certain economic monopolies from which its members derive their wealth. This service is referred to as "protecting private property."


    Anti-Property
    Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. ("Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others). Two kinds of property, or exploitative monopolies, that the state protects are the power to issue credit and currency, the basis of capitalist banking; and land and buildings, the basis of landlordism.

    The credit monopoly, by which the state controls who can and cannot loan money, reduces the ability of working class people to create their own alternatives to capitalism. By charging high amounts of interest on loans (which is only possible because competition is restricted) few people can afford to create co-operatives or one-person firms. So the credit monopoly, by artificially restricting the option to work for ourselves, ensures we work for a boss.

    The land monopoly consists of enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. This leads to ground-rent, by which landlords get payment for letting others use the land they own but do not actually cultivate. By being able to "legally" bar people from "their" property, the landlord class used the land monopoly to ensure the creation of a class of people with nothing to sell but their labour (i.e. liberty).

    In an anarchist society, actual use is considered the only title.


    Anti-Capitalist
    Most states remain only superficially democratic -- and this because the majority of their citizens are employees who spend about half their waking hours under the thumb of dictators (bosses) who allow them no voice in the crucial economic decisions that affect their lives most profoundly. The oppressive authority relations in the typical corporate hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were referring to a political system.

    Under capitalism, workers do not exchange the products of their labour, they exchange the labour itself for money. They sell themselves for a given period of time, and in return for wages, promise to obey their paymasters. Those who pay and give the orders -- owners and managers -- are at the top of the hierarchy, those who obey at the bottom. This means that capitalism, by its very nature, is hierarchical. Thus, capitalism produces a perverted hierarchy of values -- one that places humanity below property.

    This results in the replacement of human values by economic ones, giving us an "ethics" of the account book, in which people are valued by how much they earn. Capitalism only values a person as representing a certain amount of the commodity called "labour power," in other words, as a thing. Instead of being valued as an individual -- a unique human being with intrinsic moral and spiritual worth -- only one's price tag counts.

    This commodification of the individual under capitalism produces a social pathology called "Consumerism". People still feel the need for selfhood, and so try to fill the emptiness by consuming. The illusion of happiness, that one's life will be complete if one gets a new commodity, drives people to consume. Unfortunately, since commodities are yet more things, they provide no substitute for selfhood, and so the consuming must begin anew. This process is, of course, encouraged by the advertising industry, which tries to convince us to buy what we don't need because it will make us popular / sexy / happy / free / etc. But consuming cannot really satisfy the needs that the commodities are bought to satisfy. Those needs can only be satisfied by social interaction based on truly human values and by creative, self-directed work.


    Pro-Ecology
    By its very nature capitalism must expand, creating new markets, increasing production and consumption, and so invading more ecosystems, using more resources, and upsetting the interrelations and delicate balances that exist with ecosystems.

    It is impossible in principle for capitalism to solve the ecological crisis, because "grow or die" is inherent in its nature. As long as capitalism exists, it will necessarily continue its endless devouring of nature, until it removes the organic preconditions for human life.

    By contrast, a libertarian-socialist economy is able to function in a stationary state. Thus, libertarian socialism based on producer co-operatives is essential for the type of steady-state economy necessary to solve the ecological crisis.

    Effective protection of the planet's ecosystems requires that ordinary citizens be able to take part at the grassroots level in decision-making that affects their environment, since they are more likely to favour stringent environmental safeguards than the large, polluting special interests that now dominate the "representative" system of government. Thus a solution to the ecological crisis presupposes participatory democracy in the political sphere -- a transformation that would amount to a political revolution.


    Anti-Marxist
    The socialist movement is divided into two main tendencies: state socialism (Marxism) and libertarian socialism (anarchism).

    Anarchists point out that the Marxist revolution did, in fact, fail. After all, the aim of those revolutions was to create a free, democratic, classless society of equals. In fact it created a one party dictatorship based around a class system of bureaucrats exploiting and dominating working class people and a society lacking equality and freedom. As the stated aims of the Marxist revolution failed to materialise, anarchists would argue that those revolutions failed even though a "Communist" Party remained in power for over 70 years. And as for statism and authoritarianism "saving" the revolution, they saved it for Stalin, not socialism. That is nothing to be proud of.

    From an anarchist perspective, this makes perfect sense, because statist and authoritarian means will result in statist and authoritarian ends. The state structure is an instrument of minority rule, it cannot be used by the majority because it is based on hierarchy, centralisation and the empowerment of the minority at the top at the expense of everyone else. States have certain properties just because they are states.


    Anti-Dogmatic
    Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct.

    Ideologies are the nemesis of critical thinking and consequently of freedom, providing a book of rules and "answers" which relieve us of the "burden" of thinking for ourselves.

    2nd - The Practice

    Pro-Liberation

    Anarchists do not ask those in power to give up that power. No, they promote forms of activity and organisation by which all the oppressed can liberate themselves by their own hands. In other words, we do not think that those in power will altruistically give up that power or their privileges. Instead, the oppressed must take the power back into their own hands by their own actions. We must free ourselves, no one else can do it for us.

    When it boils down to it, our actual freedom is not determined by the law or by courts, but by the power the cop has over us in the street; the judge behind him; by the authority of our boss if we are working; by the power of teachers and heads of schools and universities if we are students; by the welfare bureaucracy if we are unemployed or poor; by landlords if we are tenants; by prison guards if we are in jail; by medical professionals if we are in a hospital. These realities of wealth and power will remain unshaken unless counter-forces appear on the very ground our liberty is restricted -- on the street, in workplaces, at home, at school, in hospitals and so on.


    Pro-Resistance
    Anarchists support the creation of alternatives, such as co-operatives, mutual banks and so on, which will help transform capitalism into libertarian socialism. Such alternative building, combined with civil disobedience and non-payment of taxes, is seen as the best way to creating anarchy.

    All anarchists are agreed that any revolution should be as non-violent as possible. Violence is the tool of oppression and, for anarchists, violence is only legitimate as a means of self-defence against authority. Therefore revolutionary anarchists do not seek "violent revolution" -- they are just aware that when people refuse to kow-tow to authority then that authority will use violence against them.

    The state is far better armed than the general population, better trained and (as history proves) more than willing to slaughter as many people as required to restore "order." But the argument that the state is too powerful to be defeated has been proven wrong time and time again. Every revolution has defeated a military machine which previously been claimed to be unbeatable.


    Anti-Reformism
    The claim that anarchists are against reforms and improvements in the here and now are often put forth by opponents of anarchism in an effort to paint us as extremists. Anarchists are radicals; as such, they seek the root causes of societal problems. Reformists seek to ameliorate the symptoms of societal problems, while anarchists focus on the causes.

    For example, a reformist sees poverty and looks at ways to lessen the destructive and debilitating effects of it: this produced things like the minimum wage and affirmative action. An anarchist looks at poverty and says, "what causes this?" and attacks that source of poverty, rather than the symptoms. While reformists may succeed in the short run with their institutional panaceas, the festering problems remain untreated, dooming reform to eventual costly, inevitable failure -- measured in human lives, no less. Like a quack that treats the symptoms of a disease without getting rid of what causes it, all the reformist can promise is short-term improvements for a condition that never goes away and may ultimately kill the sufferer. The anarchist, like a real doctor, investigates the causes of the illness and treats them while fighting the symptoms.

    It must be pointed out that the struggle for reforms within capitalism is not the same as reformism. Reformism is the idea that reforms within capitalism are enough in themselves and attempts to change the system are impossible (and not desirable). As such all anarchists are against this form of reformism -- we think that the system can be (and should be) changed and until that happens any reforms will not get to the root of social problems.


    Anti-Electioneering
    Electioneering does not work. History is littered with examples of radicals being voted into office only to become as, or even more, conservative than the politicians they replaced.

    Existing power structures cannot effectively be challenged through elections. For one thing, elected representatives are not mandated, which is to say they are not tied in any binding way to particular policies, no matter what promises they have made or what voters may prefer. Around election time, the public's influence on politicians is strongest, but after the election, representatives can do practically whatever they want, because there is no procedure for instant recall. In practice it is impossible to recall politicians before the next election, and between elections they are continually exposed to pressure from powerful special-interest groups -- especially business lobbyists, state bureaucracies and political party power brokers.

    All this does not mean, obviously, that anarchists prefer dictatorship or an "enlightened" monarchy. Far from it, democratising state power can be an important step towards abolishing it. All anarchists agree that the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better that even the most enlightened monarchy." But neither does it mean that anarchists will join in with the farce of electioneering, particularly when there are more effective means available for changing things for the better.

    For anarchists, then, when you vote, you are choosing between rulers. Instead of urging people to vote we raise the option of choosing to rule yourself, to organise freely with others - in your workplace, in your community, everywhere - as equals. The option of something you cannot vote for, a new society. And instead of waiting for others to do make some changes for you, anarchists urge that you do it yourself. This is the core of the anarchist support for abstentionism.


    Pro-Organization
    Anarchists reject the idea that political and struggle can be divided from the economic struggle. Such an argument just reproduces the artificially created division of labour between mental and physical activity of capitalism. We say that we should not separate out politics into some form of specialised activity that only certain people (i.e. our "representatives") can do. Instead, anarchists argue that political struggles, ideas and debates must be brought into the social and economic organisations of our class where they must be debated freely by all members as they see fit and that political and economic struggle and change must go hand in hand.

    Anarchism is committed to confederalism, decentralisation, self-management and decision making from the bottom up. In anarchist organisations the membership play the decisive role in running them and ensuring that power remains in their hands. They express the anarchist vision of the power and creative efficacy people have when they are self-reliant, when they act for themselves and manage their own lives directly. Anarchists insist that people must manage their own affairs (individually and collectively) and have both the right and the ability to do so. Only by organising in this way can we create a new world, a world worthy of human beings and unique individuals.


    Pro-Community
    The modern city is a virtual appendage of the capitalist workplace, being an outgrowth and essential counterpart of the factory (where "factory" means any enterprise in which surplus value is extracted from employees). As such, cities are structured and administered primarily to serve the needs of the capitalist elite -- employers -- rather than the needs of the many -- their employees. From this standpoint, the city must be seen as (1) a transportation hub for importing raw materials and exporting finished products; and (2) a huge dormitory for wage slaves, conveniently locating them near the enterprises where their labor is to exploited, providing them with entertainment, clothing, medical facilities, etc. as well as coercive mechanisms for controlling their behavior.

    The attitude behind the management of these "civic" functions by the bureaucratic servants of the capitalist ruling class is purely instrumental: worker-citizens are to be treated merely as means to corporate ends, not as ends in themselves. This attitude is reflected in the overwhelmingly alienating features of the modern city: its inhuman scale; the chilling impersonality of its institutions and functionaries; its sacrifice of health, comfort, pleasure, and aesthetic considerations to bottom-line requirements of efficiency and "cost effectiveness"; the lack of any real communal interaction among residents other than collective consumption of commodities and amusements; their consequent social isolation and tendency to escape into television, alcohol, drugs, gangs, etc. Such features make the modern metropolis the very antithesis of the genuine community for which most of its residents hunger. This contradiction at the heart of the system contains the possibility of radical social and political change.

    The size of the anarchist neighbourhoods will vary, but it will probably fluctuate around some ideal size, discoverable in practice, that will provide a viable scale of face-to-face interaction and allow for both a variety of personal contacts and the opportunity to know and form a personal estimation of everyone in the neighborhood. Some anarchists have suggested that the ideal size for a neighbourhood might be around 300 to 600 adults, or 500 to 1,000 people. Groups of neighborhoods would involve perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 people. Most economies of scale are reached at this size.


    Anti-Authority
    For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behavior which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Today, the richest one percent of the population owns more property than the bottom 90 percent combined.

    Anarchists think that public opinion and social pressure would be the main means of preventing anti-social acts in an anarchist society, with such actions as boycotting and ostracising used as powerful sanctions to convince those attempting them of the errors of their way. Extensive non-cooperation by neighbours, friends and workmates would be the best means of stopping acts which harmed others.


    http://www.davidsheen.com/words/anarchy.htm
     
  2. soapofthelotus

    soapofthelotus Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    0
    anarchy means no theories, just the feelings and the light of the sun and moon to guide ye, aye tis a wild and righteous one, for those good of heart not forgetting themselves, tis a spiritual of freedom

    anarchy means all is one
    one is nothing
    nothing is everything

    its not good versus evil,
    its everything versus nothing
    and nothing is everything
    so its just... very confusing...
    ONLY LOVE CAN WIELD IT TRULY!!
     
  3. itsallgood

    itsallgood Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cant read all that at once dude it will take me some days. lol
     
  4. Reality is BS

    Reality is BS Member

    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    The only way to live under anarchy is to start right now. Raise your conscious awareness.
     
  5. A flowerchild's journey

    A flowerchild's journey Member

    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow you really dedicated yourself to posting this .. thats ALOT TO READ .. Im only on the first sentence and I love it hold on .. let me continue and be enlightened. :)
     
  6. finn MACcool

    finn MACcool Member

    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's good to see people debunking the many myths on anarchist chaos,destruction etc. Good job on a good post.
     
  7. Fitch3k

    Fitch3k Member

    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks for posting
     
  8. tuesdaystar

    tuesdaystar Interneter

    Messages:
    1,546
    Likes Received:
    57
    twas a weee bit long for me to read in full, but seemed to be right on point with my natural sense of personal freedom + anti-establishment

    So maybe I'm not a commie afterall :)
     
  9. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,140
    It does not mean chaos, it means more chance on chaos because there is no fixed system to 'guide' us into orderly patterns. It means especially more chance on chaos when there is an almost unnatural amount of people in a certain area. Seems logical why anarchy is associated with chaos if it would be applied on our societies today.
     
  10. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    719
    It is obvious the "system" does not work. The reason for this is that, built into the system is a mechanism designed to insure the survival of the system. In fact, the system is nothing but a self-perpetuating and self-actuating mechanism. And as such, it will not take into account the flesh and blood issues of the human condition when solving its own internal and external problematic imbalances.

    In a capitalist society, a human is simply part of an equation whose value is based on personal economic viability. In the interest of its own survival, this system will parasitically drain the very host it is presumed and intended to serve--the public domain. The recent bailouts of insurance companies, banks, and car companies using public funds (taxes) certainly bears this out.

    What is it when a government requires its citizens to replace the money lost by these for-profit entities? Certainly, a case could be made that corporations are now a branch of government, or government is now a branch of corporation. Either way, the result is the same; populations starve and people die because the rescue of fellow humans from such things as exposure, disease, and malnutrition is not in the best interest of the system. If there is such a thing as the Beast of Revelations fame, then money is that beast. Nothing moves and no one eats without the corresponding flow of tokens (money).

    An exchange system is all fine and well, but what do you call an exchange system that allows for the disenfranchisement of humans?

    Interestingly, when the chief money-handlers/changers fell into hard financial times after somehow mis-managing and losing six-hundred billion dollars, they didn't face financial or personal ruin; they just created further financial and personal ruin for the already-strapped-for-cash taxpayers by asking/telling them to kindly replace the money they lost. To add insult to injury, the taxpayer is also asked/told to put the replacement dollars into the hands of the very same people who lost the first bag of money.

    And these money-handlers were so pompous in their acquisition of these funds that they actually said they would take more of our money only on the condition that there would be no oversight by anyone but themselves when it comes to what they will do with it. In essence, as ridiculous as it sounds, they were threatening to not take our money if we didn't close our eyes and turn around and count to ten after handing it over to them. At any rate, they got our money.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU"]Working Class Hero - John Lennon - YouTube
     
  11. Gedio

    Gedio Member

    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not all anarchists are anti-property or anti-capitalism. In fact I'd say most aren't.
     
  12. Delta 9 The Psychonaut

    Delta 9 The Psychonaut Member

    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    7
    Can we get a spark-notes version? From what I skimmed though you make good points, whenever I discuss anarchy with people they always seem to have very misleading thoughts about it.
     
  13. broony

    broony Banned

    Messages:
    15,458
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    Not sure, you'd have to do a lot of searching.
     
  14. Enemy of The Clipboard!

    Enemy of The Clipboard! Guest

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, I got lost within the first paragraph, but I'll have a longer squizz later on when I'm more awake...anything that promotes the dismantling of hierarchy can only be a good thing, no?
     
  15. andrew45

    andrew45 Member

    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dictator
    Monarchism
    Oligarch-ism
    Democracy
    Social democracy
    Communism (Utopia) .
     
  16. Raga_Mala

    Raga_Mala Psychedelic Monk

    Messages:
    1,039
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hmmm...this doesn't ring true to my understanding of anarchist theory. Can you cite an anarchist author/thinker who thinks anarchism is possible w/ large-scale institutions of capitalism or ideas of property?

    It seems to me that eliminating state power while leaving corporate pwoer untouched would be...a pretty hollow victory.
     
  17. Enemy of The Clipboard!

    Enemy of The Clipboard! Guest

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Chomsky knows what he's talking about, eh?
     
  18. broony

    broony Banned

    Messages:
    15,458
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    Government needs to come crumbling down for we don't need them no more.

    First post too important to be on page 2.
     
  19. Aemilius

    Aemilius Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting thread, just curious.... Do anarchists in general agree with the kind of "Direct Action" I always see in the media like breaking bank windows and setting dumpsters on fire? I don't see much mentioned about what part that plays and how or if it fits into the ideology for a significant percentage of anarchists (Links?). Is the idea just to wreak havoc? I can just see the bankers laughing over martinis at the complete ineffectiveness of it.... all the damage is covered by insurance, it doesn't slow them down for an instant and the people doing the "Direct Action" just seem to end up looking foolish (at least the way they're portrayed on TV). Just my impression so far....

    Emile
     
  20. broony

    broony Banned

    Messages:
    15,458
    Likes Received:
    1,049
    I think this is more of a act of anger and frustration. Anarchy itself is not violent, though to live in anarchy you might have to go through anger and frustration.

    You can't be in good times without going through bad.

    Don't listen to anything about anarchy on tv, its nothing but miss-truths, manipulation and lies. Anarchy in todays society is resembled as something that is scary, which promotes ignorance on many levels. Do not think from stereotypes.

    Like anything you can do it with love and peace or with hate.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice