The only way anarchy can work.

coolrayfruge, First of all, anarchy and freedom are two different things, and a number of people seem to have those things being the same. Being free is how you feel about your life, and at least some of us feel quite free with life being the way it is.

Years ago, I lived with a woman who wanted to live far out in the country, grow all her own food, no TV, etc., and it was a drag. I found that I missed TV, computers, concerts, movies, restaurants and a lot of other things that are available to us in the modern world. What kind of freedom is it to deny yourself those creature comforts that enhance our lives because you're BSing yourself into believing you're an anarchist.

If you want to live off the grid and all the rest, go ahead on an do that. If you live with a woman, you might find that she has different priorities than abstaining from electricity, flush toilets and all those other things, and lots of luck with trying to convince her that you life is some kind of statement about freedom.

PS: Money is not about to go away any time soon.

Let's face it, living of the grid is available, but most of us have little or no interest in doing without those things that are such enjoyable parts of our lives. In fact, it would appear that you have, at the very minimum, a computer, and you say you are living in an RV. That means you go to gas stations, the DMV, etc.

You can think of yourself as an anarchist, if you so wish, but, most likely, your are a part of the greater society. Welcome to the real world!

 

I'd like to say that even though I think working towards an anarchist society is futile (among other problems), I do think it's proponents provide a valuable addition to our overall discussion. (Discussion as in, 'all the bullshit people say ever' lol)

@ Lamont

I totally agree with everything you just said.

@ Coolrayfruge

You sound more like a survivalist. And please dude, don't say "we need to live off the land to regain our freedoms." That's akin to a Tea Bagger one-liner ("We just have to cut taxes to get more freedom!"). It demeans the word. Because the freedom of slaying a deer for my dinner may be a romantic idea, but I prefer the freedom to have a dentist using anesthesia during my root canal than having some apartment-squat anarchist pull my tooth using nothing but a wrench and a shot of whiskey as a painkiller lol

And as usual, I mean no disrespect...but nothing you said seems very realistic in regards to actually changing society. Remember dude, we're living in a corporatist state with a HUGE public relations campaign. You really think persuading a few people to live off the grid will have any effect?

I respect the shit out of honest anarchists (the same way I respect anyone else who provides an honest, adequate argument despite any disagreements I may harbor). I'm not talking about upper-middle class suburbanite anarchists who run home to mommy and daddy after a flirtation with the proletariat, either. It's just that humanity has always had states, or some similar system.

To me, anarchists seem more like religious nuts than advocates of a sustainable way of life.

 

Aoaa..ah!! It's not futile. We just need to go to the police station and get ourselves arrested. It is futile for the workers of the World to perceive the contradiction.

 

The anarchist is constrained only by the self organizing principle of life.
Not fashioning for himself any kind of governance. Don't let the left hand know what the right is doing.

 

I like this. Not fashioning governance for himself, instead the Social Anarchist or Anarcho-syndicalist would consider the creative power of all humans in decisions concerning the creation of government for the people....

....Anarchism can be conceived as a kind of voluntary socialism...(Chomsky)

ZW

 

Being totally off-grid is essentially impossible in the United States. But that doesn't mean that total reliance on the grid for all of life's essentials is necessary or wise.

A good engineer builds redundancy into any system he designs. To the degree that you can provide your own food, energy, water, communications system, you are safer and have an arguably better quality of life.

A few years ago, there was a massive collapse of the power grid in Ontario Canada in the middle of the winter. People died waiting for the system to link everyone back to the grid.

Those with logs and a fireplace or other backup means of heating their homes, those with food stores to ride out a long period of impassible roads survived.

Having a backup system of life essentials has nothing to do with anarchistic political philosophy. If anything, it requires building a community of neighbors, family and friends that pull together for mutual survival and prosperity.

Wendell Berry is the ultimate poet of community theory, a superior alternative to the "every man for himself" philosophy.

 

With all due respect, please tell me how getting yourself arrested is going to help spread the anarchist goal. Because I cannot for the life of me understand your point.

Like I said before, I have immense respect for real anarchists. But when I debate them, all I ask is that they provide a substantial (i.e. -- no bullshit) model or theory as to how an anarchist world could really come to pass.

And for the record, as soon as I hear the words "It'll happen when people want it to happen!", I'll just ask again: "And how will the people do this?"

Nevermind asking, "How will people defend this society when a modern Franco comes crashing in with tanks and guns?"

 

Do we have to choose between total anarchy and a police state?
Other societies live with more freedom than the United States, but still have environmental protection, fair labor laws, social justice without being a Nanny state. Of course you will have to be vigilant no matter what. Someone will always try to abuse the system and take your freedom.

 

isn't anarchy, by definition, total?

 

worldofdarkblue, Regardless of whether you think anarchy is a total or partial thing, it's mostly bullshit and wishful thinking. The legal system, the exchange of goods for money and all of those other things that it is so easy to point fingers at are not about to disappear because of the flawed way they exist in the very real world.

In a state of total anarchy, would there be such things a doctors? Who would decide who gets to be a doctor? How about traffic laws? Should people be able to drive as fast or slow as they want...or any whatever side of the street they want...because they are some sort of self-styled anarchist? How about inspecting food, restaurants, etc? Do those things just magically disappear in an anarchic state?

The biggest problem with anarchy is that it doesn't work. As flawed and corrupt as such things as democracies, capitalist and socialist economic systems, etc. are, I defy you to give an example of a time and a place where anarchy has actually worked for very long. I also would like you to describe how total anarchy would actually work in the real world. Best of luck...

 

It's not 'mostly' bullshit. It's total bullshit.

 

Dig it, I think most of us would love to live in a world where there are no more wars, and everybody has access to decent food, water, shelter, opportunities and so on. Until that day comes...if it ever does...about the best thing I can find to do is do those small acts of charity, love and kindness that I can, and I know a lot of other folks who live their lives the same way.

Do all of those who say they want a revolution, we'd all like to see the plan...
(Many thanks to John Lennon)

 

In a world of anarchy that's all there would be - wars. Millions of small wars.

 

I agree. For instance, in the ending chapter of 'A People's History' (the part I think Zinn fucked up, although it's one of my favorite books) Zinn basically says anarchy is the only solution. He states that a bunch of small communities will work together to make the world super duper.

As much as I love Zinn (RIP), I have to ask -- What happens when one of these peace loving small communities decides that its neighboring small peace loving community isn't sharing enough of its crops? And starts building mortars to grab their fair share of crops?

And by the way, what happens when these small communities start banding together and, let's say, form the nation of Philadelphia? Or the People's Republic of New Jersey? Or the United Tea Bagger Republics of the Mid West?

What happens when a bunch of dirty statists, all of whom are products of states, say "Fuck it, let's start a country!!"

Can an anarchist answer these questions for me (without plunging into a one-liner orgy like a bonafide Tea Bagger)?

 

Quig,

A couple thousand years ago, when faced with a common enemy (Persia), a fractious bunch of Greek city states, temporarily bonded together to defeat a much larger enemy, (aided by geography).
Eventually Philip of Macedon conquered the warring Greeks and built an empire in the Eastern Mediterranean. So I guess people that refuse to form a nation can have their way for a while, but eventually some military genius will pick them off, one by one and subdue them all under his dictatorship. What a sad end to the world's first democracy!

 

Wars are fought to establish preferential order, anarchy and war are not synonymous terms.

 

Then they had gotten a divorce from peace first.

 

Discussing the nature of yin/yang, the student asks the master;

Master, is there too much evil in the world?

Master: No grasshopper, there is always just the right amount...

ZW

 

I don't think I said that anarchy and war were synonymous terms. I said that in a world of anarchy there would be millions of little wars.

That'd be my expectation anyway.

 

Millions of little wars for what reason? Why would anarchy produce war?