Should Anarchy be given a new name?

You are very welcome to your generalisations

Should I throw in a dog on a rope aswell for safe measure?

 

Zonk, anarchy is based upon morality. Morals don't exist. They are not something we can all relate to. What seems wrong and unethical to you may be perfectly normal to me.

Also, how do you tell me my actions are inapropriate without over-powering me? How do you convince of the "errors of my ways" without over-powering me? You are in fact over-powering me, by trying to convince me of something I don't belive in. This forum is anarchy. We have no rules, we have no guidelines. Is this working? Fuck no! Are we working together? Fuck no! what happens when you can't convince me of my errors, and I kill you, what's going to happen then? Are you going to try to have a chat with me? You can't, you're dead! People do not see right and wrong the same way, hence why anarchy will never work.

 

Thinking about it, which is more of a generalisation: To say that some people would be involved in a movement for the wrong reasons, or to say that everyone involved in said movement would be in it for the right ones?

 

A rope? Getting a bit up market now aren't we? What happened to your string?

 

Tis holding togethor my para-boots...

 

Doc Martens all the way man....

 

I'd say go and check out ancient Greek civilisation for your proof.

Anyway I would love to be directed to some proof that capitalism has ever worked in practice

 

Greek civilisation's not the best example to cite unfortunately. Although direct democracy was available to all citizens, only 10% of the population were classed as citizens, ie. free men. Needless to say women and slaves were excluded. But in principle, it's a good model for a system if everyone were able to participate. Of course, society would then have to be organised on the level of city-states, it would be pretty difficult, though I won't say impossible, to do on a national level....

 

I guess it depends how you define a "working" society. I mean, at the moment, I have access to information, hot water, food and lighting, and am fairly sure I'm not going to have any of those things taken away from me in the forseeable future. So, for me, whatever system I am under is working.

And again, you can't argue in favour of a system by arguing against other systems. If I have no evidence that capitalism has ever "worked", that doesn't indicate that every other system is superior. To use an analogy, that would be like saying "You could choke on a bread roll, you could choke on a live otter, so you might as well eat the otter".

OK, shit analogy, but you see what I'm saying? Just because capitalism is a flawed ideology in practise, doesn't necessarily mean that any other ideology is better. Someone else could probably argue this better.

 

For me, personally, the system is 'working' too. I'm well placed to take a top job and earn a fat wadge if I wanted. But that's the operative word, me. Capitalism is a selfish system. No doubts about that. If you ask a child in a sweatshop, or a third world producer whether they have the things that you described, I'm sure the answer would be an emphatic no! The system is definitely not working for them. It's only working for those at the top. That's precisely why I don't intend to take one of those jobs, and why I'll keep fighting the system....

 

While I don't agree with sweatshops particularly, most of those areas have high unemployment anyway. But capitalism can be regulated, it does not have to descend into exploitative globalisation.

I appreciate what you're saying, but how do you decide whether any system is working? If everyone is happy? People are all different, so you'll never find a system that suits everyone. This is why I am frustrated by the persistent use of words like "generalisation"; all political ideologies are based on generalisation! Not everyone would be happy under anarchism.

The main problem I've had with this debate is that no-one seems to have an clear definition of anarchy. What is being described is throughout is either a) the absence of a governmental system, or b) the creation of a new system of government through revolution and deposition of the existing one.

Hands up who can tell me what that's called.

 

We could just shoot them?

And yes, that was satire

I suppose you'd have to look to utilitarian arguments, bringing the greatest good to the greatest many. Don't look to me for a justification of anarchism, I'm not an anarchist, I'd be as interested to hear the argument for it as you would. I do still think there are elements of anarchy that have a great deal of merit though....

 

Like I said, most of this stuff seems to be Marxism rather than anarchy. I don't see how anarchism is really sustainable, since it is not so much a system as the absence of one.

 

Many anarchist trends of thought find roots in Marxism, though some are far older. Afterall, even Marx himself was advocating anarchy at the end of the day....

 

Not exactly. For a start, I doubt Marx considered Marxism as an ideology so much as an inevitability: that it is not what necessarily should, so much as what would happen. Moreover, anarchy is not sustained in Marxism. I'm on shaky ground here, but as I understand it Marxism dictates that we naturally seek government in its absence (nature abhors a vaccuum, etc.). In Marxism, anarchy is the void that must be filled, not the system which fills that void.

 

Aye, shaky ground indeed. Marx argued that in the short term capitalism must be overthrown and the institutions of government taken over by the proletariat. For Marx, politics, and therefore government, arises from class inequalities and conflicts that are inherent to capitalism. All political dsciourse is based on conflict. Afterall, if everyone agreed, there would be no need for government. Marx argued that this government of the working class would set to work immediately on removing all forms of inequality and conflict from society until a classless society was formed. After that, Marx believed that there would be no need for government and the state would wither away into non-existance. Essentially anarchism....

 

Ah, I guess I just made up my own ending. I think Marx had way too much faith in the working classes. I mean, we were all working class once, including the people who "invented" classes in the first place. I don't see what would stop the working classes becoming the new ruling classes and it all happening over and over again in cycles. If history teaches us anything, it's that history teaches us nothing.

 

I don't think anarchism has a future as it is a political dead end. You cannot organise society without some leadership and formal organisation. The whole thing would collapse. For example in modern society there needs to be official departments in charge of electricity supply, sewage treatment, water supply, rubbish collection and disposal, healthcare, education, defence, etc. It would be impossible to provide all these essential services by using anarchist methods of organising.


I think the best we could hope for is some form of democratic, worker controlled communism along the lines proposed by Lenin for his reform of the Soviet Union before he died which was:- No official to be paid more than the average wage of a worker. All official posts to be temporary and rotated amongst all workers, and all officials to be accountable recallable and to the workers, to prevent the rise beaurocratic elite. No standing army but an armed people. Sadly Lenins' reforms were never implemented in Russia due to his death.

 

The problem with this is that it assumes those "official" jobs require no specialist skills. I don't know if that's true.

 

I will consider an "anarchist" point of view if:

1. They can provide a viable, workable option to what is presently in place.

2.They can prove that what is already in place, can't be modified to better suit the society it serves.

Everything has room for improvement. Without a doubt, capitalist societies fall within such category. My point being that throughout the dawn of time, capitalism has withstood that test of time and proven to be the best system to date.