In the Culture sci-fi novels of Iain M. Banks, galactic society is nominally anarchist. There are effectively no laws, no government, and no hierarchy. This is accomplished by positing a “post-scarcity” economy, where there is no competition over resources, and vesting essentially all responsibility for the structure and function of society in benevolent and extraordinarily powerful artificial intelligences.
Purely as a matter of PR, I recommend avoiding the term “BM community.” Other people won’t want you giving back to them.
Freaking hell… that’s two out of two responses. Am I communicating THAT badly? Yeesh!
a) Anarchy means “no archy”, “lack of archy”, wherein “archy” is structured “power over other people”. Monarchy is “one person with power over the rest”, Oligarchy is “a small handful of people with power over the rest”, and Anarchy is “NO ONE with power over the rest”. No one rules. We all on the same page with that, or is someone (DagNation? smiling bandit?) inclined to think “anarchy” means something else to nearly everyone but me or something?!??
b) Lemur866 opined that anarchists “… don’t want any sort of state. Anarchism is NOT about improving the state, it’s about, well, smashing the state.”. It is that to which I replied “Untrue” and, as an example of an anarchist (me) being both willing and inclined to work TOWARDS anarchy by seeking & supporting modifications to the existing structure, gave an example of a change in representative democracy towardsa a MORE anarchic (but nevertheless NOT as of yet “anarchy”) system. I myself said (and subsequently quoted myself in my reply to smiling bandit) that “That is not anarchy”.
c) I described anarchy in a PREVIOUS post, post #13. MAYBE someone (DagNation? smiling bandit? bueller?) is intending to assert that my description in post #13 is not in keeping with what most people mean when they describe anarchy, but I’m under the impression that these replies are both in response to my post #36 which is my response to Lemur866. Perhaps because both DagNation and smiling bandit quoted my “Untrue” lead-off sentence in that post?
Is everyone clear on why I am confused at this point?
Would someone care to explain how and in what way my post to Lemur866 indicates that I use the term “anarchy” to mean something other than what most folks mean? (Do most folks believe an anarchist is ethically or politically opposed to working within the system towards a final goal in which no one has power over anyone else? If so, where the heck did THAT come from?)
It is interesting that American Libertarianism is unabashedly pro-capitalist, while old-world anarchism comes out of the same left-wing anti-capitalist tradition as Marxism. See the anarcho-syndicalists, who are a lot like Leninists except that they want to replace the corporations, not with the state, but with what amount to labor-unions-acting-as-management. Their flag combines anarchist black with communist red.
I suppose I take them for being anarchists, too. But only in the same sense that creation scientists are scientists, Westboro Baptist Churchers are devout Christians, and Camille Paglia is a feminist.
Y’all should know better. It’s not exactly like we’ve never ever had a thread about anarchy on this board before. In all the relevant prior threads I can’t recall a single advocate of industrial sabotage or firebombing among self-identified anarchists.
So is filk goddess Leslie Fish – she showed me her party/union card once, entertainment workers’ division. (The Wobblies have always considered themselves both a party and a union.) She has written some classic revolutionary tunes – “Wobblies from Space,” “It’s Sister Jenny’s Turn to Throw the Bomb,” “Black Powder and Alcohol,” “No High Ground,” “Jefferson and Liberty,” “Live and Let Live,” “Bring It Down,” many more to make your eyes tear like a whiff of thermite!
LATE EDIT: well ok obviously some overlap in their mutual desire to get rid of the existing power structure. But that’s a bit like saying Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue is a branch of the Catholic Church just because both orgs would like to make abortion illegal.
Is it time for this again?
Some quick points:
Anarchy != anarchism
Yes. those protesters are anarchists, if they say so. But they’re not anarchists I’d associate with.
Yes, human nature and current socialisation is not amenable to immediate full-blown anarchism today. But the implied assumption that “human nature” is unchangeable is just silly.
There are many flavours of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is not one of them, IMO. It’s a redwashing of Libertarianism.
The central defining tenets of anarchism, I think, are “no hierarchy” and “no property”.
We are pretty common in our ideals so far, I’m just yankin yer chain… you say toe-may-toe, I say poe-ta-toe.
I was reacting to a much earler post. and with the part about definition, I was picking nits then proved myself wrong, then still asserted my opinion… I call it performance art… I’ll be here all week, try the salmon.
The common idea of anarchy is more along the lines of the bar fight, even though you are correct that it also means a very equitable world. I also think it means that among nations, the ones with nukes get to tell the rest of the nations they can’t have nukes, so thus far that big example is not so hot.
Anarchy, to me, is an ideal. It’s a utopia to work towards as a species; probably not something that is realistically going to be achieved in my lifetime or my grandkids’ lifetimes. Trying to poke factual holes in it is missing the point, and saying anyone who believes in it is STUPID comes off as, well, uh, pretty damn stupid.
I see government sort of as a band-aid on the wound of people not really getting along and doing what’s best for each other all the time. It works fairly well more often than not, but it’s not a cure, or even a permanent solution. I hope that one day we evolve past the need to tell each other what to do in any form. I think some people are probably ready now. How many? Certainly not a majority-- probably not even a relevant minority-- but more than yesterday, and not as many as tomorrow.
If you think I’m an idiot or an asshole or whatever other names you like to call people who believe that, maybe you need some personal reflection time.
You may say I’m a dreamer . . . you know the rest.
Given the choice of meeting the survival needs of one’s spouse and children, and meeting the survival needs of a family at the other side of the world, it is human nature to save your own family. I doubt if anything will ever change that fundamental element of human nature. Out of this resouce allocation that is basic to human nature comes the concept of property and who gets to control property.
In short, as long as there is a shortage of resources, there will be property and as long as there is property there will be allocation which is reflective of a hierarcy – the question then is who sits where in the hierarchy, with anarchism being a fairly flat hierarcy.
Anarchism is just another mechanism for controlling property.
As if it is the most surprising suggestion you have ever heard! :rolleyes:
Are you convinced we absolutely need a “gathering of world leaders” in this day and age? Would a great military general put himself in the trenches with the grunts?
