I think I’m probably relatively politically naive, because it seems everyone knows what it is except me, and I can’t seem to get a straight answer out of anyone. Lots of historical figures are labeled anarchists, from the guy who shot the Archduke to the woman who founded the Catholic Worker Movement. What do they all have in common? How can those who live and benefit in our society truly call themselves anarchists today?
If I look in the dictionary under Anarchism it says: 1. The theory that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.
I guess I just don’t get it. If you take nos. 1. and 3. as your definition - how can this political philosophy work? You would have to assume that everyone would do the right thing when they are left to their own devices. For example, you would conclude we humans wouldn’t litter and pollute even when we know there are no consequences. Everyone knows that people pollute even when there ARE consequences. We also know from history that where there is anarchy, the human who can organize a large group (i.e. government) gets the upper hand over his neighbors. I mean government didn’t get imposed upon us, at some point proto-humans were all in the “anarchical state” and had individual free will.
I am truly baffled and I hope someone can enlighten me.
True Anarchy is the state where no organization or association of individuals has any authority over any single individual. It is most beneficial and desirable to those who have the most individual power, and resources. Convincing the proletariat that this describes them is a surprisingly successful strategy for those who wish to overwhelm an existing system of social order. For some reason, a lot of people seem to think that they, themselves are the only ones producing as much as they require of the world.
The hard facts of life are of little importance in matters of political philosophy, and Anarchists are no more unrealistic than Republicans or Democrats, in that regard. As soon as you and your best friend agree to watch each others backs, and get together and kick that bully’s ass, your anarchy has ended, and a pluralistic totalitarianism has replaced it. If you don’t, he kicks your ass, and lets your buddy become a charter member of his Autocracy. There is no shortage of assholes willing to be Autocrat.
Stooges, stoolies, sycophants, and mid-level managers will soon follow. Individuals alone on deserted islands are the only real anarchists.
It has been a long time since I’ve read anything substaintial about anarchism but I’ll give it a shot. I’m also too lazy to try to do a seach. Closely aligned with nihlism, I believe.
I think the theory goes that local people should have ultimate control over what goes on in their domain. You kill X’s wife and the town gets together and kills you (or whatever punishment they decide). No sheriff, no judge, no organization. Any form of government is a form of suppression and control, blah blah. IMHO not a very well thought out plan but it isn’t supposed to be. It’s a utopian view of the oppressed.
This has actually been discussed fairly recently here.
Rather than restate what I (and others) already stated over thataways, the big point is that anarchists generally don’t have any problem with orderliness, or even organized, cooperative efforts to accomplish a goal. What anarchists have a big, serious problem with is coercion, specifically, the idea that some particular entity (the “government”) has a perpetual, unrestrained, exclusive right to employ it against anyone they choose to. Any further beliefs (and there are many) are an elaboration of anarchism, not anarchism itself. Anarchism is merely the opposition of coercion.
Baloo asked pretty much the same question just a couple weeks ago. Some pretty good answers there; http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59033
I gotta learn how to do that link thing.
In short: Anarchist = Libertarian.
Hahahaha.
Peace,
mangeorge
Without having (as yet) visited the linked threads, I’ll hazard a thought. I grew up with the standard definitions of an anarchist as posted by Rusalka. And I’d had varying thoughts toward’em, predominantly those being that to be an anarchist you’d have to be either a sociopath or extremely short-sighted.
And, while I can sympathize with those of a libertarian bent, I recognize that even they have problems with roads and fire departments in civilizations that include a part of the populace that is only occassionally behind the curve as well as those who are permanently behind the curve.
Now I’ve seen the post that Some Guy made that emphasizes definition #3 from the Rusalka post, the point being that anarchists resistance to coercion drives them. That’s not too hard to sympathize with, but it draws to mind the thought that we’ve never yet acheived a society that did not require some policing body and, as polite a society as we may care to try and make it, we still rely on the ultimate arbiter, the gun on the cop’s hip.
The people who wear that A-in-a-circle sign aren’t really anarchists. They’re just posers who think that it makes them cool to say “fuck the government.” There are a few in my school, and I laugh when I see them. I once read a political essay by Jim Shalim called Anarchy: The American Way, the link I found to it was broken but it was a flimsy, easily refutable essay on true anarchy, which he defined as “total liberty.”
Also, people who commit crimes in the name of anarchy are acutally hypocrites since they put themselves in power above their victims and infringe on their right to live.
The people who wear that A-in-a-circle sign aren’t realy anarchists. They’re just posers who think that it makes them cool to say “fuck the government.” There are a few in my school, and I laugh when I see them. I once read a political essay by Jim Shalim called Anarchy: The American Way, the link I found to it was broken but it was a flimsy, easily refutable essay on true anarchy, which he defined as “total liberty.”
Also, people who commit crimes in the name of anarchy are acutally hypocrites since they put themselves in power above their victims and infringe on their right to live.
Not true, ** man **! Libertarians favor LIMITED government (police, military and courts), which would best be described as minarchism.
Anarchism is a rather broad description in itself. I would say that there are two divisions of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism. Anarcho-capitalists believe that private property rights should be maintained and that the free-market thrives best in the absence of government while anarcho-socialists look more for communal ownership and removal of emphasis on private property.
No, the gun. The cop is the problem. Coercion is also a problem, but anarchy deals more with contractual, perpetuated, self-organizing coercion. Governments.
Just because you and I agree to protect each other in light of the raging horde stealing our turnips doesn’t mean we’re no longer anarchists. It just means were protecting ourselves from raging hordes stealing our turnips. There is no abstracted coercive body there.
I read the other thread, and I guess I’m wondering: do anarchists really think that people don’t have natural instincts for grabbing power, etc? Even in the most anarchic societies (hunter gatherer groups) some individuals have more power than others. I think this is part of the human condition. The sad fact is that not everyone thinks of their neighbor when they do things. Plus in order to have an anarchistic society, it would mean that everyone would have to agree on the terms, and it seems that not even “anarchists” agree. I don’t believe most humans have “good” or even altruistic intentions toward their neighbors. This is just the way we evolved. Even animals have a social hierarchy. Maybe that’s why I don’t understand how an anarchistic society can work. Are anarchists simply ignoring basic findings of science and social science?
No one has answered my other question: if you leave your neighbor to do what he wants, and he pollutes the stream that runs by you or the air that you breath, well, how does the “anarchist” society deal with that? The same question applies to libertarians too.
