Check out this link. It's an enormously comprehensive look at the dynamics of what this deeply misunderstood philosophy really is. So this way we won't have to have any more annoying threads of people asking what anarchism is while at the same time taking away the convenience of people who "don't like anarchy" being able to insult an entire topic they know nothing about. They'll no longer have a reason to know nothing about it. http://infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca11
LOL Only 11 times read...sounds like you folks REALLY don't want to learn, because otherwise, the arguments would have to end. Unfortunately in modern consumer culture, true Understanding is something that's avoided at almost all cost, which is the very reason only 11 people thus far have bothered to even click on the link to this thread. VERY distressing indeed.
It's important that you know there are many government-hired/government-trained agent provocateurs in the Anarchist movement, who are actually paid by the feds to stir up chaos and social disorder. This was the case in Seattle in '99. You and your anarchist buddies are being used as tools of the New World Order. It's vital that you come to this realization. I am not trying to berate you, I am trying to inform you because I care. You so-called "anarchists," who are intent on destroying things and creating chaos in the name of "protest," are playing right into the hands of the very people you think you're protesting against. They are playing you all like cards and you don't even know it! They are using you people to justify the furthering of the totlitarian police state that is taking over America like a tidal wave. It's all about PROBLEM-REACTION-SOLUTION! Don't be so gullible! You're smarter than that. Stop serving the Elite. Anarchists are part of the problem. Not the solution. Please watch this video and learn something: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/020903ps2.html
Great link ChanginTimes!!! http://infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca11 A.1.1 What does "anarchy" mean? 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." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284] While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick's excellent summary: "Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution. . . Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism . . . [even if] government (the state) . . . is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique." [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139] For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the "highest" form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state. In the words of Brian Morris: "The term anarchy comes from the Greek, and essentially means 'no ruler.' Anarchists are people who reject all forms of government or coercive authority, all forms of hierarchy and domination. They are therefore opposed to what the Mexican anarchist Flores Magon called the 'sombre trinity' -- state, capital and the church. Anarchists are thus opposed to both capitalism and to the state, as well as to all forms of religious authority. But anarchists also seek to establish or bring about by varying means, a condition of anarchy, that is, a decentralised society without coercive institutions, a society organised through a federation of voluntary associations." ["Anthropology and Anarchism," pp. 35-41, Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, no. 45, p. 38] Reference to "hierarchy" in this context is a fairly recent development -- the "classical" anarchists such as Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin did use the word, but rarely (they usually preferred "authority," which was used as short-hand for "authoritarian"). However, it's clear from their writings that theirs was a philosophy against hierarchy, against any inequality of power or privileges between individuals. Bakunin spoke of this when he attacked "official" authority but defended "natural influence," and also when he said: "Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 271] As Jeff Draughn notes, "while it has always been a latent part of the 'revolutionary project,' only recently has this broader concept of anti-hierarchy arisen for more specific scrutiny. Nonetheless, the root of this is plainly visible in the Greek roots of the word 'anarchy.'" [Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement] We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen from Proudhon's argument that "Capital . . . in the political field is analogous to government . . . The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason." [quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, pp. 43-44] Thus we find Emma Goldman opposing capitalism as it meant "that man [or woman] must sell his [or her] labour" and, therefore, "that his [or her] inclination and judgement are subordinated to the will of a master." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50] Forty years earlier Bakunin made the same point when he argued that under the current system "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time" to the capitalist in exchange for a wage. [Op. Cit., p. 187] Thus "anarchy" means more than just "no government," it means opposition to all forms of authoritarian organisation and hierarchy. In Kropotkin's words, "the origin of the anarchist inception of society . . . [lies in] the criticism . . . of the hierarchical organisations and the authoritarian conceptions of society; and . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." [Op. Cit., p. 158] For Malatesta, anarchism "was born in a moral revolt against social injustice" and that the "specific causes of social ills" could be found in "capitalistic property and the State." When the oppressed "sought to overthrow both State and property -- then it was that anarchism was born." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 19] Thus any attempt to assert that anarchy is purely anti-state is a misrepresentation of the word and the way it has been used by the anarchist movement. As Brian Morris argues, "when one examines the writings of classical anarchists. . . as well as the character of anarchist movements. . . it is clearly evident that it has never had this limited vision [of just being against the state]. It has always challenged all forms of authority and exploitation, and has been equally critical of capitalism and religion as it has been of the state." [Op. Cit., p. 40] And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities. Such a society would be a true anarchy, a society without rulers. While we discuss what an anarchy could look like in section I, Noam Chomsky sums up the key aspect when he stated that in a truly free society "any interaction among human beings that is more than personal -- meaning that takes institutional forms of one kind or another -- in community, or workplace, family, larger society, whatever it may be, should be under direct control of its participants. So that would mean workers' councils in industry, popular democracy in communities, interaction between them, free associations in larger groups, up to organisation of international society." [Anarchism Interview] Society would no longer be divided into a hierarchy of bosses and workers, governors and governed. Rather, an anarchist society would be based on free association in participatory organisations and run from the bottom up. Anarchists, it should be noted, try to create as much of this society today, in their organisations, struggles and activities, as they can. Hey Rat, are you saying you diagree with the teory of anarchism or the movement or just the many attempts to hijack the movement by those in power? What's your solution?
Both. My opinion is that there is really no such thing as "anarchism" the way anarchists see it. Anarchy and communism (which anarchism is a front for) are the same thing, even though the two may be sold to its followers differently. From what I read, anarchism is about the negation of sovereignty, property rights and religion. This is exactly what Communism is about. Anarchism is communism under a different name. What anarchists are too gullible to realize is that their idea of a utopian world is unattainable. Like communism, the anarchist ideology is sold to the masses in a way that differers from the agenda of those who are really behind these movements. The negation of sovereignty and property rights plays right into the hands of the state, and it's easy to see why communism has long been a precursor to dictatorship. Anarchists think they are rebelling against the system, when in fact they are playing into the hands of the system. There needs to be some form of government for a society to function. There needs to be a system to keep power in check. When there is nobody to keep power in check, you have a dictatorship. This is why Communism (anarchism's older brother) has been used to con people into thinking that handing all their rights over to the state results in more freedom, when it in fact results in enslavement.
Anarchists are part of the problem. Not the solution. Rat you say rather interestingly “Anarchists are part of the problem. Not the solution” the thing is what is the solution according to you. Anarchist’s want to do something, change something, even if I don’t believe in their methods or the achievibility of their goals, I admire their passion and some of their aims. Shane is right about those in power wanting to subvert things for their own ends I mean you could say the same of the ‘conspiracy theorists’ on the internet they could be tools of the so called ‘New World Order’. Come to think about it you could be one of their agents, I mean you seem to say that doing anything beyond learning about the conspiracy is useless. A policy that really does help the rich and powerful.
My own view is that Anarchy will remain unachievable until human being grow up, but that what we should be working toward is a point where Anarchy is an achievable option.
I want to change things, too, Balbus. I don't believe that mimicking the police by wearing black ski masks and destroying property is the way to go about it, either. And I know that not all anarchists partake in the destruction of propety. I know many of them are good people who mean well. However, I believe that many anarchists are incredibly naive. I think people need to take the time to research some of these so-called anarchist groups to see who is really behind them. And do anarchists really want to do away with what that call "corporate fascism," or do they want to push their own breed of fascism on people? That is a big question. I see many anarchists as being just a bunch of angry and disillusioned kids. You say they are passionate, but do they even know what they are passionate about? I am not saying that some anarchists are not informed or passionate in what they believe. But by and large the majority of them, like Alex Jones said in the video I posted, are nothing more than useful idiots.
Balbus, I agree with you totally. But I'd also add that as soon as the veil of consumerism (which IS the world's new religion) is lifted, so will be lifted the collective idealism of the human race. It really is a matter of people being awakened to the idea that the planet is going to be destroyed if people don't look toward alternative means of living and survival. So essentially, either we MAKE anarchism become more achievable, or there will be no grandchildren to prejudice against ideals of utopia. We have no choice but to wake up. We're literally in the 9th inning now. And don't count on there being extra innings.
