Basically the idea is that unlike the Leninists, there is not going to be a vanguard who overthrows the existing state and imposing a new way of life on the people in a very anti-libertarian fashion, the people are expected to empower themselves through various forms of direct action. The most notable of these are stuff like strikes, occupations, walk-outs, protests, etc.
The groups that do these things are organized in a very directly democratic fashion, and the idea is that through doing this the people will learn to govern themselves and see the value of self-ownership. And, much like an anarcho-communist/-collectivist/mutualist/individualist society, membership in these is completely voluntary. A revolution is not going to be forced upon anyone. This way there is as little resentment as possible during the process(and I should stress that it is a process, while there might be single events that characterize it, and there might be a single revolt that over throws the state and capitalism, there is still much work to be done).
In order to gain supporters, there has to be people who spread information about this, usually to the more agitated communities first(you can see a lot of support for anarchism in latin american countries and of course spain). But the main method for doing this, I think, is through libertarian child rearing. It's where you raise children in an extremely libertarian fashion, and when this is done it almost always creates more libertarian individuals. The methods typically advocated by anarchists is to not punish(nor reward) your children and generally allowing them to develop on their own, only intervening so that they don't hurt themselves or someone else(they still need to learn to respect rights of others of course if they are to truly believe in freedom). They would also attend libertarian alternatives to schools which are self-managed by the teachers and students. There is no set curriculum, the student explores it's interests and the teacher is merely there to supplement those interests. For more info:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj513
So speech can be made unfree by majority vote? For the moment let's ignore hate speech, because you might believe the majority can ban that, and let's go to everyday speech, like can the collective vote to forbid me from criticizing a decision they made or a certain community policy? Or would forbidding that be forbidden.
Doing so would be against the anarchist principles the people who created the community. Plus it's hardly ever when someone decides to ban their own freedom of speech, it's usually the guys at the top.
What if they refused to return it?
Compel them to by force. Using authoritarians means to stop authoritarian actions is not authoritarian.
I would think, even trying to look from your point of view, that they would have to do a darn lot of service for the murder, and for the victims family.
Murderers would probably go to mental hospitals first before they were allowed to do community service. And yeah, they would do a lot.
Maybe in your opinion. But would it be illegal is my question.
Illegal is a tough word. It would be looked down on, but nothing would be done to the parent.
So you expect everyone to go atheist?
Yes because atheism is a natural extension of anarchist principles.
But would it be legal as long as you did not force them to or shut them out?
Yes, social pressure would be the best way to fight this sort of thing.
Ignoring the inaccuracy of your statement, so if you "Instill fear" as you say, you would be punished? Isn't that an infringement of freedom of religion? (You do believe in religious freedom right?)
No, you would just not get on well with your neighbors.
I think forcing should be defined here. If "Forcing" here meant making them go to church five times a week and stuff, I could see that being illegal. I probably wouldn't make a law, at least at a young age (If the child is 16 it is arguable they now have the freedom not to go if they don't want to) but simply teaching them what you believe is not forcing.
A young child can not really comprehend that the stuff his parent is teaching him is untrue.
If I am being exploited for my labor, I am exploiting them in return for their need of my labor. It is a mutually exploitative relationship.
Are you seriously going to argue that you and a potential employer have equal leverage?
But you do profit from the babysitter's labor! You are exchanging some money for something you believe to be more valuable than that money.
You aren't profiting off of the surplus-value of their labor.
Going by what you're saying in the statement, I'm assuming this won't be some sort of commune started voluntarily by a bunch of like-minded people, but a violent overthrow of authority/hierarchy in a certain area. The thing is, most of the time in these revolutions, the populace tends to just get thrown around between the governments and the revolutionaries, what are you going to do with the people who don't agree to a anarchistic society?
I've already explained this above.
As I recall, the majority of people, say, in the South during the civil rights movement didn't support civil rights. What happens then? With the United States, we had a large, overarching authority, and could enforce civil rights laws in places where the majority of people didn't support them. In your system though, that doesn't seem possible.
Yes but that was after a majority of the people supported the measures.
What I'm trying to say is, that there is a trait within humans that tends to make us bind together with people similar to us. That explains why we formed tribes, why we formed communities, why we form clubs, groups, political parties, etc. And when we do join a group, we become loyal to that group, it's just natural to do so. And in doing so, we tend to dislike people who aren't apart of that group. Which explains things such as, I don't know, sports rivalry's. Just look soccer, there have been riots over matches in soccer, people have been killed just because they supported the other team. And you're going to tell me that that's the fault of the team's coach?
I need a source for this. I think we formed tribes because people wanted to survive, ditto for communities. As for clubs, groups, and political parties, yeah people like to be with people have similar interests and viewpoints, but that's not really racism.
And bringing this full swing back to anarchism, just because the state is absent, doesn't mean these traits will be. People will still form groups with each-other, whether it be because of the color of their skin, their religion, etc. And because of that, if they manage to get a majority of the populace within that group, whats to stop them from discriminating against people they don't like?
I don't find this very likely but direct action by the minority would do. Society is already moving in a socially progressive direction, and it isn't being pushed by the state.
No, and I consider the notion of me selling my services to an employer to be a ridiculous comparison
Well they're exploiting your need to eat in order to steal from you.
Yet another person who is prepared to violate individual rights for the "general good".
Haven't we heard this from the Nazis, Islamists and communists already? [Which incidentally is what you are, I don't know why you pretend to be some kind of an anarchist Traitorfish].
Anyway, real anarchists would not hang people for the "general good". There is something called individual freedom that real anarchists [ie not you and civver] believe in. But as for you communists, I would expect contradictory beliefs and oppression without end.
You're like a professional at this.
I think this was already asked, but I can't find it in the thread now. How do you give a voice to people/things who are unable to protect themselves? (e.g. minors, mentally handicapped, animals, the environment)
For minors they can speak for themselves. The arbitrary 18 year mark would be gone.
For the others, they would have to rely on others to speak up on their behalf, much like they do today. I just don't see any other way.
A comment to the argument over racists in power: in anarchy a racist would deserve an equal say in how things are run, just as anyone else would. Wouldn't it be anti-anarchistic to put laws in place to quash his right to opinion or his ability to suggest racist laws (as long as his actions weren't directly infringing the rights of others)?
Yes of course they could say whatever they want.
I think you didn't catch my question. I'm glad that it's pretty easy, for you, to think of an anarchistic nation, but since there is no such thing in reality, how do you cope being an anarchist in a non anarchist world? Or are you an anarchist just ideologically but not de facto? I ask because I have met with real anarchists, that do not have a job, that do not own anything, do not pay taxes etc... and they would never talk of Anarchy as an organized thing as you dream it to be. I must say it's not a life I would ever want to do for this ideal...
Those aren't really real anarchists. I get my information from the major anarchist thinkers of the last two centuries.
And I'm not going to deny that a new anarchist society would have to defend itself. But there's no reason why they can't claim themselves a de jure state and even appoint a representative to the United Nations, but organize themselves in an anarchistic fashion.
that doesn't seem to work. Who would check that these decisions would be put in practice? Whom, in anarchy, would enforce a given shopkeeper or a consortium of them to adopt certain prices? You are describing a state with another name, but in essence it is a state.
Well it does work, there are many examples of successful worker's co-operatives today.
And the "shopkeeper"(probably shopkeepers) do not have to comply with the decision. Joining the confederation is entirely voluntary and if they want to operate on their own then power to them!
