Ask an Anarchist

[Tahuti]

I keep misreading the thread's title as having the term 'antichrist'

I would have been the recurrent panellist if that were the case!

Yeah like their job is literally to be a Linux kernel developer. There's good money in that.

There isn't good money in being a white supremacist though.

Moderator Action: Please don't troll other members. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[W|M]

Why do you think Kropotkin managed to escape the various purges after the
Russian Revolution?
His prominence as a scientist?

He died in 1921, during the Civil War

 

[Ferocitus]

He died in 1921, during the Civil War

Thanks. But I meant the purges before Stalin's "Great Purge" in the 1930's.
Maybe the Bolsheviks had more pressing issues at that time.

 

[Traitorfish]

The "purges" of the early 1920s were purges of party membership rolls, and Kropotkin had never been a member of the party.

There was repression in the early 1920s, no doubt, but as you said, the early Bolshevik regime had to prioritise against open opposition rather than academic critics. They weren't at the point of putting everyone even vaguely suspect in camps; oppositionists could even maintain fairly senior political positions, just away from the heart of power. (The Worker's Opposition leader Alexandra Kollontai ended up "promoted" to an ambassadorship in Norway.) It was those who actively resisted the emerging party-dictatorship, like the Makhnovists or Kronstadt sailors, who got the bullet; tired old Princes could be left safely alone.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So I stumbled upon an IMO excellent documentary on Anarchism. It was financed by "Arte", a bilingual public TV channel born out of a cooperation of French and German Public broadcasters. I mention this, because Arte is known for its particular critical and even subversive content, and this is no exception. Because, ironically, this publicly financed documentary on Anarchism is remarkably friendly towards Anarchism, at times it even feels a bit like a praise of Anarchism. But I still found it to be very high quality and very informative, and it really changed my outlook on Anarchism. So I thought I would share it here.
And since questions are expected, I am quit curious what the panelists think about it. It is quite long, three parts 50 minutes each, but if you are interested in or even passioned about Anarchism, I really think you can hardly spend the time better when wanting to explore it.

This actually tempted me to want to be an Anarchist myself.
I just don't think just because something can work, it also will work. History is cruel like that. Because "can work" may, in the end mean, if a hundred conditions happen to be right, something the documentary itself touched by remarking, that the Spanish anarchist managed to have a functioning economy because the people there were all very enthusiastic about that idea (not to say that I find that remark even remotely exhausting in analyzing necessary conditions). But we live in a mindless universe, as Traitorfish liked to stress on several occasions, so if something as complex and intricate as human mass organization is very depended on the right conditions, I am inclined to assume that it is defacto not viable at all.
But those are just my believes I took the liberty of spouting out. I really like Anarchism now, for what it is worth.

 

[Narz]

"Anarchism" means, in essence, opposition to authority, and I don't think that society assumes authority. There are a lot of examples of stateless societies which, although far from self-consciously anarchistic, had highly developed cultural and social mechanisms for resistance to concentrations of authority, but they weren't any less social for it.

Large powerful stateless societies? In modern times?

 

[W|M]

Large powerful stateless societies? In modern times?

Zapatistas, for instance, are pretty big

 

[REDY]

This actually tempted me to want to be an Anarchist myself.
I just don't think just because something can work, it also will work. History is cruel like that. Because "can work" may, in the end mean, if a hundred conditions happen to be right, something the documentary itself touched by remarking, that the Spanish anarchist managed to have a functioning economy because the people there were all very enthusiastic about that idea (not to say that I find that remark even remotely exhausting in analyzing necessary conditions). But we live in a mindless universe, as Traitorfish liked to stress on several occasions, so if something as complex and intricate as human mass organization is very depended on the right conditions, I am inclined to assume that it is defacto not viable at all.
But those are just my believes I took the liberty of spouting out. I really like Anarchism now, for what it is worth.

The comment under doc "Anarchism would be much more persuasive if they didn't always defend other anarchists murdering people." is quite true. It works also with bolsheviks, trockyists, maiosts etc.
We have saying, in English its something like: "Do you want to be different? Do not force others to be the same."
And this is all problem of revolutionaries. You will either end in totalitarian state, one fraction controllin everything, or in chaotical bloodshed between fractions.

 

[Patine]

So I stumbled upon an IMO excellent documentary on Anarchism. It was financed by "Arte", a bilingual public TV channel born out of a cooperation of French and German Public broadcasters. I mention this, because Arte is known for its particular critical and even subversive content, and this is no exception. Because, ironically, this publicly financed documentary on Anarchism is remarkably friendly towards Anarchism, at times it even feels a bit like a praise of Anarchism. But I still found it to be very high quality and very informative, and it really changed my outlook on Anarchism. So I thought I would share it here.
And since questions are expected, I am quit curious what the panelists think about it. It is quite long, three parts 50 minutes each, but if you are interested in or even passioned about Anarchism, I really think you can hardly spend the time better when wanting to explore it.

This actually tempted me to want to be an Anarchist myself.
I just don't think just because something can work, it also will work. History is cruel like that. Because "can work" may, in the end mean, if a hundred conditions happen to be right, something the documentary itself touched by remarking, that the Spanish anarchist managed to have a functioning economy because the people there were all very enthusiastic about that idea (not to say that I find that remark even remotely exhausting in analyzing necessary conditions). But we live in a mindless universe, as Traitorfish liked to stress on several occasions, so if something as complex and intricate as human mass organization is very depended on the right conditions, I am inclined to assume that it is defacto not viable at all.
But those are just my believes I took the liberty of spouting out. I really like Anarchism now, for what it is worth.

The problem is, all vaunted ideology aside, humans, as a species, are hierarchical and, to varying degrees, grasping for position and power by our very inborn nature. There are so many examples and so much evidence of this it's not even funny, from the great and mighty political and corporate halls of power to boys' (and girls') locker rooms and school playgrounds. This base tendency and defining feature of our species would make true Anarchism unviable, just like other such base tendencies and defining features of our species would make functional, properly-done Pure Communism, Libertarianism, and True (as opposed to Representative) Democracy. He have the socio-political systems we always end up with because of what we are, by nature.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think Anarchy is being idealistic due to the inherent nature of people. But then again, pretty much every major world power has a government that is might makes right, and are very fine killing machines too. So would it be better or worse? Seems like, people will support violence regardless of the presence of a government or not and that will never stop until people get it into their minds that destruction sucks, and that humans can do much more if they cooperate instead of killing each other.

But to Anarchists out there, would it be proper for me to suggest that Revolutionaries don't necessarily need an ideal goal but to make a world closer to that ideal be workable as well even if you can never reach it? Because I think that is much more meaningful then "this will never happen!" as that never gets anything done. That's why I am always interested in people who I perceive to be more idealistic than me.

Would a post scarcity society be more friendly to these goals, or do you think in the end someone is going to hoard all the toys for themselves?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Has any anarchist seen my documentary?

If not - this is a hoax thread. To be an anarchist should require the most modest passion for it. Which must include having a space in your valueable time for that excellent documentary series I posted before. After all - it is even on your side, spirit wise, as you would have seen.

So.... Have your resident anarchist grown up, left ship, quit the Internet?
I am asking, because Anarchism is the last political ideal I feel inclined to at least sort of somewhere in my dark cynical hard (but luckily only regarding collective matters) to want to maybe put an ounce of faith in.

Where r ya at, brous?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I don't think anarchism is radical enough for our rather desperate times. I have a very romantic notion of it, am still sympathetic to it, but sadly don't see anything happening too soon. If I weren't a comfortable, passive, sedated chicken I'd probably veer into eco terrorism.

 

[Narz]

Sorry for not reading all posts and these questions have likely already been asked but how can we manage 7.5 billion people under anarchism?

How to counter the common conception that anarchy = lawless chaos?

Most anti-govt types seems to be far on the right (judging by youtube comments ). How can you be left and anarchist? Arent social programs necessary?

 

[Narz]

If I weren't a comfortable, passive, sedated chicken I'd probably veer into eco terrorism.

You probably shouldn't say stuff like that in a survalience state...

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You probably shouldn't say stuff like that in a survalience state...

true. but I trust in the state to think of me as a useless, passive worm that will repeat his routine until the very end. lately, the people acting out haven't really been utopians or revolutionaries, but rather solipsistic young men who only really end up killing minorities or protesters.. or women. and I don't think the powers that b care about that, they probably appreciate it.

Sorry for not reading all posts and these questions have likely already been asked but how can we manage 7.5 billion people under anarchism?

not at all, I would say. anarchism is precisely not about global "management". I suppose in a utopian scenario, those 7.5 billion people would abandon their state and split up into small, manageable communes, and then further down, pretty much exactly like what happened in parts of republican spain.

still, your overarching point (if you even wanted to make that point) is that anarchism itself is absolutely unfit to deal with global problems, for example: population management, climate change, (toxic and atomic) waste regulations, global pandemics or epidemics and so forth.

 

[Narz]

true. but I trust in the state to think of me as a useless, passive worm that will repeat his routine until the very end.

I err on the side of caution these days.

Also by saying that/feeling that way about yourself you're kinda painting yourself into a corner.

I want to be powerful and anything I do or think that runs counter to that I have to weed out of my thinking, speech and deeds.

Also the fact that some stupid **** I texted was used against me in court is pretty strong reminder to be mindful.

still, your overarching point (if you even wanted to make that point) is that anarchism itself is absolutely unfit to deal with global problems, for example: population management, climate change, (toxic and atomic) waste regulations, global pandemics or epidemics and so forth.

I wasn't really making a point although I do believe. I want to be proven wrong of course.

 

[AdamCrock]

I read ... "Ask an Anti-Christ"

 

[bernie14]

....but was jesus an anarchist?

 

[AdamCrock]

Good question , my guess is He was indeed a rebel and anarchist , otherwise Romans would not crucify Him

 

[Narz]

....but was jesus an anarchist?

Good question , my guess is He was indeed a rebel and anarchist , otherwise Romans would not crucify Him

He believed in being part of God's flock.

I'm pretty sure anarchists believe in "no gods, no masters", at least that's what was printed on this cute punk girl's shirt who I saw downtown the other day.

Christianity is the perfect religion for empire. Turn the other cheek, be a good sheep, let the rich get theirs, your reward is in heaven, etc. That's why the Roman empire became the Holy Roman Empire.