Ask an Anarchist

[crabapple]

Yeah, I think he's got a lot of good stuff. His book on debt is very interesting, although I would tend to think of it as a book by an anarchist rather than as an anarchist book, if one of considerable interest to anarchists. The stuff about "everyday communism", in particular, resonates with a lot of what Park has talked about in this thread.

Yeah i think so to, very interesting book and not really that anarchistic, which makes it more easily for people to take in. All his other books are much more anarchistic

 

[Takhisis]

Just for a moment I read the thread title as "Ask an Antichrist"

You're thinking of a Sex Pistols song, apparently.

I don't think that the Situationist slogan is really making an ethical point on violence, in general or in any particular instance, but rather contesting a certain conception of violence.

Coincidentally, the Joker echoes the Situationists' sentiments, when he says:

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

But, erm, the Joker is quite a bit off his rocker himself.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah i think so to, very interesting book and not really that anarchistic, which makes it more easily for people to take in. All his other books are much more anarchistic

I think his work mostly divides into anarchistic and anthropological, it's just that the latter isn't very publicised because it's of mostly scholarly interest. Debt seems to be unique in that it sits between the two categories.

But, erm, the Joker is quite a bit off his rocker himself.

Certainly he is, but that doesn't mean everything he says insane. It should be no surprise that a character called "the Joker" can act as the truth-speaking fool.

 

[emzie]

When I was 15, an underclassman wore a black t-shirt with an anarchy symbol on it. Another student punched him. He reported it to the principal.

Was this as humourous as I still find it in retrospect?

 

[classical_hero]

Well, unlike Park, I'm not a pacifist, I don't believe in an absolute prohibition of violence. I think violence can be and often is necessary. The problem is, the way the end of the Dark Knight played out, killing the Joker turned out not to be necessary, because he was apprehended alive. You talk about how he might escape, he might do this and he might do that, but that's all pure supposition, no basis for us to believe that there's any sort of immanent threat. "That baby might be the next Hitler, better drop off it a bridge", y'know?

But we have previous behaviour with the Joker and we don't have with the baby. Until we have behaviour of a person we can't judge them until they have done something to justify them being judged, which the Joker has plenty of examples of an thus we can judge him according to his actions, but thee baby hasn't done anything to suggest guilt, well not yet and until he does, he is innocent. The Joker has provided heaps of evidence for his guilt so we can know that based on past behaviour he will strike again. Future crimes of already criminals is something that needs to be considered, but we don't know about future crimes of those who haven't done a crime yet.

I think in your conclusion there is a great lack of consideration for nuance. Do you really think that the likelihood that a given baby will grow up to become the next dictator is equal to the likelihood that a maniac and chaosmonger, who literally lives to sow destruction, will strike again?

I have to say, both of your answers (granted, Amadeus hasn't answered yet, but he comes and goes like the Dark Knight himself!) surprised me. Neither of you addressed what to me was the biggest debate about the situation: Batman compromising his own principles in pursuit of a greater goal. Batman desires to rid Gotham of the destructive criminality and gangs which terrorize the city and obstruct its prosperity (I'm purposefully ignoring Ra's Al Ghul right now), etc etc. But he also is firmly against killing. With the regular gangsters and the like, the people who play by rules, but weird rules which don't correspond to those of the rest of society, the situation can be solved by wrecking their organization, and a little bit of vigilantism in tying their leaders to spotlights. The corruption in the police force can be fought by tracking down the cops using someone from outside the force, which will enable them to become more effective as they become a tighter-knit functional crime-fighting body. But the Joker? He can't be turned over to the police. He can't be prosecuted, locked away for a few years, and then released into a world more capable of handling his corruptive intentions. The only way to "beat" the Joker is to do the one thing Batman won't do: drop him off that building. =

This was why I really asked that question: would you ever infract upon a principle you hold dear in order to forward another principle you hold dear? Would you kill selectively, but avoid it otherwise if at all possible, in order to forward the cause of peace or justice?

I know you didn't mention Ra's Al Ghul, but he just shows what a hypocrite Batman really is. In BB he says this to Ra's, "I am not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you either." But that is just as bad as killing him since you could have saved his life, which is what he does to the Joker, even though he could have left him to suffer the same fate as Ra's.

 

[Traitorfish]

But we have previous behaviour with the Joker and we don't have with the baby. Until we have behaviour of a person we can't judge them until they have done something to justify them being judged, which the Joker has plenty of examples of an thus we can judge him according to his actions, but thee baby hasn't done anything to suggest guilt, well not yet and until he does, he is innocent. The Joker has provided heaps of evidence for his guilt so we can know that based on past behaviour he will strike again. Future crimes of already criminals is something that needs to be considered, but we don't know about future crimes of those who haven't done a crime yet.

We don't know about future crimes of anybody. It's all extrapolation, so all we can debate is what we're extrapolating from. Ultimately it's an appeal to their fundamental character, which is to say what we imagine their fundamental character to be, and while demonstrated habit and temperament certainly demand recognition and response, that's a practical rather than moral concern, and gives us no actual right to hurt them. To claim that people are "guilty" as grounds for punishing them is, in essence, to claim that "this is the sort of person I am entitled to hurt". That's not a claim I'm comfortable with, because even the worst people don't stop being people, and our duties towards them don't simply evaporate. I differ from Park in that I accept that our duties to some can outweigh our duties to others to the extent that we are compelled to hurt or even kill, but never in the absence of that greater duty. And, seeing as the Joker ends the Dark Knight as no obvious threat to anybody, presuming that the deux ex machina of stomach-bombs isn't going to be repeated, I don't see any such duty.

When I was 15, an underclassman wore a black t-shirt with an anarchy symbol on it. Another student punched him. He reported it to the principal.

Was this as humourous as I still find it in retrospect?

Probably.

 

[Flying Pig]

We don't know about future crimes of anybody. It's all extrapolation, so all we can debate is what we're extrapolating from. Ultimately it's an appeal to their fundamental character, which is to say what we imagine their fundamental character to be, and while demonstrated habit and temperament certainly demand recognition and response, that's a practical rather than moral concern, and gives us no actual right to hurt them. To claim that people are "guilty" as grounds for punishing them is, in essence, to claim that "this is the sort of person I am entitled to hurt". That's not a claim I'm comfortable with, because even the worst people don't stop being people, and our duties towards them don't simply evaporate. I differ from Park in that I accept that our duties to some can outweigh our duties to others to the extent that we are compelled to hurt or even kill, but never in the absence of that greater duty. And, seeing as the Joker ends the Dark Knight as no obvious threat to anybody, presuming that the deux ex machina of stomach-bombs isn't going to be repeated, I don't see any such duty.

I think the point is that he's spent the whole film being so sneaky and unpredictable that such an assumption isn't warranted.

This is possibly the most intellectual discussion I've ever heard about Batman and the most interesting.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nolan's Joker seems to exist outside the normal laws of causality, so I think we just have to accept that this is the point where the film stops working as an analogy.

 

[Takhisis]

We can always discuss Jack Nicholson's interpretation of the character instead…

 

[Traitorfish]

As a bit of an aside, it's occurred to me that a lot of discussion in this thread has been around the anarchist refusal to assert authority over others, rather than anarchist rejection of authority over themselves, despite the latter being really the central theme of the anarchist tradition/s. People seem to struggle not so much with the idea that we don't want to be told what to do but that we don't want to tell others what to do, either.

I think that says a lot about conventional political discourse, that it's assumed we start in the position of the authority, as if political authority is in fact the premise of social life. Even radical positions, positions which are firmly in opposition, still tend to think in terms of "when we're in charge...", replicating this assumption. This can be expected from those of a Hobbesian bent, for whom political authority is explicitly the premise of social life, but it's strange when it's coming from those who would assert a greater connection to Locke, Rousseau or Marx, who take society as the premise of political authority.

It's something which I'm not really sure how to respond to.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, people can usually understand not wanting to be told what to do, but not wanting to tell others what to do is a bit harder for them to understand. Take the Libertarians or UKIP as examples.

 

[timtofly]

I have no trouble not following authority, but then again, I am not looking to de-stabilize it either. It seems to me that I project my thoughts so strongly sometimes here, that I get the feeling that I come across as authoritarian.

I am not authoritarian, and have never tried to be a controlling person in my life. And yes I understand what it is to be controlling. I thought I have been pretty clear here that Christianity is not supposed to be used as a tool to control others. Even though historically that is the bent that Christianity took and the default position it seems to have held.

I don't think that it is a struggle to keep from telling others they are wrong, or that I am some authority on the subject. It is the life I have lived. I am not sure if growing up as an atheist would change that either if there were Christians that constantly told me I am wrong. Growing up as I did still felt like bondage since Christians were constantly telling me I am wrong.

 

[Gary Childress]

I was browsing an article on wiki regarding a battle in the Spanish Civil War, doing a little research for a scenario I want to put together for the game Panzer Corps and came across the comment below:

The Battle of Teruel exhausted the resources of the Republican Army. The Spanish Republican Air Force could not replace the airplanes and arms that it lost in the Battle of Teruel.[37] On the other hand, the Nationalists concentrated the bulk of their forces in the east as they prepared to drive through Aragon into Catalonia and the Levante.[38] Franco had the edge on resupply as the Nationalists now controlled the efficiently run industrial might in the Basque Country. The Republican Government, however, had to leave the armament industry in Catalonia in the hands of the Anarchists. One Anarchist observer reported that "Notwithstanding lavish expenditures of money on this need, our industrial organization was not able to finish a single kind of rifle or machine gun or cannon...."[39] Franco's act of retaking Teruel was a bitter blow to the Republic after the high hopes engendered by its capture. The recapture of Teruel also removed the last obstacle to Franco's breakthrough to the Mediterranean Sea.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Teruel

This seems like a pretty damning criticism of the anarchist contribution to production, or perhaps lack of, toward winning the war. Could an anarchist society produce enough to keep itself fed, clothed and defend itself against attackers? And if it can't, what does that say of the merits of anarchism? Is the ugly reality of human society that people need some sort of coercion for their own good?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

A thread for asking anarchists about anarchist theory, history and ethics.


Please remember that this is a question and answers thread, so although we welcome challenging questions, this is not the place for polemic or debate.


Posters currently approved to answer are: Traitorfish, ParkCungHee, Amadeus.

So you aren't really a communist, but rather an anarchist?

 

[amadeus]

So you aren't really a communist, but rather an anarchist?

He can be both. I'll leave the heavier questions to him, but what about the two ideas do you see as incompatible?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

He can be both. I'll leave the heavier questions to him, but what about the two ideas do you see as incompatible?

My impression of communism is that government involvement is extensive with the redistribution of resources and all, which appears to be against the main principle of anarchism.

 

[amadeus]

Not all variants of communism are state ownership of industry. How Traitorfish would achieve communism, that is to say, a stateless, classless society, would not entail the same kind of mass death and destruction that the Soviets and Chinese brought. Go ask the other reds about that!

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Not all variants of communism are state ownership of industry. How Traitorfish would achieve communism, that is to say, a stateless, classless society, would not entail the same kind of mass death and destruction that the Soviets and Chinese brought. Go ask the other reds about that!

In TraitorFish's case, he admitted in another thread that he had no idea of how this hypothetical form of communism would work. His escape clause was "let the people decide".

If his communist friends care to fill that gap of knowledge, it'd be interesting.

 

[timtofly]

"letting the people decide" would be the anarchist point of view shining through. Asking for the communist slant in this thread would still be "let the people decide".

 

[Traitorfish]

So you aren't really a communist, but rather an anarchist?

As Amadeus says, I'm a communist and an anarchist. The two aren't incompatible, and indeed I would tend to argue that communism is probably considered a strain of anarchism. Until 1917, this was a view more or less universally accepted, "Communism" only becoming associated with revolutionary social democracy when Lenin and his associates adopted the name to distinguish themselves from the reformist social democrats. Communism literally describes a form of society in which all things are held in common without mediating authorities, and the state is by definition a mediating authority, so communism necessarily precludes the existence of a state. Even capital-C Communists accept this, they just insist upon a transitional period of indeterminate length in which the state runs almost everything.

If I had to pick a single label, I'd probably go for "anarcho-syndicalist", and it's generally the syndicalist anarchist position I try to represent on this thread, complementing Amadeus' individualist market anarchism and Park's pacifist anarchism.