PDA

View Full Version : Anarchist assumptions



RXP
08-10-2005, 02:47 AM
I've been reading the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/). Anyway it's pretty well done for an FAQ, it's ridiculously detailed. Better than any books on the subject I imagine for a secondary source.

Anyway. There are so many assumptions in there. But most Utopian theories are guilty of that. Firstly they ALL assume that the workers are extremely oppressed and depressed. That they are wage slaves. Of course they are to an extent but workers aren't really angered to the extent that theories make out. At least not now days. Most people like their jobs, when they are taken away they cry out for them, when they have the option of going on state benefits or having a job the ordinary guy wants to earn his living.

There is industrial unrest and some jobs are just plain awful (I'm thinking mining and things) but the majority of people don't mind their jobs. They'd rather be doing something else but everyone wants a job because without them they have nothing to do.

You can reduce income differences with hierarchy in place. It's just a government has to enact socialist legislation and not take any bull shit and stick to their guns.

The only places that the strong words that anarchists use apply is to like illegal labour, slavery, starving Africans etc. not to modern states.

Anyway and there's loads about how all decisions will be made from the bottom up and work their way from worker collectives, to a higher stage to even national or international conferences. Wtf? Most decisions governments make people don't give a fuck about. They don't give it 1 second thought. They just cannot be bothered. What makes an Anarchist utopia different? People will only care about the big things. The little things will still be decided by someone without much consultation to the bottom so a hierarchy will thus result once again. There will be voter apathy. I can see the counter that if your vote makes an actual difference you will be inclined to vote but there are literally hundreds of thousands of decisions that governments make for us that we have no idea about or care about much.

Further how the fuck do anarchists plan to run a military with no hierarchy? There'd have to be a simultaneous world revolution otherwise an anarchist country would be ripe for the picking cause they'd have no military capable of defending itself. There'd be no order, no one would be giving orders cause everyone would be cooperating and making decisions as a collective. Mmmm I cannot bomb X's tank division because not all the collective have voted on it via direct democracy. On the other hand if a nuclear power became an anarchist state then these could be used to starve off any invasion because of mutually assured destruction.

NOAMR
08-10-2005, 06:44 AM
Good topic, I'll try to reply as best as possible.


I've been reading the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/). Anyway it's pretty well done for an FAQ, it's ridiculously detailed. Better than any books on the subject I imagine for a secondary source.

Anyway. There are so many assumptions in there. But most Utopian theories are guilty of that. Firstly they ALL assume that the workers are extremely oppressed and depressed. That they are wage slaves. Of course they are to an extent but workers aren't really angered to the extent that theories make out. At least not now days. Most people like their jobs, when they are taken away they cry out for them, when they have the option of going on state benefits or having a job the ordinary guy wants to earn his living.

Well, I still think a lot off people don't like their job, and just work for the money, so that they can survive. It's mostly with the silly unneccesary jobs, jobs just to let the people work and stimulate the economy, but aren't really need.


There is industrial unrest and some jobs are just plain awful (I'm thinking mining and things) but the majority of people don't mind their jobs. They'd rather be doing something else but everyone wants a job because without them they have nothing to do.

That's exacly why the mutual aid system where everyone just works to his ability without any money and everyone gets whatever he needs could work. People like to produce things and be usefull for the society.


You can reduce income differences with hierarchy in place. It's just a government has to enact socialist legislation and not take any bull shit and stick to their guns.

If there is hierarchy, the ones on the top will always give themself more than others, and so there can't be equality. Power corrupts, a lot of people lose their ideology when they are in power.


The only places that the strong words that anarchists use apply is to like illegal labour, slavery, starving Africans etc. not to modern states.
I think modern states also oppress a lot, they only try to put it away. Surveival camera's, cops who hit innocent protestors, prisons... They still oppress a minority, but that minority has not much to say. Also, the media controls a lot off minds and make that a lot off people don't think criticly. I even think anarchism will work the best here, cuz we have allready a little bit more freedom and so will handle it better if we can finally govern ourselfs and no-one else.


Anyway and there's loads about how all decisions will be made from the bottom up and work their way from worker collectives, to a higher stage to even national or international conferences. Wtf? Most decisions governments make people don't give a fuck about. They don't give it 1 second thought. They just cannot be bothered. What makes an Anarchist utopia different? People will only care about the big things. The little things will still be decided by someone without much consultation to the bottom so a hierarchy will thus result once again. There will be voter apathy. I can see the counter that if your vote makes an actual difference you will be inclined to vote but there are literally hundreds of thousands of decisions that governments make for us that we have no idea about or care about much.

Decisions which have an impact on their lives, will bother the people and so they will discuss and vote for that things. If it has nothing to do with them, it's normal they don't give a shit about it(unless it has something to do with proteting a minority or something).So only the people where it has an impact on, will be bothered with it.Still, they won't be that much decisions to be made, cuz there won't be any laws or restrinctions. It will mostly be about trading... between other community's or contrary interests between 2 people or groups.


Further how the fuck do anarchists plan to run a military with no hierarchy? There'd have to be a simultaneous world revolution otherwise an anarchist country would be ripe for the picking cause they'd have no military capable of defending itself. There'd be no order, no one would be giving orders cause everyone would be cooperating and making decisions as a collective. Mmmm I cannot bomb X's tank division because not all the collective have voted on it via direct democracy. On the other hand if a nuclear power became an anarchist state then these could be used to starve off any invasion because of mutually assured destruction.

Well, there won't be one central country or something, so they schould just attack a community. It will be pretty arrogant of another country to attack such an innocent, defenseless area, and so prolly world politics will try to behold that country and defense perhaps the anarchists. The revolutionary's who started the anarchy and other people will defend themselfs and the others. Well, for the reason you say, a lot off anarchists believe their schould be world anarchism in once, so that this can't happen.

MichealCorleone
08-13-2005, 09:33 AM
Good topic, I'll try to reply as best as possible.



Well, I still think a lot off people don't like their job, and just work for the money, so that they can survive. It's mostly with the silly unneccesary jobs, jobs just to let the people work and stimulate the economy, but aren't really need.



That's exacly why the mutual aid system where everyone just works to his ability without any money and everyone gets whatever he needs could work. People like to produce things and be usefull for the society.



If there is hierarchy, the ones on the top will always give themself more than others, and so there can't be equality. Power corrupts, a lot of people lose their ideology when they are in power.


I think modern states also oppress a lot, they only try to put it away. Surveival camera's, cops who hit innocent protestors, prisons... They still oppress a minority, but that minority has not much to say. Also, the media controls a lot off minds and make that a lot off people don't think criticly. I even think anarchism will work the best here, cuz we have allready a little bit more freedom and so will handle it better if we can finally govern ourselfs and no-one else.



Decisions which have an impact on their lives, will bother the people and so they will discuss and vote for that things. If it has nothing to do with them, it's normal they don't give a shit about it(unless it has something to do with proteting a minority or something).So only the people where it has an impact on, will be bothered with it.Still, they won't be that much decisions to be made, cuz there won't be any laws or restrinctions. It will mostly be about trading... between other community's or contrary interests between 2 people or groups.



Well, there won't be one central country or something, so they schould just attack a community. It will be pretty arrogant of another country to attack such an innocent, defenseless area, and so prolly world politics will try to behold that country and defense perhaps the anarchists. The revolutionary's who started the anarchy and other people will defend themselfs and the others. Well, for the reason you say, a lot off anarchists believe their schould be world anarchism in once, so that this can't happen.

* of, needed, useful, themselves, survival(surveillance?) cameras, of, of, critically, 'cause, already, ourselves, those, protecting, many, 'cause, restrictions, communities, anything, should, probably, defend, revolutionaries, themselves, of, there, should

HornyPope
08-13-2005, 01:27 PM
Too long, didn't read.

SicN Twisted
08-13-2005, 02:02 PM
I'll reply to this later.

sKratch
08-13-2005, 05:29 PM
I still think anarchism is downright silly.

Sin Studly
08-13-2005, 10:47 PM
Too long, didn't read.


I'll reply to this later.


I still think anarchism is downright silly.

I agree with all of the above... with the possible exception of Sky, I doubt I'm actually gonna reply later.

RXP
08-14-2005, 03:53 AM
That's cause most of you tend to prefer to bang about about your views against theories which have been answered a million times by the theorists and tend to generalise with extremely simplistic views. I like to take things further. esp cause it's my dissertation topic.

HornyPope
08-14-2005, 05:17 AM
I dont care to bang my views about anything anymore. Just not fun. But trust me, this is one topic ive been over and over and hardly consider it foreign or going any further than ive been.

The too long bit was really a joke.

RXP
08-14-2005, 07:44 AM
U hurt my feelings :'(

Sin Studly
08-14-2005, 08:21 AM
I wouldn't complain (http://www.offspring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68&page=172&pp=40) about it if I were you, Dush.

Norwegian Cat
08-15-2005, 07:29 AM
D'OH!

Haven't you guys seen "Fight Club" or at least read it??

Sin Studly
08-15-2005, 08:02 AM
Yes, I read Fight Club and bought a Sex Pistols CD and now I'm an anarchist! ANARCHY 4 EVA!!!!!!!

HornyPope
08-21-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm just gonna adress the military bit from what I read on Orwell's experience in Spanish anarchst militia. Don't have the books in front of me, but from what I remember, the officers were "comrades" just like grunts and insisited they be called and treated at such. They gave orders but no man was obligated to follow this order, and very often a 'private' (actually they had no ranks) would step forward and argue the order with his superiour, but the general consenus was: if you don't like it, leave the military. Otherwise, if you wanna fight for the cause you believe in, pay a close ear to the more experienced types.

It seems like nonsense, and Orwell had often pointed out the lack of discipline and the lack of common sense as the main faults with Spanish militia, and i'll agree with him, but to be honest- they earned their due holding the Fascist regulars on a stable front while the Republician draft army was forming in the back to gradually remplace them. But that was mostly defensive trench warfare. The offensive they launched at Aragorn (?) proved slightly more complicated to execute, and the lack of coardination helped to ruin the operation.

Not word on how the general staff functioned, but from the little I know it was mostly Russian officers and Spanish ex-officers-turned-communist.

Russians, too, after the revolution had attemped to surpress ranks but it was a failed experiment in the Red Army and so the officers recieved back their titles. What they in fact tried in the meanwhile is to call each officer based on his assignining and not his rank; i.e. the lieutenant was now called "commander of the 2nd platoon, of the 4th company, of the 59th devision" (im not entierly sure how to translate it to English), but this too proved hard for the soldier because tasks had often changed and officers were promoted and demoted and not everyone could keep up with the changes, and because it gave away the commanding structure to the enemy. So the Soviets agreed to give the officers back their badges. Except for the Generals whose title was rooted in a very imperialstic tone, so they continued to be known as "devision commander", "army commander", "front commander" (only without the force they were signed to). And this was again reverted in in 1943 when even Generals were allowed back their titles and badges.

For more information on army structure under anarchist times, you could pick up a book on POUM or the Spanish militia in general, I suppose.