Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

[imperistan]

Ronald Reagan once said and I quote:

 

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin".

 

So it was pretty amusing to me when I went to the homepage of Autarchism and found another Reagan quotation:

 

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

 

Yes sometimes government is the problem but you can rest assured that doing away with government is NOT what he meant.

Rather, when you study and understand the ideologies and philosophies of the world then you suddenly realise one thing and it's that you are Anti whatever they are.

 

Do tell where you found this "home page of Autarchism" because not only does that Reagan quote have nothing whatsoever to do with Autarchy but a simple google search has turned up nothing.

 

Unless you mean that black and white page that was clearly set up by a complete and total bumpkin. Autarchism is a severely underdeveloped philosophy, and even LeFevre, the man who basically coined the term, didn't manage to develop it past mere philosophy and into something more practical. (Not to act big-headed, but I'm the only one I'm aware of thats ever done so) So taking that B&W page as an indication of autarchy is quite silly, as that person likely isn't a serious autarchist, if he even is at all. Hell, most people who actually are autarchists likely aren't even aware of what they are

[grannywils]

Imperistan said: "(Not to act big-headed, but I'm the only one I'm aware of thats ever done so) So taking that B&W page as an indication of autarchy is quite silly, as that person likely isn't a serious autarchist, if he even is at all. Hell, most people who actually are autarchists likely aren't even aware of what they are"

 

I'm sorry to say so Imperistan but acting big headed is just what you are doing. And although I have had some minimal interest in what you have had to say, I find I have tired so much of your delivery that I must now quit this thread as well.

[imperistan]

Mkay. :mellow:

[HeyYou]

Okay, so, why were folks leaving such a utopian society in droves?

 

Something I would point out though is, the experiment failed due partially to outside influences. (the government of wherever you were, whining about taxes.) So long as there is a nation-state next door, it simply won't work.

[imperistan]

Okay, so, why were folks leaving such a utopian society in droves?

 

1. Not utopian, and calling it that kind of tells me you're not taking the topic seriously. :confused:

 

2. They left because thats what kids do. You can hardly expect these kinds of kids:

 

http://www.segmentality.com/en/misha_margolis/stage/photos/anarchists.jpg

 

To actually stick with anything for long. They only stay enthusiastic and dedicated so long as they aren't bored, and lets face it, most of these kids got into anarchism because of the "revolutionary" or "rebel" aspects rather than the society building parts. Now thats not to say they're worthless to the movement itself (and usually its kids like this who spearhead humanitarian efforts for instance. Fun fact now that I think about it, it was anarchists who were among the first to respond to Katrina in New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana. (and no, not to loot and pillage ;) )) but as far as actually establishing anarchy and going on to maintain it, they're usually quite worthless.

 

Something I would point out though is, the experiment failed due partially to outside influences. (the government of wherever you were, whining about taxes.) So long as there is a nation-state next door, it simply won't work.

 

This is the point in asserting independence either through revolution or civil disobedience, or through mutual separation. Obviously if we just try to establish it its going to come back and bite us in the ass (as we saw) so the best idea is to try and achieve separation in a way thats permanent and accepted by both parties. Obviously it will be hard (but then again, when was creating any kind of a society easy?) but not impossible. We've already seen a precedent like this set in Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania) so its not like the world is totally against the idea of it.

[Aurielius]

@imperistan

What you have described is your plain vanilla commune nothing more nothing less and not a very successful one at that, since I know of communes still existent from the 60's (when the idea was actually somewhat novel). You are the individual hung up on terms or rather the conflict between actual English and your personal definitions which you assert supersede the former.

Wait up grannywils I'm joining you...

[imperistan]

You are the individual hung up on terms or rather the conflict between actual English and your personal definitions which you assert supersede the former.

 

So you're just going to ignore the several times where I've proven that they aren't my personal definitions? Mkay :rolleyes:

[Lisnpuppy]

Looks to me like everyone is just going in circles. :rolleyes:

[sukeban]

While I applaud the OP for having the strength of conviction to put his ideology into practice, I would have to take the view of @Marxist with regard to anarchism.

 

Coming from a leftist perspective myself, I can definitely relate to how aggravating canned responses such as, "X ideology runs contrary to human nature!" are; however--and I will freely admit the double-standard if you wish to call it out--I do think that anarchism probably runs too far afield from it in this instance. I am perfectly amenable to the idea that "human nature" can, has, and probably will change (in other words, I don't believe it to be some bunk, pseudo-biological stricture), but in no way do I believe that even the smallest subset of the population is ready to practice anarchism at any time in the near- or mid-range future.

 

Now, I've never been into communes or anarchist collectives, but I went to a school on the west coast where plenty of people definitely were. Some of these were your typical fashionable "college anarchists," but others were true believers. What I observed were that collectives began with ideologues, but were soon populated with shady drug abusers and scads of low-life burn-outs. They would take advantage of the relaxed nature of governance inside the collectives, and would use this absence of oversight to degrade the quality of life inside the collective with all sorts of anti-social behavior. This all to the great despair of the original founders, who discovered that many in their number had no idea whatsoever of the political foundation upon which their collective rested, and viewed it instead as something whose generosity should be exploited or preyed upon. In short, they didn't last. Perhaps it would have been different with a rigorous political or philosophical "entry exam" before gaining admittance, but even then, I am not 100% sure. One of my best friends also spent a year living very close to Christiania in Copenhagen and would write me horrified emails about sleazy heroine addicts cat-calling her whenever she tried to walk around or through the area. All of this, of course, is merely anecdotal, but it has been enough to convince me that a state is necessary in order to reign in patently anti-social behavior such as this.

 

Perhaps, after IT and robotics have rendered most all of human labor obsolete, we can, as a species, work to improve ourselves and eliminate our latent anti-social impulses. But until that time, I fear that material scarcity and living under the experiential boot of the state has conditioned most people now alive on this earth to view near or absolute freedom with predatory (or fearful), rather than optimistic, eyes. But really, I am nothing if not a product of my own environment, so who am I to say definitively :)

Edited February 22, 2012 by sukeban

[Nintii]

"... were soon populated with shady drug abusers and scads of low-life burn-outs. They would take advantage of the relaxed nature of governance inside the collectives, and would use this absence of oversight to degrade the quality of life inside the collective with all sorts of anti-social behavior.

This all to the great despair of the original founders, who discovered that many in their number had no idea whatsoever of the political foundation upon which their collective rested, and viewed it instead as something whose generosity should be exploited or preyed upon.

 

"... write me horrified emails about sleazy heroine addicts cat-calling her whenever she tried to walk around or through the area. All of this, of course, is merely anecdotal, but it has been enough to convince me that a state is necessary in order to reign in patently anti-social behavior such as this.

 

 

It is exactly this "relaxed nature of governance" as you call it that ruins this type of community ... I was invited to join an all female commune a few years ago - a "craft" group of about 15 to 20 people, with the hope that in time we would join similair groups and form a "super community" with the one main ingrediant missing that "caused" all the trouble in society ... men !

The idea was that we would purchase a piece of property, build a home and start a farm type thing while a select few would "go into the world" and bring home the bacon to

survive until the day that we and our efforts would be able to sustain ourselves ... and then we would all "leave the world" and become a self sustaining community.

A number of the girls came from farms and were very well aquainted with livestock and agriculture, there was a nurse etc. ... so we were all really excited.

 

So it was advertised in and around our city in the predominantly gay clubs and other craft communities etc., and a "let's all get together and meet each other" day was arranged

on asmall plot just out of town.

The problem is from the moment word of this went out, all the drug addicts and losers (people who refused to work) started calling in asking when and where we were going to

"open up shop" ... and on the day guess who started turning up in droves ? ... yup the same low-lifes, with crying babies and suitcases and "where do I put my things"

and "is there going to be enough space" and "what time are we going to eat" etc etc etc.

And out came the needles and the dope.

 

And we had not even started yet, there was only a barn like structure where the owner of the land used to keep those huge rolls of hay or straw - whatever you call them.

Well, that was the signal for both myself and many others to walk away and let the whole idea just flounder, right there and right then.

This is not supposed to be a negative on communes or even our wonderful friend Imperistan's idea of anarchial communities but it does bring the reality of "no governance

no worries so let's partay babe" to the fore ... not every time but many a time.

The reality of all this is that I don't live in a theory I live in the real world with real people and where there is no authority, real authority, real people will do as they please

to the detriment of others.