Anarchism

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Anarchism

Postby jakell » Wed Jan 01, 2014 5:23 pm

coffin_dodger » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:59 pm wrote:" Ism's " assume and inherit the status of the moment of their creation.

Their definition remains trapped in the stasis of that moment.

We live in a non-static reality.

They remain usefool tools for reference to the past.

Not the future.


I would say that it is the insistence on static definitions that is problematic, not the definitions themselves.

Certainly, when something is initially concieved, there are some unique and unalterable qualities that are of that moment in time, but that is not the whole picture. As the idea goes forward, it gets additions, subtractions and variations, different perpectives as it touches different minds with different mindsets... this list could go on.
What I'm trying to say is that an idea can be a living thing, right up to the present moment ie, it is not 'trapped' in the past.

As to it being a useful tool for referencing the future, that is a rather big ask that is of questionable relevance.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:00 am

An idea is something a person has whereas an ideology has you.

Ideas are impacted in their interaction with other ideas whereas ideology demands an idea to conform before it will be granted any validity.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby coffin_dodger » Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:05 am

From wiki: The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers".

My internal understanding/definition of anarchy / anarchism (from a societal point of view) - "freedom of action without restraint, except guided by, or subject to, the individual conscience"

It could be said that:

Being an Xer, (those that believe there is a 'power', or control structure, that permeates our society - and is guiding society to ' that power's ' own benefit) - it would appear that anarchy is very much alive and well, nay, thriving at the pinnacles of the power structure. A brief look at the ability of the powerless to hold the powerful accountable should demonstrate this. Anarchy is, in it's truest sense, increasingly liberated from a certain point of power upwards. The more power, the greater the 'freedom of action without restraint'. The powerless have 'rulers' - 'the rulers', do not.

Being a Yer (those that do not believe X), by definition ("without rulers") must exist in an anarchic society/state by virtue of their disbelief in X. Whether they realise it, or not.

Anarchy/Anarchism could be said to be a thoroughly efficient system/network, hidden by a skewed ideaology, resisted by the majority as 'unworkable, untenable' - yet woven, unrecognised - amongst the rulers it ideaologically purports to overthrow.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Anarchism

Postby jakell » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:33 pm

Just noticed that this thread is about to drop off of the front page.

I promised that, once we got away from discussing the natural state of the Universe etc, I would post one of my own personal favourite texts on anarchism. Here it is:


Karl Hess - Anarchism without hyphens

There is only one kind of anarchist. Not two. Just one. An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me to be reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority.

An anarchist is a voluntarist.

Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference. Some are anarchists who march, voluntarily, to the Cross of Christ. Some are anarchists who flock, voluntarily, to the communities of beloved, inspirational father figures. Some are anarchists who seek to establish the syndics of voluntary industrial production. Some are anarchists who voluntarily seek to establish the rural production of the kibbutzim. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, seek to disestablish everything including their own association with other people, the hermits. Some are anarchists who deal, voluntarily, only in gold, will never co-operate, and swirl their capes. Some are anarchists who, voluntarily, worship the sun and its energy, build domes, eat only vegetables, and play the dulcimer. Some are anarchists who worship the power of algorithms, play strange games, and infiltrate strange temples. Some are anarchists who only see the stars. Some are anarchists who only see the mud.

They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance.

Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says that people have the capacity to make arrangements.

Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist.

Recently, in a libertarian journal, I read the statement that libertarianism is an ideological movement. It may well be. In a concept of freedom, it, they, you, or we, anyone has the liberty to engage in any ideology, in anything that does not coerce others, denying their liberty. But anarchism is not an ideological movement. It is an ideological statement. It says that all people have the capacity for liberty. It says that all anarchists want liberty. And then it is silent. After the pause of that silence, anarchists then mount the stages of their own communities and history and proclaim their, not anarchism’s ideologies - they say how they, how they as anarchists, will make arrangements, describe events, celebrate life and work.

Anarchism is the hammer-idea, smashing the chains. Liberty is what results and, in liberty, everything else is up to the people and their ideologies. It is not up to THE ideology. Anarchism says, in effect, there is no such upper case, dominating ideology.

It says that people who live in liberty make their own histories and their own deals with and within it.

A person who describes a world in which everyone must or should behave in a single way, marching to a single drummer, is simply not an anarchist. A person who says that they prefer this way, even wishing all would prefer that way, but who then says all must decide, may certainly be an anarchist. Probably is. Liberty is liberty. Anarchism is anarchism. Neither is Swiss cheese or anything else. They are not property. They are not copyrighted. They are old, available ideas, part of human culture. They may be hyphenated but they are not in fact hyphenated. They exist on their own. People add hyphens, and supplemental ideologies.

I am an anarchist. I need to know that, and you should know it. After that, I am a writer and a welder who lives in a certain place, by certain lights, and with certain people. And that you may know also. But there is no hyphen after the anarchist.

Liberty, finally, is not a box into which people are forced. Liberty is a space in which people may live. It does not tell you how they will live. It says, eternally, only that we can.


http://www.panarchy.org/hess/anarchism.html
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby slimmouse » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:59 pm

Thats a nice article.

7 billion souls.

Each with both an individual choice and collective responsibiliity, not only for each other but also for our inhabitat.

And we end up like this?

This what you want Jack?

So if we dont want anarchy, have we reached a term for what we do want, yet?

I think most of the Control System would call it Utopia, which indicates some kind of fantasy.

This of course is a lie.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Anarchism

Postby jakell » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:54 pm

slimmouse » Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:59 pm wrote:Thats a nice article.

7 billion souls.

Each with both an individual choice and collective responsibiliity, not only for each other but also for our inhabitat.

And we end up like this?

This what you want Jack?

So if we dont want anarchy, have we reached a term for what we do want, yet?

I think most of the Control System would call it Utopia, which indicates some kind of fantasy.

This of course is a lie.


I'm sure we are not at any sort of end point, not anything that can be described definitatively. What can be described is our direction, which is on the downslope from our fossil fueled fantasies.

I actually think this applies to those who wish to control, as well as everyone else, which is why I'm suspicious of fighting the 'system', and especially of imagining other systems to fight on top of that.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:09 pm

Sounder » Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:00 am wrote:An idea is something a person has whereas an ideology has you.

Ideas are impacted in their interaction with other ideas whereas ideology demands an idea to conform before it will be granted any validity.


Sounder, thank you for putting into words something I have had embedded in my mind but have not been able to express.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Anarchism

Postby 82_28 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:26 pm

A regular and I got to talking the other day. Me, liberal and he, conservative. He's into guns and shit. But we both came to the conclusion that we were both anarchist as we agreed on every "issue" available. We pontificated for a bit insofar as the reasons and we both agreed, it is the two party system and corruption.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:44 pm

I'm right there with you. The only difference is my conservative relatives into guns, while hating the two party system, can't seem to grasp that by ending the Fed and switching back to the gold standard (they're big Ron Paul fans), you're not getting rid of the corruption, you're just replacing one form of corruption with another. Just one of those quibbles, I guess.
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Anarchism

Postby Sounder » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:47 pm

(if I remember correctly) the idea came from Morris Berman in his book; Coming to our Senses, -great book. Although it may also come from Paul Feyerabend in his book Against Method, where he treats ideas in a similar way.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby 82_28 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:03 pm

Yeah, I think the thing is "guns". But for the most part nobody gives a fuck about "gay marriage" or even being a holy patriot that "serves" in these "wars". Perhaps it is because I am in Seattle and the conservatives here are more easy going. But the wedge issues, wedged between socially "conservative" efforts turn everyone off. They don't work anymore. Everyone is sick of everything the right wing has tried over the decades.

Golden Rule, pure and simple.

Everything else is fake and made to treat you and yours as an idiot.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anarchism

Postby conniption » Sun May 04, 2014 9:16 pm

Anarchy in the USA! (and everywhere else) - BFP Roundtable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ_QEdpxocc
corbettreport
Published on May 2, 2014
In this edition of the BoilingFrogsPost.com Roundtable, James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins welcome Andrew Gavin Marshall for a discussion of his recent podcast on "Anarchy, Socialism and Free Markets." We talk about anarchism as a philosophy and what it really entails, as well as how it links to socialism, libertarianism and other political philosophies. We also delve into some of the questions and critiques that many raise to the idea of anarchism.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests