« more discussions

• 

  What Does Anarchism Mean to You?

  To kick this group off, I'd like to start with a discussion on what anarchism means to each of us. My own definition of anarchism can be found in the group's description - dismantling abstract power structures and constructing localized social systems. But I want to hear what other people have to say, and discuss some of the ways that anarchism can be conceptualized. Also, relating this discussion to the context of Shelfari, feel free to bring up any books, authors, films or other sources for insight into anarchism.

  Jeremy T started this discussion 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  Emmett M 

  Well, from a literal point of view, Anarchy has one definition and on definition only; the absence of government. I can appreciate it as a good concept, but when more than theoretical, this idea lasts but the blink of an eye. From an intellectual point, there is a more possible form of anarchy which is more a mixture of anarchy and socialism, which in my liking is struck with a healthy dash of Jeffersonian anti-federalist ideals. "The government that governs best, governs least." -T.J.
  When I think of Anarchy, the first that springs to mind is the nihilistic sub culture of punk which lasted in an enjoyable, effective way for a year and a half in london from 76 to 77, as described in Shane MacGowan's rambling, conversational biography. What also comes to mind is time spent with my brothers as a child, playing battle beast figurines and our kittens while listening to the sex pistols, the clash, the ramones, cock sparrer, and countless other great punk bands of the old times.
  However, I feel that in many ways punks are incredibly shallow, and even if a few of their bands are good, it seems to me that in general they have adopted such opinions and views as anarchism and agnosticism or atheism as interesting things to put on their drainpipes (Tight, skinny jeans), leather jackets, military coats, and torn up shirts covered in safety pins.
  I like going deeper, into the philosophical core of these concepts. In my opinion, anarchism and books go hand in hand. Why not have a row in the library? or listen to Gogol when you're thinking Kerouac? "Have a drink, have a drive, go out and see what you can find" -CCR

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  show 3 replies

  • 

    Jeremy T 

    You're right, Emmett, that, literally speaking, anarchism (which, in my mind at least, has to be distinguished from anarchy) is the absence of government. However, the absence of government does not constitute an ideology. Neo-liberal capitalists would fall under the category of anarchists if that were the case (setting aside, for now, the fact that any reasonable anarchist would be just as opposed to large corporations as they would be to the State, and for many of the same reasons). Therefore, anarchism seeks to answer two questions 1) How do we get rid of the state (and other oppressive power structures)? 2) How do we organize ourselves without a state (or any other oppressive power structure)?
    Luckily there are many different ways of organizing socially without any large scale, abstract or hierarchical power structures. There have also been a great deal of real-world, practical examples of anarchist organization which have lasted far longer than the blink of an eye. The Israeli Kibbutzim, the Spanish CNT, the French Commune, and many others, not to mention the 200 or more thousand years that humans lived without any form of state whatsoever.
    You touch on something else that's interesting in your descriptions of th punk music scene and your childhood memories - the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ), which is just another conception of anarchism existing within the jurisdiction of the state (see Hakim Bey). That's an idea we should explore more in depth on this forum.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Emmett M 

    Hmm, so we either need to find a place that is still wild, which practically does not exist, get 30 or so people together that can take care of themselves, and start the hunter gatherer business? Or subvert the government to the point of inciting revolution among the people and instating a new order. Perhaps no federal government, but state government would be an effective answer to the question. Each state could become its own country, or multiple states could combine to form a somewhat larger country.
    ... I think the way to eliminate the oppressive feel, is to eliminate the total sociology of elders are better and higher than younger folks. If everyone had the same rights no matter the age and everyone was happy with it than we'd be getting closer. Certainly no proper answer but a step.
    There must have been some hierarchy within the hunter/gatherer society that preceded agriculture. The problem is that our territory got too wide. Kings are okay, but only if they don't actually have much that they can control. Smaller area of sway, less power, less corruption. If we can divide up all the power structures of the world into smaller ones, they'll be either mor tolerable, or more easily destroyed.

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Jeremy T 

    This is actually the theme of my latest blog post (jmtrom.blogspot.com) titled "What's to be Done?" So I'd direct the discussion over there. I would like to say that I don't believe in "inciting" revolution or "instating" a new order - both of those sound to me like the imposition of a particular social form which is antithetical to the anarchist project. I do, however, believe in dismantling power structures (whether economic, political or otherwise) and building social networks - which is very different from revolution (it's more like evolution), and doesn't imply force.
    I also don't think that limiting the spatial reach of power structures will do much good - only eliminating them all together. But that's only my opinion.
    As for hierarchy in extra-civilized societies (whether hunter-gatherer, horticultural, pastoral, or agricultural), that's a difficult subject which would take a lot of explanation and qualification. For brevity's sake, I will generalize to say that most of these groups are fairly egalitarian. Those minimal hierarchies that do exist are based on trust and experience and constantly in a state of flux.
    Finally, since this forum is supposed to be book related rather than merely theoretical I'd like to post a recommendation. David Graeber is an anarchist and an anthropologist who has written several books on the subject of anarchist anthropology. I just finished reading his "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology" which can be downloaded for free here:
    http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.pdf
    Enjoy!

    posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  Emmett M 

  Hmm, I see. I think that perhaps I should do more homework on this subject, because I don't actually know a great deal of information concerning anarchism, and what not. I feel as if I am saying things that either I do not believe, or cannot back up. I also don't have any books to recommend on the subject of anarchism in the library. I do enjoy those TAZs as you called them, or parties as I prefer, if you'll allow. There is one book that I know the title of, but it's far too violent to be connected with Anarchism in the Library. What I speak of, of course, is the Anarchist's Cookbook. Which though I have yet to read it, as far as I am aware it describes several recipes for home gun powder, bombs and so forth.

  posted 1 year ago. ( reply )

• 

  inhahe (edited)

  I'd agree with defining anarchism broadly according to its definition: a lack of government. I would add that the anarchist movement may be a little naive: if you think there's crime, unfairness, exploitation and such now, that's nothing compared to what there would be with a lack of government -- let alone the fact that such a state wouldn't exist for long because power structures would naturally arise, for the same reasons that we already have governments controlling virtually every human-inhabited place on Earth -- maybe something resembling tribal societies at first, or -- who knows -- maybe something like Mad Max.. Perhaps eventually it would evolve right back into a government of some sort, maybe worse than the government there was before.. Take America, or any other democratized nation, for example: when a new government, or quasi-government, naturally arises, it might not even be democratic but a dictatorship.. I have the feeling democracy isn't won easily. But it probably wouldn't even have time to do *any* of that before the given area is taken over by some other country that still has its government -- meaning an organized military, etc.

  I'm not a scholar on the matter, but that's my impression of it.

  That being said, I'm a supporter of anarchy; I'm just not sure it's practical to do it *now*. Let humans evolve a little first -- meaning in spirituality and awareness.. or, basically, humanitarianism. My ideal form of anarchy seems to be called "anarcho-communism." I think of it as basically organized anarchy. That is, nobody's *forced* to do (or not do) anything, but humans organize their efforts purely for purposes of efficiency & efficacy.. To get civil infrastructure built, to distribute food, etc. etc. It's almost like a government in that sense, but there are no laws -- no subversion. Guidelines, standards? Definitely. Authorities? Maybe. Hierarchy of some sort? Sure. But no restraint and no punishment. I don't believe in punishment nor force.

  So that's what anarchism means to me.. Anything less than that, and we'd have learned nothing in the 55,000,000 years since we came down from the trees..

  posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  jimmy d 

  I feel it is a personal philosopy. With an absence of government, only our personal moral fiber can keep us from bashing each other's brains in with rocks and sticks. So I guess it is self-governance.

  posted 11 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Josiah L 

  First, an apology for taking so long to accept the invitation to this group! I haven't been to active on Shelfari in a while and had overlooked my invite for a long, long time. That said, on to the response:

  Sadly, it seems just as important to discuss what anarchism is not as what it is. I think most people in America just equate it with breaking windows and destroying things, and insist that anarchists just want a world with no rules where they can do whatever they want. This world, of course, is envisioned as a violent, dystopian nightmare. People can't be blamed for this view, as this is what we have been taught to believe, and all we hear of anarchists in the media is when they (and others claiming to be anarchists) break stuff at WTO protests.

  Well, it's not about breaking stuff--it's about building stuff. It's not about hurting people, it's about people working together to achieve their collective potential, without someone making them do it. It is not about a lack of rules, but the absence of rulers. Anarchists believe that the natural state of human society is to be working together for the mutual benefit of all involved, not one group working against another or one group working so that another group can profit. With this in mind, anarchists are generally against wars and bosses. Anarchism is also not about a lack of organization. Anarchists choose to organize themselves as they see fit to achieve their goals. While many anarchists do talk about "the revolution", overthrowing the government is not the prime goal of anarchists as a whole. Many feel that any violent revolution is in and of itself coercive and therefore un-anarchist. It is much more common to see anarchists feeding the homeless, sharing their personal skills without asking for payment, supporting prisoners, growing food, and discussing books. I have a lot of other thoughts on the subject but there's a start.

  posted 1 month ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top