TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Anarchism 101
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Anarchism 101

How the sane world operates (or operated), and in my opinion is basically what most societies were in the prior to the colonial era, minus the exception of monarchies and various empires propping up in various parts of the world. I don't think anyone puts it better than Chomsky, at least in a short span of seven minutes. Here's something to think about, if you're interested in seeing any real change that is. Most institutions have always served the same purpose, weather it be the religious institutions, secular institutions, institutions based on various economic doctrines, or what have you; serve the oligarchs interest as the expense of the vast majority who must remain subservient to the systems of control and domination (in any society). If you're interested in sanity and common sense, consider checking out this clip:

Anarchism in the 20th Century

An old documentary on Anarchism in the US:


EDIT: It also has a short feature with Emma Golman, kinda neat.

Those where the good old days huh!
Thanks for the link, watching it now.

quote:

Originally posted by robstar Those where the good old days huh! Thanks for the link, watching it now.

Indeed , no worries.

Re: Anarchism 101

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z

There's a tremendous problem here that he doesn't address. He argues that structures of authority/coercion need to justify their existence, and those that cannot should cease to operate/exist. But to whom do these authorities have to justify their existence to? Who is making the ultimate decisions regarding which structures of coercion are ok (the grandfather pulling their grandaughter aside near a busy roadway) or not ok?

One might assume given chomsky's leanings, that it would be an inherently democratic process. But this raises the question of necessary infrastructure- who is going to organise the vote? Who is going to count the vote? In which places will the vote be held? Who decides on the structure of the vote (first past the post? Or something more representative)? Who is going to take the lead in dismantling those structures of coercion that have been unable to justify their own existence?

The inherent problem here of course is that only other structures of coercion are capable of dismantling structures of coercion. The level of governmental input in these endeavours would be astronomical, and rather contradictory to the process itself. Indeed, what happens when the ignorant voter decides that the police and army (two of the favourite targets of anarchists) are legitimate coercive entities? There is no reason to assume that a majority of people will agree on the role such entitites should play in the new society, especially if those that currently fulfill those roles are allowed their democratic voice in the process.

One of the main reasons for this of course is inherited ideology, which in my opinion was one of the inherent problems of socialism. How can you 'teach' the people to engage in a new society and forget the old, when they are so indoctrinated in the first place?

The other problem, which you have alluded to briefly, is the idea of the pre-colonial communal (for want of a better term) organisation. The problem with this position is that I find it incredibly difficult to extrapolate the situation back then in the hopes of providing an alternative for modern society. Just because pre-modern man could exist in such a way is not reason enough to think that postmodern man could as well. Forgetting the problem of inherited ideology (though that is big and bad enough), there remains the issue of personal choice- in this new society am I allowed to own and run the corner store I bought? If I am, what's to stop me buying the store next to it? And then the store next to that? Before you know it, we're back where we started.

The transition from global capitalism to anarcho-syndicalism is (in my opinion) completely impossible. Remnants of the old guard will always remain to fill in any power vacuum, and without the evil coercive structures, I see no boundaries existing to prevent that old guard swallowing up everything it can get its hands on. For instance, without the coercive institution of the army, what is to prevent the country next door from taking all that we have because we have no one to protect us? What is to prevent the person next door from breaking into my house and stealing my possessions when chomsky has dissolved the militant arm of the state (the police) as well as the courts?

I don�t disagree with much chomsky says, I think his analyses are pretty accurate more often than not. But, like the marxists before him, he has never really addressed (at least not in what I had read up until 2001) how society is meant to make the transition. In my opinion its completely impossible to do; large societies need institutions and structures of power to ensure some kind of stability. A modern society bereft of such power structures will merely break down to such a state where citizens form their own structures, which wont have nearly the oversight we have now, and I see no reason why they would be able to transcend the "might makes right" ideology that permeates such organisations.

In other words, stripping back the state's structures of authority will merely move the power from the government to organised crime or other outlaws who do what they will because there is nobody there to stop them.

Noam Chomsky speaking is sounds REALLY BORING. But the content of what he says is the essence of liberal libertarian ideals. I love it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Noam Chomsky speaking is sounds REALLY BORING.

i really like his speech actually.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton But the content of what he says is the essence of liberal libertarian ideals. I love it.

sorry, but that's completely and utterly wrong.

Anarchisim suffers from a major set back, the name. A majority of people do not like anarchy. Religions even draw on anarchy as the evil and bad state before the calm and good order is imposed.

I think it might have something to do with a fear of the unknown. Outcomes that are random invoke this fear but predictable and stable outcomes help people feel safe in thier understanding of the world.

Libritarian, or maybe Regionalisim, sound much better.

My biggest gripe with any decentralized system of organization is that I don't see how they would resist groups (countries, organizations, corporate entities) who become massive. Look at the way the corporate cash can push around small countries.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, but that's completely and utterly wrong.

No no. Chomsky described himself as a libertarian socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton No no. Chomsky described himself as a libertarian socialist.

Yeah, ive heard him use that term, but that's completely different to a 'liberal libertarian' (whatever that means, I don�t even believe it�s a real ideology) and I disagree with chomsky's assessment that there is such a thing as a 'libertarian socialist'. There are socialists- (marx), and there are libertarians (locke), in my experience with political theory, the two are mutually exclusive. Chomsky is an anarchist.

You believe far too much in the market and private property for you to agree with chomsky, regardless of the terms used to describe his politics.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, ive heard him use that term, but that's completely different to a 'liberal libertarian' (whatever that means, I don�t even believe it�s a real ideology) and I disagree with chomsky's assessment that there is such a thing as a 'libertarian socialist'. There are socialists- (marx), and there are libertarians (locke), in my experience with political theory, the two are mutually exclusive. Chomsky is an anarchist. You believe far too much in the market and private property for you to agree with chomsky, regardless of the terms used to describe his politics.

I'm a left leaning libertarian. My use of the term liberal describes progressive ideologies in which more emphasis is put on equality of chance. Giving everyone the chance for prosperity. In a mixed economy, moderate socialism and moderate capitalism are merged into one. Certain aspects of socialism and libertarianism can coexist within one system. I think that is what he means by "libertarian socialist", and that's what I meant by liberal libertarians. There also right leaning libertarians, conservative libertarians. Libertarianism isn't one definitive ideology, but one which holds personal freedom to be more important than even national security. B/c without freedom, there is no security.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm a left leaning libertarian. My use of the term liberal describes progressive ideologies in which more emphasis is put on equality of chance. Giving everyone the chance for prosperity. In a mixed economy, moderate socialism and moderate capitalism are merged into one. Certain aspects of socialism and libertarianism can coexist within one system. I think that is what he means by "libertarian socialist", and that's what I meant by liberal libertarians. There also right leaning libertarians, conservative libertarians. Libertarianism isn't one definitive ideology, but one which holds personal freedom to be more important than even national security. B/c without freedom, there is no security.

firstly, you can't combine capitalism and socialism. socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers; what you're describing is merely a mixed economy. a mixed economy is not socialism, no matter how many americans like to use the term.

libertarians believe in the sanctity of private property above all else. a liberal libertarian is merely a liberal, perhaps even a fabian socialist. but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian.

socialists are libertarians in a social sense, in that they believe in the right of the individual to be free of constraint, but they disagree vehemently about virtually everything political and economic.

calling oneself a socialist libertarian is just making up ideologies, i dont care what chomsky says. once you start watering down the libertarian ideology, it becomes liberalism or socialism, but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian or a socialist libertarian. there are liberals and socialists

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN firstly, you can't combine capitalism and socialism. socialism is the control of the means of production by the workers; what you're describing is merely a mixed economy. a mixed economy is not socialism, no matter how many americans like to use the term. libertarians believe in the sanctity of private property above all else. a liberal libertarian is merely a liberal, perhaps even a fabian socialist. but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian. socialists are libertarians in a social sense, in that they believe in the right of the individual to be free of constraint, but they disagree vehemently about virtually everything political and economic. calling oneself a socialist libertarian is just making up ideologies, i dont care what chomsky says. once you start watering down the libertarian ideology, it becomes liberalism or socialism, but there is no such thing as a liberal libertarian or a socialist libertarian. there are liberals and socialists

Well, socialism isn't control of the means of production by the workers, per se. It is control of the means of production by the PEOPLE, and the government respectfully, IS the people. So means of production is controlled by government. I never said a mixed economy is socialism, but I do believe that in a mixed economy, certain aspects of socialism and capitalism are merged into one system. How? Using the US economy as an example, public schools for one are controlled by the government. Social security for retirees is controlled by the government. Even the central bank, which centrally plans financial credit and semi-owned by the government, I would call socialist. But these socialist policies/programs coexist functionally with a relatively broad free market economy, with private schools, private insurance companies, and private banking institutions.

I most certainly believe in the John Locke economy. But I also believe in government control or regulation of some aspects of the economy to protect the consumer or people. So, if I were in charge, if Bear Sterns came to me and said, "If we don't get help from the government, we will go bankrupt, and cause a systemic collapse." I would tell them, "Ok, we'll help you, but you'll have to sell us the equity of your company for the amount of the help we give you." Why would I do this? To protect the people of America from the financial risks taken by a wealthy few.

So, I feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian socialist, or a leftist libertarian, left leaning libertarian, liberal libertarian, etc. Or I could satisfy you PKC, and just call myself a liberal!!

Noam Chomsky is a fucking genius.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Well, socialism isn't control of the means of production by the workers, per se. It is control of the means of production by the PEOPLE, and the government respectfully, IS the people.

sorry, that's not true. you've kinda missed the point of socialism if that's what you think. what i said originally is true.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So means of production is controlled by government. I never said a mixed economy is socialism, but I do believe that in a mixed economy, certain aspects of socialism and capitalism are merged into one system. How? Using the US economy as an example, public schools for one are controlled by the government. Social security for retirees is controlled by the government. Even the central bank, which centrally plans financial credit and semi-owned by the government, I would call socialist. But these socialist policies/programs coexist functionally with a relatively broad free market economy, with private schools, private insurance companies, and private banking institutions.

that's not socialism. that is liberalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I most certainly believe in the John Locke economy. But I also believe in government control or regulation of some aspects of the economy to protect the consumer or people. So, if I were in charge, if Bear Sterns came to me and said, "If we don't get help from the government, we will go bankrupt, and cause a systemic collapse." I would tell them, "Ok, we'll help you, but you'll have to sell us the equity of your company for the amount of the help we give you." Why would I do this? To protect the people of America from the financial risks taken by a wealthy few. So, I feel comfortable calling myself a libertarian socialist, or a leftist libertarian, left leaning libertarian, liberal libertarian, etc. Or I could satisfy you PKC, and just call myself a liberal!!

its not just me- its any other person that has a degree in political theory you're a liberal. a liberal that believes in a mixed economy and inalienable rights of the individual. so ner

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Noam Chomsky is a fucking genius.

he's still wrong about an awful lot though

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he's still wrong about an awful lot though

Not much actually.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN sorry, that's not true. you've kinda missed the point of socialism if that's what you think. what i said originally is true.

I don't know any country classified as socialist where the workers actually have the power. In the Soviet Union, China, Syria, the power resides with the government. The government is the one who nationalizes. If it were really for the worker's, then I find it odd that socialist countries frown upon, and stifle, worker's unions and rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Not much actually.

oh come on. he lives in a fantasy land like the other socialists/anarchists/hippies. his analyses are excellent and interesting, but there's no practical component to anything he believes.

the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it. -karl marx.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't know any country classified as socialist where the workers actually have the power. In the Soviet Union, China, Syria, the power resides with the government. The government is the one who nationalizes. If it were really for the worker's, then I find it odd that socialist countries frown upon, and stifle, worker's unions and rights.

the systems in those countries are referred to as state capitalism.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh come on. he lives in a fantasy land like the other socialists/anarchists/hippies. his analyses are excellent and interesting, but there's no practical component to anything he believes. the philosophers have merely interpreted the world, the point is to change it. -karl marx.

He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches.

His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis He speaks truth on a number of issues that no one else touches. His lectures on global American interests and foreign policy are pure gold.

oh absolutely. which is why he's always been one of my favourite (modern) theorists.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the systems in those countries are referred to as state capitalism.

Not in the sense of a socialist-leaning country. State capitalism is the intervening of the state on behalf of "big business" or large corporations. State capitalism is not the economic intervention of the state for purposes of protecting the people's interests. I would liken it to fascism in its most extreme form. On the complete opposite side of the political spectrum as socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Not in the sense of a socialist-leaning country. State capitalism is the intervening of the state on behalf of "big business" or large corporations. State capitalism is not the economic intervention of the state for purposes of protecting the people's interests. I would liken it to fascism in its most extreme form. On the complete opposite side of the political spectrum as socialism.

Im not sure where you're getting your information, but that's completely wrong. State capitalism is the operation of enterprise by the state. Meaning that they control and run everything, but do not include any form of local or worker control.

the USSR and china were not really socialist countries because they were autocratic and did not subscribe to the democratic principles of socialism. the usSr is a misnomer, akin to many of the dictatorship parties today that include "democratic" in their name.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Im not sure where you're getting your information, but that's completely wrong. State capitalism is the operation of enterprise by the state. Meaning that they control and run everything, but do not include any form of local or worker control. the USSR and china were not really socialist countries because they were autocratic and did not subscribe to the democratic principles of socialism. the usSr is a misnomer, akin to many of the dictatorship parties today that include "democratic" in their name.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

I see state capitalism as government intervention on behalf of corporate interest. I see state socialism as government intervention on behalf of the electorate/people.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.