Any Anarchists out there?

I am an extreme individualist because I despise humanity.

I always find it amusing when groups use the tools provided by means that they are against.

Many people believe that a person's view on society and humanity itself is more often than not just a reflection into what they think of themselves....

Mhm.

Well I am a libertarian (for voluntary taxation and stuff like that) but I only came over from being an extreme authoritarian because I came to the realisation that statist economic planning leads to disaster. But I hate democracy as much as I hate tyranny, and I have a very low opinion of people in general. So I guess I don't see most people as being up for a libertarian society, and needing a strongman operating according to a higher ideal to lead them to glory. So I have a strong admiration for dictators (Mussolini, Napoleon, Lenin, Gaddafi).

I honestly have no idea what you are doing on this thread. I feel as though I should respect your opinion, but whether you mean that you admire them or respect them or any other synonymical difference of phrasing, I am unable to take you seriously and that says a lot, coming from an anarchist but at least I believe in equality.

Only if you're a Utopian (which you would have to be to be an anarchist, I suppose).

Bosses don't have to exist in a capitalist society. In fact, I worked for a few months at a company with no boss. It was a non-hierarchical, private company in a capitalist society. However, some companies simply work better with a boss! There is nothing wrong with that. Nobody is forced to work for that kind of company if they don't want to. The key to capitalism is self-ownership.

All of the income of a person in a liberal capitalist society was gained peacefully as people voluntarily traded their assets (usually money) for a product. Nobody is forced to trade in an ideally capitalist society, and the "power" bequeathed to those at the "top" is simply the fact that a lot of people like their products, therefore they have a lot of influence over people's decisions. No force is involved. Invent a better product or service and you'll have that power instead.

What I am saying is that in order to maintain anarchism, you need to abolish freedom (the freedom to trade). In order to maintain capitalism, you do not need to abolish any kind of freedom at all, unless you mean things like the "freedom to steal". Admittedly, capitalism does depend on certain human rights, i.e. property rights.

The way I usually think of it is this: anarcho-capitalism is how the natural world functions. Those who are strong defeat those who are weak, and nobody has any kind of human rights. Now this is possible - we know it is possible because it is how the natural world works - even if it is terrible, which it is. But libertarian anarchism is simply wishful thinking. It depends on everybody agreeing not to be capitalist, otherwise it just breaks down.

Anarchism didn't work. It didn't make a name for itself and it didn't last long, because people want capitalism, and anarchism, by its own principles, can't stop capitalism from being carried out.
Which "oppressors" are you talking about? Generally, oppressors are anti-capitalist.

That anarchy lost to fascism is a testament to why anarchy doesn't work. You need a force for good, to counteract the force for evil which is fascism (and all other totalitarianism, e.g. communism and Islamism). That force has to be organised, and organised force is not anarchy.

If you think Nazi fascism is the alternative to anarchy, then you're deluded. What about liberal democracy? That is both the arch enemy of all fascism and can accommodate anarchist communes! Everybody's happy.

The so-called liberal democracies regularly support fascism, so they're not going to be any help.

So what we have now is unnatural? A universal health service and welfare state are based off the very natural human behavior of looking after the well being of the social group as a whole. Coperation is an important evolutionary trait in humans, as is competition. Cooperation can increase competitiveness. Survival of the fittest does not have to mean everyman for himself at all. It's pretty basic evolutionary biology. This "survival of the fittest" (wrongly meaning every person only acts in their own self interest on any level beyond family and close friends) is natural narrative to justify extreme individualism and greed for pure right wing libertarian capitalism is based of crap pseudo science.

Richard Dawkins gets wound by people misinterpreting his work on the selfish gene. Which is essential what this is, misinterpretation of evolutionary biology.

I agree with you that pure anarchism is utopian and is very unlikely to ever survive, but there is capitalism and capitalism. This worker cooperative is still based around the concept of capitalism but is closer to the anarchist ideal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

That isn't utopian and it works.

Not at all. Condemning both the United States for their atrocities in the name of capitalism and the jihadists for their atrocities isn't "utopian", it's simply avoiding the fallacious argument that everything is black and white, good and bad.

They don't have to exist in a capitalist society, but they likely will exist in a capitalist society. The closer you get to pure capitalism, the more likely it is to occur.

The whole premise of your argument is that people aren't forced to trade. Unfortunately, they are: if people don't trade, they won't get paid: if they don't get paid, they starve or they're without a home.

In order to maintain capitalism, you do have to abolish some kinds of freedom, and fundamental human rights: the freedom and right to have enough to eat, the freedom and right to have clean drinking water, the freedom and right to have a decent shelter, the right to be paid an adequate amount for your labour. The socialist state may look after these people to some extent, and that's a benefit of a mixed market economy, but a purely capitalist one would deny people these rights even further. Indeed, this is what we see with rightwing parties: trade unions are destroyed; benefits are cut for the poor, and so on, and people are essentially given the choice of either trading or being left to live on a minuscule amount of money.

Capitalism and freedom are diametrically opposed. Capitalism and human rights are diametrically opposed.

No it doesn't. It depends on many people agreeing not to be capitalist. A couple of capitalists in an anarchist society are hardly going to bring down the system, just like a couple of anarchists inside a capitalist society are hardly going to bring down the system. But, as I've stated, the test of a system is whether people prefer it, and I would argue that anarchism would be better for the majority of people, and there's historical evidence demonstrating that millions of people, for the first time, felt truly free: no fascism, no capitalism, no Stalinism. For them to go back to capitalism, and fascist capitalism under Franco, was miserable for them.

You're ignorant of the facts, then. Anarchism did work, and it didn't last for many years not because people want capitalism: as I've already established, capitalism is an inferior system and the millions in Spain who took part in the anarchist revolution were, for the first time, truly free. The reason anarchism in Spain, for instance, was brought down was because the capitalists imposed an embargo on Spain and, in fact, actively helped the fascists, who in turn were dismantling the anarchist societies. At the same time, the Stalinists were destroying the anarchists from the other end.

Anarchism didn't fail because of a lack of organisation - Orwell found that, despite the lack of hierarchy, the anarchist militias which fought against fascism were highly organised - or because people wanted to move to inferior, oppressive systems such as capitalism, Stalinism or fascism. It failed simply because the three most oppressive systems in history tacitly colluded together to destroy the anarchist societies.

The so-called liberal democracies regularly support fascism, so they're not going to be any help.

In any case, if, as you claim, capitalist societies can include libertarian socialist societies, then, conversely, capitalists could exist in a broader libertarian socialist society. I'd have no problem with that: as history has shown, many - in fact, most - people won't follow these capitalists, because they recognise that anarcho-communism is a superior system. I certainly wouldn't sacrifice mutual aid, cooperation, sharing, equality, lack of private property, direct democracy, common ownership over the means of production and so on for capitalism.

Is it any different to an anti-communist individual living in Soviet Russia or North Korea? Almost every resource they use is provided by the governing party. Therefore if they oppose the government, they should therefore stop using all those resources? It seems rather silly to say that someone in Soviet Russia cannot oppose the government if they are fed, clothed, housed etc... by the government.

Being an anarchist does not mean someone should live as a Luddite. Whilst there might be some anarcho-primativists, not all anarchists are. Anarchism largely exists as a rejection of vertical hierarchical organisation in favour of alternatives such as horizontal forms of organisation. The majority of capitalist organisations that currently exist could easily be run as worker co-operatives. Whether they will be as efficient is another debate. But ultimately, most consumer products could still theoretically exist.

So like the anti-communist considers food and clothes to be vital, many people in the West consider the internet to be a vital source and for which there are little alternatives. So whilst opposing the means through which such resources are provided, one can still justifiably use that resource.

I never said it did, you said that "Anarchy never made a name for itself" and I have proven otherwise. Might I add that you have not as of yet provided any sources for any of your arguments....

It is not the status quo, we live in a liberal democracy right now. Might I add that you have not as of yet provided any sources for any of your arguments....

The fact that an anarchist state with a population of 11 million lost a civil war against fascist Franco who had the backing of the UK (Yes, the UK), Germany and Italy does not prove that it does not work. George Orwell praises the Spanish militias for their relative social equality, for their holding of the front while the army was trained in the rear, and for the "democratic 'revolutionary' type of discipline ... more reliable than might be expected." "'Revolutionary' discipline depends on political consciousness—on an understanding of why orders must be obeyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia#Chapter_three

My entire final point was of the indifference between liberal democracy (which we live in) and fascism, maybe not currently but with the rise of UKIP and the neo-far-right movements all liberal democracy has done is bring us closer to fascism. Might I add that you have not as of yet provided any sources for any of your arguments....

By "making a name for itself" I am talking about an anarchist society that lasts more than a few years and is larger than a hippie commune in California.

Do you deny that people are free to set up anarchist communes in liberal democracies? If so, in which ways? I am interested, because if they are not, I would oppose whatever it is that is making that so.

I thought the UK was neutral in the Spanish civil war? Admittedly I'm not that clued up on it...

Anyway, I don't disagree that anarchism could work in theory. It could work if everyone agreed to it. But it couldn't work if people wanted to go about their own separate ways, which they invariably do in times of peace (though not in times of war - which is why socialism can also work in times of war, but not in times of peace).

I don't see how UKIP pose a threat to liberal democracy. They are in no way fascist. I disagree with a few of their policies, e.g. their policy on the environment, but how does that make them fascist? Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it fascist!

Anyway, liberal democracy is the reason fascism doesn't exist. Source: WWII.

Catalonia...

I find the fact that you suggest "a hippie commune" within a capitalist society rather insulting. I want Anarchy, particularly Anarcho-Syndicalism, because it is tried and tested and has been the only source of absolute classlessness and equality that anyone has ever seen in the modern world.

I find it striking that you claim to not be clued up on it yet still feel free to weigh in. The glorious thing about anarchy is that if it doesn't work then people can just revert back to their former system, this luxury is not available with other ideals because other ideals do not put power into the hands of the people. Anyway, Anarcho-Syndicalism was working so well in Catalonia, in peace times and war, that it took such a large fascist force to overthrow it and place a fascist monarch in power. 11 million people were content with their system, and they had their anarcho-syndicalist system for over 3 years, 3 years of holding off fascist powers from Spain, Italy and Germany, so tell me how it lacks order?

I never said that they were, my point was that liberal democracy does nothing but let fascism in through the back door i.e. if someone can set up an anarchist commune then why can't a group of fascists get together (EDL, BNP, Britains First. Actual fascists). If you compare the policies of UKIP to any major fascist government in modern history, I can assure you now that there are very few differences. UKIP wish to bring back the death penalty, legalize handguns, force abortions on disabled fetus' and bring back public smoking, to name a few of their most extreme policies other than kicking out non-whites.

Source WW1: After the treaty of versailles forced the fairest democratic constitution in history onto Germany, they then had arguably the largest fascist uprising in history. It takes some longer than others, but to claim that there is no fascism any more and to then say that there is islamofascism causes you to contradict yourself, make your mind up. Might I remind you that even Saddam Hussein was a puppet placed in charge by Britain and the USA so in future I would refrain from using that argument if I were you...

Such contradictions exist everywhere in life. One that springs to mind are those who use their freedom of speech to protest against free speech. I imagine you are a supporter of free speech, but you can't prevent people from using their freedom of speech to openly attack freedom of speech. Just because such contradictions can exist, it doesn't mean that freedom of speech or anarchism are not implementable.

There is nothing inherent in anarchism that implies one can't have TVs or bread. But I wouldn't disagree or argue if you said that there would be less luxuries in an anarchist society. However, one could argue that the problem with capitalism is that whilst one person has their TV's, cars and other luxuries, another person somewhere else is struggling to put food on their table. I highly doubt many people would be willing to participate in the system if they knew they would be the one at the bottom of the ladder who struggles to put food on their table.

One could also argue that the world was built on slavery, feudalism, colonialism, war etc...

What happens when Islamists attack freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is something that can so easily be lost as it allows for people the freedom to attack it. Freedom of speech can easily be eroded. So essentially the same arguments that can be made against freedom of speech can also be made against Anarchism. But I doubt you would wish to imply that freedom of speech is not possible or that it cannot be implemented.

An anarchist society need not be a society without laws per se. Any community or society has some form of order and some form of social pressure. If an anarchist community were to mutually agree that they shouldn't possess guns, then they wouldn't surely? I think the bigger issue is not whether laws or rules will exist but rather how they would be enforced.

That's not a contradiction. Just because people are allowed to oppose free speech using their own free speech, doesn't mean we are forced to listen to their demands. But if people turn capitalist in an anarchist society, nobody can stop them because it would go against anarchist principles.

Surely a system in which people can aspire to have luxuries is better than one in which nobody has them. (Although this is going off in a tangent).

Slavery, feudalism and colonialism were all abolished and then people's wealth increased, not decreased. If you abolished capitalism, wealth would plunge, as it did in Communist states. I would agree that war is a necessity though, as long as there are tyrants and human rights abusers.

That's not true. Just because you can say you hate freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can abolish it. Though it is true that if enough people don't want freedom of speech, we won't have it. But freedom of speech has lasted a long time in countries like the USA, where it is enshrined in the constitution, so there is much more and better evidence that freedom of speech works than anarchy.

What if a gun toting redneck comes along and decides that he wants to keep his gun? What will the anarchists do?

Freedom of speech is always being attacked, sometimes successfully and other times unsuccessfully. But many of these people who voice their attacks upon freedom of speech do wish to put their ideas into practice. Just like democracy allows for people to vote against democracy. What is to stop people from democratically voting for a totalitarian theocracy which bans freedom of speech? Freedom of speech allows for people to freely criticise freedom of speech and call for its abrogation. Democracy allows for people to democratically vote for its overthrow.

The question you are asking is no different than me asking what happens if the majority of people in the UK vote for a totalitarian theocracy? It would go against your democratic principles to stop them surely? The point I am making is that these contradictions are not inherent to anarchism alone. I am not denying that such contradictions exists and that within an anarchist society, people could opt for capitalism or theocracy or monarchy. Anarchism is intended to be consensus based and thus democratic and therefore shares the same inherent flaws as our current system in that respect.

Surely the best system is the one that can meet every individuals basic needs at the very least? The fact is that not everybody can put food on their tables for their family. I am not sure how one could argue that a system where some people have luxuries and the others who struggle to put food on the table and meet their basic needs are at least able to 'aspire', is somehow better.

You seem to be implying that doing away with vertical organisational structures means luxury goods will no longer exist? How does not having a CEO or a president prevent a luxury item from being produced? Can for example a company that produces luxury watches still operate if it was run as a workers cooperative? Ignoring any arguments regarding efficiency or pricing, I don't see why not.

But people did have wealth and luxuries under slavery, feudalism and colonialism and those that didn't could still 'aspire' to have luxuries.

The fact is that despite these contradictions, freedom of speech and democracy have survived. The flaw you are pointing out in anarchism is a flaw in democracy.

Slavery has existed for a very long time, possibly since the beginning of humanity and still exists to this day. Many of the greatest empires in history were founded upon a system of slavery. Just because it has always existed, does not mean it is superior to other systems, whether it be capitalism or anarchism. One would not argue that because slavery has lasted a longer time that it somehow has better evidence that it works than capitalism.

Like I said in my previous post, the issue of enforcing rules and laws would be the bigger issue.

But again, I can refer a similar question back to you. What if a large majority of this country democratically voted for an totalitarian theocracy? What will the supporters of democracy do?

That's why I always put the word "liberal" before democracy, or if I don't, it is implied. If the majority of people vote for a totalitarian, then the majority of people are my enemy and the totalitarian should still be fought and defeated. I don't believe in democracy because I believe in majority rule, I believe in it because I believe in human rights, and one of those human rights is the right to choose your own government (but not the right to violate others' human rights, directly or indirectly). Under an anarchist system, there is an inherent problem with using force, because that implies government. But I don't have a problem with using force against those who wish to destroy (liberal) democracy.



I wouldn't have anything against workers' cooperatives, but try to imagine a company like Apple being run as one. Maybe it could, but I doubt it. There are vastly different roles in a company like that. A few people come up with concepts, quite a lot of people develop code for those concepts, and huge numbers work on production lines implementing the concepts.

We already do have systems in place to ensure that people can put food on their table. Benefits, for instance. I don't have any problem with things like that, as long as we have a capitalist society alongside it.



That's not true. A slave can never have any luxuries and wealth, because he is not free. Under feudalism, trade is not free. Under colonialism, people are not free. In fact, under all these systems the only people that could have wealth and luxuries were aristocrats and oppressors, who did not gain their wealth legitimately through trade (so were essentially criminals). The tremendous increase in human per-capita GDP over the past few centuries came mainly in the latter 19th and 20th centuries, after slavery and feudalism were abolished. When colonialism was abolished in the mid 20th century, people's wealth continued to increase massively.



Slavery doesn't work though. It was only after slavery was abolished that people became free and prosperous. Under capitalism, people are free, since capitalism is an ideology of non-violence. The question is therefore: would anarchy work on a global scale? I highly doubt it. Who would stop the oppressors? Who would fight wars against them? Every war that anarchy has fought, it has lost.



Well I, as a supporter of liberal democracy, would fight the oppressor, whether he was elected or not. But I don't have a problem with legitimate use of force, unlike anarchists.

Anarchy is highly organized.



Annarchism101 is possibly an anarchist