Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    A thread to discuss anarchism.

    Get posting, and enjoy!

    With thanks to Magnum Opus for thread content and title.

    Useful links:

    Please note anyone reading this post that due to the vast nature of anarchy and its ideology, it has been suggested by AnarchistNutter to divide the following links into their respective trains of thought. For that reason, we have thus far sections on general anarchist ideals, anarchy on the political spectrum (diagram included), criticism of capitalism, individualist anarchism as a whole (within this, anarcho-capitalism - videos and diagrams included) and the means by which to achieve anarchy. Please feel free to post links at any time for this OP.


    General:


    Anarchy on the political spectrum:

    Diagrams:



    The Political Compass view on where various schools of anarchy fit in. For a more detailed analysis, see here.
    Criticisms of capitalism:

    Social anarchism:

    Individualist anarchism:


    Diagrams:


    Original post with added detail is here.

    Videos:






    Revolutionary tactics for social anarchism:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you are an anti-capitalist anarchist, do you not think capitalism will just re-manifest itself in an anarchic society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What "type" of Anarchist are you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    *Sorry for the title typo. Would be grateful if I was informed on how to change this or if a Mod could do this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst anarchism is perfect in concept, it relies on the ideal that all humans are 'good'. What if someone goes on a killing spree for greed, revenge, or whatever. How are they stopped?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yituool)
    If you are an anti-capitalist anarchist, do you not think capitalism will just re-manifest itself in an anarchic society?
    I believe Capitalism, or currency more specifically, should be reduced down as far as possible within an anarchist society. Many anarchist theories, as I've found, seem to view currency as a tough beast to tackle. I'd be in favour from anything from a bartering system to simple wage system that develops no further than being paid for a specific service; this wage decided by the commune.

    (Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
    What "type" of Anarchist are you?
    I would say an anarchist without adjectives. I think each form of anarchy has its good and bad elements but I think the best solution is to borrow these and then amalgamate them into one type of living. That said, the nature of anarchy in my view is that anyone in an anarchistic society can adopt whichever lifestyle they choose.

    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Whilst anarchism is perfect in concept, it relies on the ideal that all humans are 'good'. What if someone goes on a killing spree for greed, revenge, or whatever. How are they stopped?
    Anarchy would, in my view, come about through a series of reformations. Working from 'within the shell of old' so to speak until a complete anarchic society would be formed. Other people like the idea of revolution which I don't think, personally, would be as successful. The mass murderer question is one that comes up quite a fair amount actually. Judicial systems vary from different schools but in my view, with people living in small communes, if a mass murderer affects them, then they punish him/her in whichever way they see fit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This really depends on what sort of anarchist you are.... the term anarchist is really quite the umbrella.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I believe Capitalism, or currency more specifically, should be reduced down as far as possible within an anarchist society. Many anarchist theories, as I've found, seem to view currency as a tough beast to tackle. I'd be in favour from anything from a bartering system to simple wage system that develops no further than being paid for a specific service; this wage decided by the commune.


    But would you not need a state to enforce this, and to ensure that inevitable capitalist exploitation does not reintroduce itself?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    This really depends on what sort of anarchist you are.... the term anarchist is really quite the umbrella.
    Agreed. As said in the post above, I am an anarchist without adjectives and like different ideas from different anarchic (and even non-anarchic) schools of thought. The only thing in my view which needs to be mandatory is a lack of state. By the way, what is your take on it?

    (Original post by yituool)
    But would you not need a state to enforce this, and to ensure that inevitable capitalist exploitation does not reintroduce itself?
    Nope, not necessarily. I think this post of mine sums up my view in the most succinct way for my own view on it:
    Anarchy would, in my view, come about through a series of reformations. Working from 'within the shell of old' so to speak until a complete anarchic society would be formed. Other people like the idea of revolution which I don't think, personally, would be as successful. The mass murderer question is one that comes up quite a fair amount actually. Judicial systems vary from different schools but in my view, with people living in small communes, if a mass murderer affects them, then they punish him/her in whichever way they see fit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I believe Capitalism, or currency more specifically, should be reduced down as far as possible within an anarchist society. Many anarchist theories, as I've found, seem to view currency as a tough beast to tackle. I'd be in favour from anything from a bartering system to simple wage system that develops no further than being paid for a specific service; this wage decided by the commune.



    I would say an anarchist without adjectives. I think each form of anarchy has its good and bad elements but I think the best solution is to borrow these and then amalgamate them into one type of living. That said, the nature of anarchy in my view is that anyone in an anarchistic society can adopt whichever lifestyle they choose.
    Ah. The problem with this is I now do not know which questions to ask you, because different elements vary so much.

    How about this. In some forms of anarcho-communism, all produce can be taken by all 'as to need'. What if someone believes, or wishes to believe that they 'need' 16 cars - assuming that all car qualities have been amalgamated into one make of 'car'. Will his neighbour not then feel jealousy over his neighbours car, and want 16 of his own? Is this not just an example of how some strands of anarchism seem to need a 'perfect' state with no bad, jealous people in it to function?

    Bit of a strange example, but without knowing what you believe it's hard to question you on those beliefs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Ah. The problem with this is I now do not know which questions to ask you, because different elements vary so much.

    How about this. In some forms of anarcho-communism, all produce can be taken by all 'as to need'. What if someone believes, or wishes to believe that they 'need' 16 cars - assuming that all car qualities have been amalgamated into one make of 'car'. Will his neighbour not then feel jealousy over his neighbours car, and want 16 of his own? Is this not just an example of how some strands of anarchism seem to need a 'perfect' state with no bad people in it to function?

    Bit of a strange example, but without knowing what you believe it's hard to question you on those beliefs.
    Good question. So far as I know, Communism in terms of the theory each according to his need may be a little difficult to implement. I am fairly certain that within a communist society, if everybody had 16 cars, that would be fine and there would be no problem. To me, communism deals with getting the basic products (to survive) to everybody in equal share. A car may perhaps be seen as a luxury (it would depend on the commune in anarchy I suppose). So I'd say the main difference between communism and anarcho-communism is that anarcho-communism would work on the basis of the commune as a whole assessing its status and then looking at individual needs. To apply to your example; the commune would look at whether other people needed cars and then whether the individual should get 16 cars according to his need. However, need can also be determined psychologically which is where I'd begin to disagree with the notion of each according to their need. In my view, if somebody would like something - let's use the car - they would barter on an individual basis. For simplicity's sake, let's say a treatment by a doctor equals one car. For the car maker to give the doctor 16 cars, they would have to give 16 treatments in return.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why on earth would an anarchist be using a society dependent student forum?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WrigglyMammoth)
    why on earth would an anarchist be using a society dependent student forum?
    Heh. I don't think society is entirely removed from the notion of anarchy in my view at all. In fact, it should be intertwined.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Good question. So far as I know, Communism in terms of the theory each according to his need may be a little difficult to implement. I am fairly certain that within a communist society, if everybody had 16 cars, that would be fine and there would be no problem. To me, communism deals with getting the basic products (to survive) to everybody in equal share. A car may perhaps be seen as a luxury (it would depend on the commune in anarchy I suppose). So I'd say the main difference between communism and anarcho-communism is that anarcho-communism would work on the basis of the commune as a whole assessing its status and then looking at individual needs. To apply to your example; the commune would look at whether other people needed cars and then whether the individual should get 16 cars according to his need. However, need can also be determined psychologically which is where I'd begin to disagree with the notion of each according to their need. In my view, if somebody would like something - let's use the car - they would barter on an individual basis. For simplicity's sake, let's say a treatment by a doctor equals one car. For the car maker to give the doctor 16 cars, they would have to give 16 treatments in return.
    What if a doctor started offering treatments for one... cake instead? Surely then all the other doctors would have to follow suit or he'd get all the custom? Then you've created a market economy, in my opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    What if a doctor started offering treatments for one... cake instead? Surely then all the other doctors would have to follow suit or he'd get all the custom? Then you've created a market economy, in my opinion.
    I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what you mean here, sorry. Could you also elaborate on why you think it is a market economy type climate?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
    What "type" of Anarchist are you?
    I would say an anarchist without adjectives. I think each form of anarchy has its good and bad elements but I think the best solution is to borrow these and then amalgamate them into one type of living. That said, the nature of anarchy in my view is that anyone in an anarchistic society can adopt whichever lifestyle they choose.

    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    Whilst anarchism is perfect in concept, it relies on the ideal that all humans are 'good'. What if someone goes on a killing spree for greed, revenge, or whatever. How are they stopped?
    Anarchy would, in my view, come about through a series of reformations. Working from 'within the shell of old' so to speak until a complete anarchic society would be formed. Other people like the idea of revolution which I don't think, personally, would be as successful. The mass murderer question is one that comes up quite a fair amount actually. Judicial systems vary from different schools but in my view, with people living in small communes, if a mass murderer affects them, then they punish him/her in whichever way they see fit.


    (Original post by yituool)
    But would you not need a state to enforce this, and to ensure that inevitable capitalist exploitation does not reintroduce itself?
    Nope, not necessarily. I think this post of mine sums up my view in the most succinct way for my own view on it:
    Anarchy would, in my view, come about through a series of reformations. Working from 'within the shell of old' so to speak until a complete anarchic society would be formed. Other people like the idea of revolution which I don't think, personally, would be as successful. The mass murderer question is one that comes up quite a fair amount actually. Judicial systems vary from different schools but in my view, with people living in small communes, if a mass murderer affects them, then they punish him/her in whichever way they see fit.
    Just reposted these quotes as I was unsure as to whether they register on the receiver's account as having been quoted (edited post with quote tag appended). Sorry for any inconvenience this causes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I'm afraid I don't entirely understand what you mean here, sorry. Could you also elaborate on why you think it is a market economy type climate?
    Imagine you are a doctor. You are offering treatment for one car a week or other equivalent luxury. The doctor down the street starts offering treatment for perfume, or equivalent. You would have to lower your rates to his, or you would be priced out of 'the market' for doctors services. That's a market economy - how long before all of these luxuries be given a 'currency' of sorts so that you can measure them against eachother? A points system. Which then becomes a currency. And with money, comes a market economy!

    Personally, I'm a rational communist. Communism is a beautiful, perfect, completely ******* idea that would never work in the real world. So I'm also a conservative, as liberalism and those in the middle are just trying to emulate that perfection - but it doesn't work at half measures, if that makes sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Imagine you are a doctor. You are offering treatment for one car a week or other equivalent luxury. The doctor down the street starts offering treatment for perfume, or equivalent. You would have to lower your rates to his, or you would be priced out of 'the market' for doctors services. That's a market economy - how long before all of these luxuries be given a 'currency' of sorts so that you can measure them against eachother? A points system. Which then becomes a currency. And with money, comes a market economy!

    Personally, I'm a rational communist. Communism is a beautiful, perfect, completely ******* idea that would never work in the real world. So I'm also a conservative, as liberalism and those in the middle are just trying to emulate that perfection - but it doesn't work at half measures, if that makes sense.
    Ah. I see what you mean. Well, there would be a competition in terms of rates if you see what I mean. A doctor would offer services to someone who can offer something in return. So you wouldn't have a doctor who is solely paid in perfumes. But if a male doctor wishes to buy his wife an anniversary gift, he could ask the perfumer to give him a bottle and in return, he'll give him treatment when he needs it. This might seem complicated but I don't think it is.

    For example, if a doctor accepts a 'payment' or item for his services, he'll book an appointment or note the time in his diary. For verification, he'll print out a receipt for the patient. All that has changed is that people aren't entrapped by how much they earn any more. The concept is wage slavery; people are coerced into a job because they will die if they don't have money. However, if someone is directly awarded for their talent, then everyone will benefit. I agree there is a currency of sorts and anarchism is quite sketchy (except for anarcho-capitalism) in terms of what economy would be replaced with. That is just my personal view.

    I find it interesting on what you say about your own views. I wonder, however, why you believe liberalism won't work in half measures but conservatism will. Surely reform is essentially liberalism at work, in half measures?

    Look forward to your reply.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Ah. I see what you mean. Well, there would be a competition in terms of rates if you see what I mean. A doctor would offer services to someone who can offer something in return. So you wouldn't have a doctor who is solely paid in perfumes. But if a male doctor wishes to buy his wife an anniversary gift, he could ask the perfumer to give him a bottle and in return, he'll give him treatment when he needs it. This might seem complicated but I don't think it is.

    For example, if a doctor accepts a 'payment' or item for his services, he'll book an appointment or note the time in his diary. For verification, he'll print out a receipt for the patient. All that has changed is that people aren't entrapped by how much they earn any more. The concept is wage slavery; people are coerced into a job because they will die if they don't have money. However, if someone is directly awarded for their talent, then everyone will benefit. I agree there is a currency of sorts and anarchism is quite sketchy (except for anarcho-capitalism) in terms of what economy would be replaced with. That is just my personal view.

    I find it interesting on what you say about your own views. I wonder, however, why you believe liberalism won't work in half measures but conservatism will. Surely reform is essentially liberalism at work, in half measures?

    Look forward to your reply.
    If I have contemplated anarchism and communism, and found them to be the best solution, but unworkable, why would I wish for socialism? It's a half measure of the others in my own opinion, of something that I have considered and found to not work. I consider conservatism to be pragmatic - not the ideal, but a workable ideal. Isn't that better to work towards rather than one I find unworkable?

    Very philosophical, but it is the only way I can think. Sometimes I wish I wasn't so... I don't know. Sometimes I wish I could suspend disbelief a bit more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I would say an anarchist without adjectives. I think each form of anarchy has its good and bad elements but I think the best solution is to borrow these and then amalgamate them into one type of living. That said, the nature of anarchy in my view is that anyone in an anarchistic society can adopt whichever lifestyle they choose.



    Anarchy would, in my view, come about through a series of reformations. Working from 'within the shell of old' so to speak until a complete anarchic society would be formed. Other people like the idea of revolution which I don't think, personally, would be as successful. The mass murderer question is one that comes up quite a fair amount actually. Judicial systems vary from different schools but in my view, with people living in small communes, if a mass murderer affects them, then they punish him/her in whichever way they see fit.




    Nope, not necessarily. I think this post of mine sums up my view in the most succinct way for my own view on it:


    Just reposted these quotes as I was unsure as to whether they register on the receiver's account as having been quoted (edited post with quote tag appended). Sorry for any inconvenience this causes.
    Well how exactly would you uphold a non-capitalist society without a state? You'd have to completely change the majority of people's way of thinking, and acheiving that would require the power of a large organistaion, which would resemble a state.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever been hacked?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.