Curiosity around Anarchism in general.

Friday night /Saturday morning is probably not the best time to expect many answers....
Try this for now
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Section A.3 covers different types of anarchism.

Sherrax don't worry about your age at all. You will never get banned for that. This is the wrong sub-forum to put it in, but I've moved it to 'general' (it could also go in 'theory') where you should be able to get more answers. In any case, welcome and sorry I am not answering your question, but I am sure lots of others will.

To begin with I suggest you read what fleurnoire linked to, and start with the short libcom intros.

Hey there, welcome to the forum.

I confess I really don't know much about anarcho-pacifism, but here's a couple of links to brief introductions of anarchist communism.

Introduction to Anarchist Communism (pdf download)

Anarchist communism - an introduction

The Anarchist FAQ is also a really good introductory resouce imo.

~J.

Yeah the Anarchist FAQ posted by fleurmoire is a great place to start. As is jolasmo's link to the anarchist communist introduction. I would say that you shouldn't worry so much about your political label*. I myself broadly go under the title of anarchist-communist, but this can change to just plain anarchism, communism or anarcho-syndaclist.

When talking about anarchism I think it is always important to remember that, historically, it has it's roots in the socialist movement. Take this Bakunin quote,

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

Anarchism means no leaders (no gods, no masters), this doesn't mean 'everyone do what s/he wants'. We share this world with other people and anarchists would like to see this fact recognised properly, not just given lip service to.

Layman terms - as I said above, I find them quite fluid. I personally wouldn't call myself a pacifist. Not because I disagree with it on principe, but this term is too loaded. It's layman usage (seems to me) to imply passivity. Standing in front of someone to stop them doing something is a sort of active pacifism I am more in favour of.

- Anarcho-capitalism - most of us (on this board at least) believe this to be an aberration. Capitalism is inherently exploitative.

* Within reason of course, one can't be both a nationalist and an anarchist **

** Some people have tried this. It is idiotic.

Another quick thought on pacifism. I (like a think a few other posters on libcom) do not consider property damage to be 'violent'. It is a question of tactics, a worker sabotaging machinery during a strike is completely acceptable.

Caveat: property damage is not always a 'good' thing. I am very skeptical about the worth of destroying things (bank windows lets say) to 'inspire'. Not because I loose any sleep over smashed windows, it just remains often the case that the ideological apparatus (in britain at least) is SO strong that any 'inspirational' content these actions may have is lost in a barrage of moralism and 'condemnation'.

Hi sherrax, can I suggest you go here and introduce yourself. Otherwise welcome to the board.

To answer your question, I would point out that pacifism is an high ideal, but it probably negates your responsibilities towards others in building a movement capable of confonting the state and capital. You also have to appreciate in an age of totalitarian currents (Bolshevism, nationalism, religious fundamentalism) you would appear to have no strategy in dealing with them. And even when pacifism was employed - Gandhi and Martin Luther King it wasn't necessarily their tactics which won out.

I would cautiously recommend a book called 'how non-violence protects the state' by Peter Gelderloos, has he addresses some of these issues from an insurrectionary anarchist perspective.

i very much agree with the points made by other posters, i also think its good to emphasise that the majority of work people do to try and hasten anarchist communism on the whole doesn't require getting in scraps with cops, and i know a fair few people who are of great use to the movement who rarely get in situations like that.

you make a good point about not harming the innocent, also it can be counter productive to building support from workers if you are harming other workers! (with the exception of the police, who exist to defend the state, which in turn exists to defend capitalism).

the reason most anarchists reject pacifism is because if we ever successfully compose a mass movement, the state will seek to use whatever tools it can to repress it, including things like bringing in the army. In order to overcome this, it will (unfortunately) require workers taking up arms.

reading around the history of various mass anarchist movements (especially revolutions), this was definitely the case, and they would have ended even sooner if they had not defended themselves.

also don't worry about your age, a lot of people started posting on this forum when they were quite young, including the people who helped set up and develop the site about 10 years ago.

Dear comrade (if I may presume to use this title) Sherrax,

I admire your pacifist sentiment very much - aggression is something for which there is no place in society and I abhor the use of violence except in the utmost extreme need of self-defense. Violence only breeds more violence, and the cycle never ends. Furthermore, it is really impossible to "change people" through the use of force. Only persuasion and dialogue can achieve worthy and lasting results.

As others have above, I would recommend you read some introductory texts to anarchism in general, not specifically anarcho-pacifism or anarcho-communism. You could for example roam around in the Anarchist Library (http://www.theanarchistlibrary.org).

Most importantly, reject all authority!

Yours for anarchy,

Comrade Appleton

Anarchists dont reject all authority.

Here we go again...

Capitalist infiltrators...what can we say about them?

I'd be very curious to learn what kind of authority anarchists have to accept...

Because the entire essence of anarchism is the rejection of external authority.

No anarchism is about organising society without rulers.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html

Yes, exactly. Which means that authority in the traditional sense of one man telling another what to do is gone. Of course you could talk about the "authority" of a shoemaker who makes your shoes, but that is really not "authority" as such, it is simply your trust in his expertise which can be withdrawn at any moment. If the guy proves to be incompetent then just switching to a different shoemaker implies you now accept his/her authority on shoes? No, it just means you choose a different shoemaker which means all decision-making power lies with you and you choose who to trust or not trust with the making of your shoes.

So Bakunin meant authority in a different sense then I used it, and I think it's preferable to just use the word "trust" rather than "authority" when it comes to experts in some line of work. After all if some expert tells me to do something then I can reject anything he/she says. So there is no authority there. I am not subjected to the authority of anyone against my will.

But this is just a debate about semantics. In general I think we'd all agree anarchy is largely about rejecting or at least questioning all authority.

Including the authority of property!

Of course, no property is sacred other than that which exists by agreement. There can be only two rights: the right of might and the right of contract. All other titles are invalid.

I found the following quote from ‘Anarchism: Arguments For & Against’ by Albert Meltzer, it’s quite interesting:

“The second line of descent from Godwin is responsible for the 'Pacifist Anarchist' approach or the 'Individualist Anarchist' approach that differs radically from revolutionary anarchism in the first line of descent. It is sometimes too readily conceded that 'this is, after all, anarchism'. Pacifist movements, and the Gandhian in particular, are usually totalitarian and impose authority (even if only by moral means); the school of Benjamin Tucker by virtue of their individualism - accepted the need for police to break strikes so as to guarantee the employer’s ‘freedom'. All this school of so-called Individualists accept, at one time or another, the necessity of the police force, hence for Government, and the definition of anarchism is no Government.”

To put this in context, Meltzer was describing how William Godwin was the father of the stateless society movement, and how this movement diverged into three lines. The first one, he called the anarchists. The second line was that of classic American Individualism, which produced two distinct cults; the “pacifists” and “individualists”. It was this line of descent which he was describing with the quote above. The third line, according to him, was liberalism, or what he called “conservative individualism”. Apparently, he doesn’t seem to consider the “cults” produced by the second line as anarchist in nature. If you want to read the book, below is the link to the pdf.

http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-arguments-against-albert-meltzer

I think that gives Godwin a little too much credit, wouldn't you say? Liberalism was a far older movement than Godwin's theories - just look at Hobbes and Locke that came before him. Arguably liberalism was founded by those two men (or earlier, depending on your definition of liberalism).

Also, anarchy does not imply a free-for-all where people can't protect themseves from attacks of maniacs, so some kind of common voluntarily created protection (call it a police force if you want) can exist. What's wrong with having a local, specialized service provider protecting people from burglars or tracking down murderers? Anarchism does not imply no protection, it only implies no rulers. It would be ridiculous to claim that a police force implies a government.

a separate body that has power to lock people up an enforce rules clearly has power over people, and will seek to reinforce and maintain that power, thus the state is recreated. Are you not aware of the Sanford prison experiment?

If necessary a group can be formed form the community to organise protectin etc, but without a fixed membership, and totally under the control of the local community council, so as the prevent the build up of authority.

if you think the police protect people from burglars you must have never encountered the police

Trust me, the police is my worst enemy. It's as if they are out to ruin my life (I doubt you suffered more due to the police that I have). I am only saying, like you said, that there should be a group of people who are there to protect me from crazy and cruel people, maniacs, etc. They shouldn't obey any government and don't form a state; they are organized in a voluntary manner and work for some association or group of people.
The police today is totally the opposite of that - they are just just a gang of thugs (in fact it is probably an insult to gangs of thugs to be compared with most police forces). They enforce all kinds of crazy rules on me which I did not agree to.

The definition of a word can vary with context? You don't say...

Two issues I take with this. Who is 'they'. It seems like this group is separate from the rest of the community some how and are not made up of people from the community. You also say they would work for some people. This is not semantics, this is very worrying. This seems like your conception is not that similar to police today if they are working for some one, no less another un identified group of people that seem separate from the community.

We want to rupture property rights though. A market based economy can't and doesn't suffice for the needs of humanity, therefore the weight and contradictions of that have to be played out and lead to a communist end. And this website is facilitator of that process.

What your peddling, I fail to see how it is a radically different from what we already have in place, and more to the point, you have no means by which to bring about its political fruition. The only people who seem to put forth ideas your espousing are atomised americans.

I wouldn’t attribute liberalism to only Godwin either. As a school of thought, it has a good number of contributors before and after him, including Smith, Ricardo, Hobbes, Locke, Mill and others. However, I seriously wouldn’t try to credit any one of them as the “father” of it. I think it’s more important for one to understand that it was born as market relations emerged. So it can be seen as a reflective expression of the new social relations that took root in Europe, and would further spread throughout the rest of the world. It developed into a framework by which bourgeois intellectuals, who sought to make good use of it, can justify the existing order of capitalism, despite the oppression and degradation that would come with its hierarchy.

It would have been nice if Meltzer had explained his thoughts on liberalism, and as to why he would give so much credit to Godwin. As well as explain what he meant by “conservative individualism”.

I think the problem with your vision here is that it incorporates the conception of so-called “free enterprise” as a means of delivering and distributing goods and services. Hence, your use of the following words to describe the kind of protection you would like to see: “local, specialized service provider”. This implies an acceptance of markets and private companies, what Chomsky would call “private tyrannies”. You basically sound like an anarcho-capitalist.

I'm glad you're enjoying it, I thought you might have been scared off. Comrade Appleton is a fairly new poster whose beliefs are pretty different to most other posters here (this is a communist forum and he is an anti-communist). Hence the rather lengthy debate. It's partly continued over from another thread that was going before you started this one.

That said I find there's generally quite a high level of discussion here, sometimes goes over my head a bit but I've learned quite a lot over the years.

~J.

Go read A People's History of the United States. They have an audiobook version too, it's an excellent anti-elitist book that applies to every nation.

Also, "far-right nationalist" is just esperanto for "TOO MANY BROWNS NEXT TO ME ON THE TRAM". It's basically an eclectic mish mash of right wing ideas to justify banal, bigoted nonsense. Go read some of Django's articles (he's on here, just search him) if you ever get in a political argument and you need to protect yourself from catching the stupid.

All people are seperate, so there is always 'us' and 'they', 'me' and 'you'. There is no getting away from reality, however much you might want to. There are always people working and performing different tasks for others because of the division of labor and the prosperty it brings. So it's good to delegate the task of keeping people safe to people who are good at it. This doesn't mean they are 'separate' from the community any more than shoemakers are seperate from the community or farmers are separate from the community. Everyone is dependent on others for some services and they have to cooperate if they want that service provided to them.
To me the fairest way to distribute work would be through the market mechanism (where reward for work is proportional to the utility provided by the work, if the government is absent), to you it might be through voting - it really doesn't matter as long as it's voluntary.

For me, however, the market is far better than democracy. Democracy leads to mass theft (people can take something which they did not work for), and you will see that sooner or later it will lead to compulsory labor. If people have no private way to veto decisions of the majority we will see the dictatorship of the proletariat out in full force and, trust me, no dictatorship is desirable. The market mechanism is far superior to democratic decision-making because it is more ethical. It allows me to always accept or reject any relationship and partnership I engage in. Without the ability to reject relationships with other people, there can be no anarchy. Anarchy is freedom for all, not just for the majority. Anarchy is about lifting all artificial restrictions of human behavior and seeing what happens!

I see. So you're in favor of commodity exchange, commodity production and you support the idea that labor power should remain a commodity in a world of "service providers", that is, you wish for the continuation, the perpetuation of a servant class.

I presume you see yourself potentially as a highly-placed beneficiary of the wonderful services provided by the servant class.

You're no anarchist; you're a pro-capitalist "libertarian" of the Ayn Rand Ilk. A pox upon your house.