Anarchism, Arguments For and Against

[Kubra]

"True" anarchism? According to who? Which anarchists?

In my opinion

That usually means my interpretation of anarchism.

And what is the basis of that interpretation?

[Northern Seleucia]

In my opinion

That usually means my interpretation of anarchism.

And what is the basis of that interpretation?

My mind???

Anarchism is defined as an absence of government, in our case. Therefore, in my mind, by that definition, true anarchism would mean no government and therefore no state in the sense we usually think of. Absence is the complete lack of, therefore there cannot be any state whatsoever.

[Kubra]

And what is the basis of that interpretation?

My mind???

Anarchism is defined as an absence of government, in our case. Therefore, in my mind, by that definition, true anarchism would mean no government and therefore no state in the sense we usually think of. Absence is the complete lack of, therefore there cannot be any state whatsoever.

And we're at the root of the problem. Anarchy is something, while anarchism is also something yet something entirely different, what a modification the ism makes over the y.
Let me give it you straight: anarchism involves *so* much governance. It's nothing but governance. I mean go on, you remember the ol' monty python sketch? That one was satirical, sure, but really knew what they were parodying.

[Northern Seleucia]

My mind???

Anarchism is defined as an absence of government, in our case. Therefore, in my mind, by that definition, true anarchism would mean no government and therefore no state in the sense we usually think of. Absence is the complete lack of, therefore there cannot be any state whatsoever.

And we're at the root of the problem. Anarchy is something, while anarchism is also something yet something entirely different, what a modification the ism makes over the y.
Let me give it you straight: anarchism involves *so* much governance. It's nothing but governance. I mean go on, you remember the ol' monty python sketch? That one was satirical, sure, but really knew what they were parodying.

I dunno, man, the dictionary is pretty clear on this one. Anarchism is defined there as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. If the dictionary is wrong, then anarchism is likely not the best name for the movement, and if it is correct, then the movement is not "true anarchism" per the definition of the word.

[Kubra]

And we're at the root of the problem. Anarchy is something, while anarchism is also something yet something entirely different, what a modification the ism makes over the y.
Let me give it you straight: anarchism involves *so* much governance. It's nothing but governance. I mean go on, you remember the ol' monty python sketch? That one was satirical, sure, but really knew what they were parodying.

I dunno, man, the dictionary is pretty clear on this one. Anarchism is defined there as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. If the dictionary is wrong, then anarchism is likely not the best name for the movement, and if it is correct, then the movement is not "true anarchism" per the definition of the word.

Well, as for not the best name, you would be right. Actually, the name was adopted because it was cool and edgy and made other folks in l'assemblée nationale uncomfortable, and even after the founder of sorts dropped it (he went with "federalism" without much in the way of personal political changes) the name stuck as a matter of distinguishing them from the other folks springing up.
Put bluntly, Merriam-Webster is wrong, though I'm not going to assign blame or suspect political motivations. A lot of work went into making that sort of normative definition what one thinks of when one says anarchism, to the point that even folks getting into anarchism thought that's what it was all about, only to be disappointed with the administrative proceedings of their local IWW.

[Salus Maior]

I actually respect anarchists to an extent, I feel like they're probably the revoltuionary group least likely to push me against a wall and shoot me but I also sympathise with the wanting to do away with unjust hierarchies and truly free mankind. However I just find it impractical. Anarchist movements have been crushed by any organized state they ever fought. Tey put up a good fight, but organized armies tend to npt be very anarchist, so you either get a not very anarchist militiant organization which tdefacto ends up becoming a state of some kind, or you get an ineffectual bunch of guerrillas.

The Makhnovists were pretty overconfident in their ability to get new members. The lost to the Soviets since most people would rather have peace over freedom.

They were never going to maintain their independence long term.

If Nazi Germany in its industrial power failed against the USSR what makes you think a tiny slice of Ukraine would succeed?

[Free Algerstonia]

for: i can do whatever i want
against: everyone else can do whatever they want...

[Northern Seleucia]

I dunno, man, the dictionary is pretty clear on this one. Anarchism is defined there as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. If the dictionary is wrong, then anarchism is likely not the best name for the movement, and if it is correct, then the movement is not "true anarchism" per the definition of the word.

Well, as for not the best name, you would be right. Actually, the name was adopted because it was cool and edgy and made other folks in l'assemblée nationale uncomfortable, and even after the founder of sorts dropped it (he went with "federalism" without much in the way of personal political changes) the name stuck as a matter of distinguishing them from the other folks springing up.
Put bluntly, Merriam-Webster is wrong, though I'm not going to assign blame or suspect political motivations. A lot of work went into making that sort of normative definition what one thinks of when one says anarchism, to the point that even folks getting into anarchism thought that's what it was all about, only to be disappointed with the administrative proceedings of their local IWW.

So, we can agree anarchism is not the best name because it leads to stuff like Merriam-Webster's definition and the idea of true anarchism.

Now, enlighten me, what is anarchism per your definition? I've seen the Monty Python sketch too, btw.

[Jewish Underground State]

Well, as for not the best name, you would be right. Actually, the name was adopted because it was cool and edgy and made other folks in l'assemblée nationale uncomfortable, and even after the founder of sorts dropped it (he went with "federalism" without much in the way of personal political changes) the name stuck as a matter of distinguishing them from the other folks springing up.
Put bluntly, Merriam-Webster is wrong, though I'm not going to assign blame or suspect political motivations. A lot of work went into making that sort of normative definition what one thinks of when one says anarchism, to the point that even folks getting into anarchism thought that's what it was all about, only to be disappointed with the administrative proceedings of their local IWW.

So, we can agree anarchism is not the best name because it leads to stuff like Merriam-Webster's definition and the idea of true anarchism.

Now, enlighten me, what is anarchism per your definition? I've seen the Monty Python sketch too, btw.

Anything Makhno did. That's my version I think could be achieved

[Jewish Underground State]

The Makhnovists were pretty overconfident in their ability to get new members. The lost to the Soviets since most people would rather have peace over freedom.

They were never going to maintain their independence long term.

If Nazi Germany in its industrial power failed against the USSR what makes you think a tiny slice of Ukraine would succeed?

They had all of their officers killed due to a lie by Totsky.

The USSR was weak fighting in the russian civil war.

[Kubra]

Well, as for not the best name, you would be right. Actually, the name was adopted because it was cool and edgy and made other folks in l'assemblée nationale uncomfortable, and even after the founder of sorts dropped it (he went with "federalism" without much in the way of personal political changes) the name stuck as a matter of distinguishing them from the other folks springing up.
Put bluntly, Merriam-Webster is wrong, though I'm not going to assign blame or suspect political motivations. A lot of work went into making that sort of normative definition what one thinks of when one says anarchism, to the point that even folks getting into anarchism thought that's what it was all about, only to be disappointed with the administrative proceedings of their local IWW.

So, we can agree anarchism is not the best name because it leads to stuff like Merriam-Webster's definition and the idea of true anarchism.

Now, enlighten me, what is anarchism per your definition? I've seen the Monty Python sketch too, btw.

In its heyday, anarchism was generally the radical wing of the trade union movement, largely pushing for those who worked in a place of business to own where they worked and also to themselves make the decisions on the running of the business, which is why the only extant international anarchist org left purports to be a labour union and concerns itself largely with, you guessed it, unionising.

[Salus Maior]

They were never going to maintain their independence long term.

If Nazi Germany in its industrial power failed against the USSR what makes you think a tiny slice of Ukraine would succeed?

They had all of their officers killed due to a lie by Totsky.

The USSR was weak fighting in the russian civil war.

Not that weak. And even if they were, what about in a decade? Two decades?

Makhno was never going to win long term regardless of what short-term gains they had. And besides, how do we justify having military officers in an Anarchist framework anyway?

[Washington Resistance Army]

They had all of their officers killed due to a lie by Totsky.

The USSR was weak fighting in the russian civil war.

Not that weak. And even if they were, what about in a decade? Two decades?

Makhno was never going to win long term regardless of what short-term gains they had. And besides, how do we justify having military officers in an Anarchist framework anyway?

You could democratically elect officers or something but that's a grossly inefficient system with a lot of holes that could be poked in it pretty quickly.

[Salus Maior]

Not that weak. And even if they were, what about in a decade? Two decades?

Makhno was never going to win long term regardless of what short-term gains they had. And besides, how do we justify having military officers in an Anarchist framework anyway?

You could democratically elect officers or something but that's a grossly inefficient system with a lot of holes that could be poked in it pretty quickly.

Sure, but as you issue commands how can you guarantee they'll be followed without violating an anarchist philosophy?

[Concejos Unidos]

I think a really critical thing to remember is that anarchism is an ideal, not a strict rulebook. It is an utopia towards which a real-world implementation should evolve, at whatever speed is appropriate.

[Salus Maior]

I think a really critical thing to remember is that anarchism is an ideal, not a strict rulebook. It is an utopia towards which a real-world implementation should evolve, at whatever speed is appropriate.

An impossible ideal.

[Afrikan Staat]

I think a really critical thing to remember is that anarchism is an ideal, not a strict rulebook. It is an utopia towards which a real-world implementation should evolve, at whatever speed is appropriate.

An impossible ideal.

More like a bad ideal. I for one don't want to live in an "ideal Islamic society", similarly with an anarchic society.

[Hukhalia]

An impossible ideal.

More like a bad ideal. I for one don't want to live in an "ideal Islamic society", similarly with an anarchic society.

I think the anarchy that anarchists actually envision is quite clearly a good society, just impossible; a free society where nobody imposes their will on anyone else and yet all goes ahead naturally with liberty for all and little crime or violence. You can call it naive, you can call it impossible; but actively negative in its outlook? Far from it.

[Concejos Unidos]

An impossible ideal.

More like a bad ideal. I for one don't want to live in an "ideal Islamic society", similarly with an anarchic society.

As Hukhalia said, many people don't see anarchism as practicable, but as a theoretical ideal, few see it as bad. Who wouldn't want the elimination of poverty and crime and the free provision of resources without the obligation to work?

[Salus Maior]

More like a bad ideal. I for one don't want to live in an "ideal Islamic society", similarly with an anarchic society.

As Hukhalia said, many people don't see anarchism as practicable, but as a theoretical ideal, few see it as bad. Who wouldn't want the elimination of poverty and crime and the free provision of resources without the obligation to work?

Well, if you ever find a Genie you can go ahead and wish for that.

[Concejos Unidos]

As Hukhalia said, many people don't see anarchism as practicable, but as a theoretical ideal, few see it as bad. Who wouldn't want the elimination of poverty and crime and the free provision of resources without the obligation to work?

Well, if you ever find a Genie you can go ahead and wish for that.

I'll wish back a few reactionary Catholic monarchies for you too.

[Northern Seleucia]

So, we can agree anarchism is not the best name because it leads to stuff like Merriam-Webster's definition and the idea of true anarchism.

Now, enlighten me, what is anarchism per your definition? I've seen the Monty Python sketch too, btw.

In its heyday, anarchism was generally the radical wing of the trade union movement, largely pushing for those who worked in a place of business to own where they worked and also to themselves make the decisions on the running of the business, which is why the only extant international anarchist org left purports to be a labour union and concerns itself largely with, you guessed it, unionising.

Hence the whole idea of anarcho-syndicalism?

[Existential Cats]

And we're at the root of the problem. Anarchy is something, while anarchism is also something yet something entirely different, what a modification the ism makes over the y.
Let me give it you straight: anarchism involves *so* much governance. It's nothing but governance. I mean go on, you remember the ol' monty python sketch? That one was satirical, sure, but really knew what they were parodying.

I dunno, man, the dictionary is pretty clear on this one. Anarchism is defined there as a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. If the dictionary is wrong, then anarchism is likely not the best name for the movement, and if it is correct, then the movement is not "true anarchism" per the definition of the word.

If you want to understand what anarchism is and isn't, I would highly recommend reading the actual writings of anarchists, whom we all can agree are better authorities than Merriam-Webster.

The OP would be a hundred times better if it included links to anarchist writings and websites, or even anarchist YouTube channels. A good starting point is An Anarchist FAQ which is incredibly long but covers just about anything a layman would ask about anarchism.

[Concejos Unidos]

Hence the whole idea of anarcho-syndicalism?

Yes, the anarcho-syndicalist movement came out of the radical wing of the trade unions.

[Northern Seleucia]

Hence the whole idea of anarcho-syndicalism?

Yes, the anarcho-syndicalist movement came out of the radical wing of the trade unions.

How far did they get in their movement?