Anarchism Discussion Thread

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

Here's a thread where anyone and everyone, especially Anarchists, may discuss the political idea/philosophy of Anarchism, and all it's varients, ideas, proponents, critisizers, economic, cultures, issues, etc. I'll start the discussion with a question: what do you think of propaganda of the deed? If you are unsure of what I mean, please see the provided link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

[Farnhamia]

Here's a thread where anyone and everyone, especially Anarchists, may discuss the political idea/philosophy of Anarchism, and all it's varients, ideas, proponents, critisizers, economic, cultures, issues, etc. I'll start the discussion with a question: what do you think of propaganda of the deed? If you are unsure of what I mean, please see the provided link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

Ah, classic bomb-throwing anarchism. We seldom see this here in NSG. Our anarchists seem to be of the "you are not the boss of me" variety. I do rather like "propaganda of the deed" as a phrase, though. So much more civilized than just "terrorism." Of course, it does have a tendency to put people off, rather than to incite them to rise up against the State.

[Blakk Metal]

1. Because trying to scare a psychopathic enemy by something it does every day is totally a good idea.
2. If you want to engage in violent opposition, at least do it strategically.

[Free Soviets]

as much as those gilded age bastards deserved a bombing or two, the problem with 'the deed was that it was counterproductive. then again, this seems to be a rather significant problem for most anarchist activities. this past election, chuck munson (or whoever is running the infoshop fb account) was pushing the don't vote campaign again. because there was obviously no lesson to be learned from the 2000 election...

me, i still love the anarchos, but i gave up the label and the ideological rigidity years back.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

I think propaganda of the deed can effective or ineffective depending on the circumstances, and I agree with Free Soviets that it was counterproductive as it nearly always turned the public against Anarchism.

[Mkuki]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

I cannot speak for all Anarchists, but I feel that the State is just as immoral as the Mafia, because it uses force and coercion to acquire money in the form of taxes, and uses it's monopoly on force to force the conformity of it's citizens.

[Acireman]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

I fail to see what good state does for society.

[Acireman]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

I cannot speak for all Anarchists, but I feel that the State is just as immoral as the Mafia, because it uses force and coercion to acquire money in the form of taxes, and uses it's monopoly on force to force the conformity of it's citizens.

Morality is subjective.

[Free Soviets]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

I fail to see what good state does for society.

well, something state-ish is pretty useful for keeping the barbarians at bay

[Acireman]

I fail to see what good state does for society.

well, something state-ish is pretty useful for keeping the barbarians at bay

Have you ever considered that maybe the state is the defender of the barbarians?

[Free Soviets]

well, something state-ish is pretty useful for keeping the barbarians at bay

Have you ever considered that maybe the state is the defender of the barbarians?

it often is.

but it is also the only thing that has been at all useful at keeping the other barbarians out there away for the past 8000 years or so.

game theory it out. a feature of humanity is that a percentage of people are willing to organize to attack others to steal their stuff, burn their cities, and leave the heads of their victims in a heap outside the ruins. since wishing doesn't seem to help stop this, we need to organize a defense capable of fighting them off - or, better yet, deterring them from attacking in the first place. and doing that requires collecting resources and forcing people into paying up (along with some other stuff about providing the basic infrastructure and societal investments needed to generate the necessary resources). and that means creating something state-ish.

also, i am pointedly saying 'state-ish'. the federation of councils or whatever is going to need enforcement mechanisms in order to provide public goods. we should make such an institution as libertarian as we reasonably can, of course. but we cannot give up all of the features of the state and survive the eventual onslaught.

[Acireman]

Have you ever considered that maybe the state is the defender of the barbarians?

it often is.

but it is also the only thing that has been at all useful at keeping the other barbarians out there away for the past 8000 years or so.

game theory it out. a feature of humanity is that a percentage of people are willing to organize to attack others to steal their stuff, burn their cities, and leave the heads of their victims in a heap outside the ruins. since wishing doesn't seem to help stop this, we need to organize a defense capable of fighting them off - or, better yet, deterring them from attacking in the first place. and doing that requires collecting resources and forcing people into paying up (along with some other stuff about providing the basic infrastructure and societal investments needed to generate the necessary resources). and that means creating something state-ish.

also, i am pointedly saying 'state-ish'. the federation of councils or whatever is going to need enforcement mechanisms in order to provide public goods. we should make such an institution as libertarian as we reasonably can, of course. but we cannot give up all of the features of the state and survive the eventual onslaught.

You are assuming I have something against barbarians in general.
I don't.
You are acting as if we need state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Property is theft.
By claiming property rights to be absolute, we are beating up people, capitalism vs socialism, the whole brouhaha.
From a certain view, the state is being the defender of the barbarians stealing from others.
We don't need to get rid of state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Life as a thief, or a barbarian, is living in your own self-interest.
You don't let property rights or morality stop you from living your life to the fullest.

I myself will live my lief in my own self-interest, whether that is with or without a state.

[Free Soviets]

it often is.

but it is also the only thing that has been at all useful at keeping the other barbarians out there away for the past 8000 years or so.

game theory it out. a feature of humanity is that a percentage of people are willing to organize to attack others to steal their stuff, burn their cities, and leave the heads of their victims in a heap outside the ruins. since wishing doesn't seem to help stop this, we need to organize a defense capable of fighting them off - or, better yet, deterring them from attacking in the first place. and doing that requires collecting resources and forcing people into paying up (along with some other stuff about providing the basic infrastructure and societal investments needed to generate the necessary resources). and that means creating something state-ish.

also, i am pointedly saying 'state-ish'. the federation of councils or whatever is going to need enforcement mechanisms in order to provide public goods. we should make such an institution as libertarian as we reasonably can, of course. but we cannot give up all of the features of the state and survive the eventual onslaught.

You are assuming I have something against barbarians in general.
I don't.
You are acting as if we need state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Property is theft.
By claiming property rights to be absolute, we are beating up people, capitalism vs socialism, the whole brouhaha.
From a certain view, the state is being the defender of the barbarians stealing from others.
We don't need to get rid of state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Life as a thief, or a barbarian, is living in your own self-interest.
You don't let property rights or morality stop you from living your life to the fullest.

I myself will live my lief in my own self-interest, whether that is with or without a state.

whoa. an illegalist?

[Acireman]

You are assuming I have something against barbarians in general.
I don't.
You are acting as if we need state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Property is theft.
By claiming property rights to be absolute, we are beating up people, capitalism vs socialism, the whole brouhaha.
From a certain view, the state is being the defender of the barbarians stealing from others.
We don't need to get rid of state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Life as a thief, or a barbarian, is living in your own self-interest.
You don't let property rights or morality stop you from living your life to the fullest.

I myself will live my lief in my own self-interest, whether that is with or without a state.

whoa. an illegalist?

Acting against the law is sometimes not in your self-interest as it can land you in jail.
If its safe to act against the law, I won't give a fuck whether I act against it or inside it.

[Blakk Metal]

You are assuming I have something against barbarians in general.
I don't.
You are acting as if we need state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Property is theft.
By claiming property rights to be absolute, we are beating up people, capitalism vs socialism, the whole brouhaha.
From a certain view, the state is being the defender of the barbarians stealing from others.
We don't need to get rid of state to protect us from having our stuff stolen by barbarians.
Life as a thief, or a barbarian, is living in your own self-interest.
You don't let property rights or morality stop you from living your life to the fullest.

I myself will live my lief in my own self-interest, whether that is with or without a state.

whoa. an illegalist?

Do you know what illegalism is?

[Acireman]

whoa. an illegalist?

Do you know what illegalism is?

Googling it right now...

[Acireman]

whoa. an illegalist?

Do you know what illegalism is?

I think I actually like that ideology...

[Augarundus]

"Propaganda of the deed" could potentially be "good" insofar as it is a morally justifiable act. If the act does not harm innocents (if those targeted are violent criminals - that is to say, agents of the state), then the act is one of self-defense and is just.

Assassinating President McKinley? Completely fine.
Bombing schools where innocents live and work (as some sort of perverse "statement")? Not so much.


That being said, I don't think propaganda of the deed is effective. At least not in a society where most people are not anarchists. Propaganda of the deed alienates most citizens and frightens them into a reactionary, security-obsessed stance against anarchism.

In a society where most people are anarchists (of whatever stripe - ancaps, ancoms, ansyns, etc.), propaganda of the deed serves the same function as a military victory (a tactical victory: to cripple the coercive forces of the state... and a strategic victory: to rally the anarchist forces against the state). In a world where a significant chunk (potentially not even the majority) of the population does not recognize the moral legitimacy of the state, propaganda of the deed may act to "ignite" the revolution, so long as the "subjective factors" of revolution exist.

[Acireman]

"Propaganda of the deed" could potentially be "good" insofar as it is a morally justifiable act. If the act does not harm innocents (if those targeted are violent criminals - that is to say, agents of the state), then the act is one of self-defense and is just.

Assassinating President McKinley? Completely fine.
Bombing schools where innocents live and work (as some sort of perverse "statement")? Not so much.


That being said, I don't think propaganda of the deed is effective. At least not in a society where most people are not anarchists. Propaganda of the deed alienates most citizens and frightens them into a reactionary, security-obsessed stance against anarchism.

In a society where most people are anarchists (of whatever stripe - ancaps, ancoms, ansyns, etc.), propaganda of the deed serves the same function as a military victory (a tactical victory: to cripple the coercive forces of the state... and a strategic victory: to rally the anarchist forces against the state). In a world where a significant chunk (potentially not even the majority) of the population does not recognize the moral legitimacy of the state, propaganda of the deed may act to "ignite" the revolution, so long as the "subjective factors" of revolution exist.

Gawd.Damn.It.

[The New Sea Territory]

How can anarchy be political if there are no "politics" to anarchy?

[Free Soviets]

whoa. an illegalist?

Do you know what illegalism is?

doesn't every self-respecting (former) anarcho?

[The New Sea Territory]

I find the idea of Anarchy to be ridiculous. I fail to see what good the abolition of the state does for society.

This: makes it unregulated.

The reason we have never seen it very well is because true anarchy hasn't been around in thousands of years.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I abhor anarchism. I abhor disorder, the absence of hierarchy, the absence of a controlling body or person. Anarchy is idiotic, undesirable, and its most fervent adherents deserving of elimination.

I''ll start the discussion with a question: what do you think of propaganda of the deed?

So, Molotov-cocktail-throwing, president-assassinating, self-righteous-terrorist anarchism? Yeah, I think you can deduce my feelings on that from my previous statement.

[Acireman]

How can anarchy be political if there are no "politics" to anarchy?

Politics does not relate to how the state is managed, it relates to how humans are managed.

Almost all anarchist ideologies that follow moral codes and the like advocate some form of law enforcement, simply people voluntarily giving up their time to punish criminals without forcing others to pay tax.