[J m HofMarN]

"How exactly do you justify this view? It seems that if something is necessary for a happy functioning society, then its probably a good thing, right? Or do you mean that government is necessary for something else? But really, what else could you mean? The pros of government must outweigh the cons of government, which makes it a good thing!"

War is sometimes necessary for a functioning society. Does this make war a good thing?

"Well, chances are, a good democrat believes that democracy is the best form of government. So, in the interests of creating the best possible society, democracy is necessary. But, surely, an anarchist will agree that revolution isn't necessary in order to create the best possible society? In fact, more peaceful gradual means would probably often be preferable. It just seems weird to name your movement after something you think is necessary Some of the time in order to create a new, better government."

First of all anarchists aren't always pushing for a violent revolution as I have pointed out. There are many anarchist intellectuals and volunteers and philosophers just as there are many anarchsit militants and they all do their part to benefit society in some way. I still believe that anarchy is possible and that people can generally govern themselves, especially if the income disparities and problems of the capitalist system are abolished. I suppose that a society with no government where everyone has whatever they need to live and can do more or less what they please is more utopian but this is precisely what anarchists desire.

As I have stated there are many important beliefs in anarchists philosophy other than just ransacking McDonalds restaurants and stealing food for distribution. Not that I'm coming down on such actions at all. And yes I know that our system would tell everyone that such a thing is wrong but, come on. We're talking about a global company that makes millions, maybe billions a year just in profit and treats its workers like crap. Sure ransacking the joint might bother the workers but, hey, I've worked in fast food. Do you know what I would have done if the Black Bloc had trashed the restaurant I worked at? I'd have laughed my ass off.

A utopian vision, a will to take revolutionary action, a weariness of all governments, a solidarity like no other movement on the planet, a more active network than any other movement in the country, these are just some of the better points of anarchism.

I say we continue this thread until it becomes long enough to be edited into a novel and we can split the profits. However it's clear that a more desperate battle looms. I speak of course of the debate between crunchy and smooth peanut butter. I myself prefer crunchy so I'm fairly certain that you'll be for creamy. I'll let you open the thread with your opening argument.

[Rory]

"War is sometimes necessary for a functioning society. Does this make war a good thing?"

A war that is truly necessary for a happy functioning society would be ethical in my eyes, yes. So, in that sense, war would be a "good thing." Most Wars, however, probably fall under the "bad thing" category. Or, to sport a word you used; a war that is necessary for a happy functioning society would not be "wrong."

"First of all anarchists aren't always pushing for a violent revolution as I have pointed out. There are many anarchist intellectuals and volunteers and philosophers just as there are many anarchsit militants and they all do their part to benefit society in some way. "

But that just hurts your points. If there are anarchists who are pushing for non violent reform in the government, and not a full blown revolution, then the term "anarchist" is rather misleading, dont you think? These people dont even seem to want anarchy, not even for a little bit.

"I still believe that anarchy is possible and that people can generally govern themselves, especially if the income disparities and problems of the capitalist system are abolished. I suppose that a society with no government where everyone has whatever they need to live and can do more or less what they please is more utopian but this is precisely what anarchists desire."

You keep going back and forth on this issue. Just a few posts ago you said you believed that government was "necessary." If government is necessary then how could you ever believe that anarchy is possible? So, do you or don't you think anarchy is possible? Is government really necessary in your eyes? Is anarchy a permenant solution to the worlds problems? If so, then I have no problem with you calling yourself an anarchist (however, see previous points about how anarchy doesn't seem like it could ever work). If not, if you dont believe anarchy is the best system, the one we should try to emulate as much as possible, then it really doesnt seem like your much of an anarchist, as I've already argued.

"A utopian vision, a will to take revolutionary action, a weariness of all governments, a solidarity like no other movement on the planet, a more active network than any other movement in the country, these are just some of the better points of anarchism. "

Fair enough. Most of these things are pretty neat. I wouldn't call a Utopian vision all that great. Utopian visions have two problems: They are often impossibly hard to realize, and they have a nasty habit of breaking down into something not all that Utopian. Take anarchy, for example: its not easy to permenantly enact, and it would probably end up making a lot of people really sad.

In summary, I have this (these) problems with the anarchy movement:
Either, its name is misleading (ie they dont want anarchy), or its ultimate goal (of creating anarchy) is a bad one.

Also, do you agree with my point that one can support government and still criticize it objectively when it goes wrong, or did you just grow tired of talking about it?

[J m HofMarN]

"A war that is truly necessary for a happy functioning society would be ethical in my eyes, yes. So, in that sense, war would be a "good thing." Most Wars, however, probably fall under the "bad thing" category. Or, to sport a word you used; a war that is necessary for a happy functioning society would not be "wrong.""

I'm afraid I have to disagree. War is not a good thin in any situation. It may be necessary but that dosn't make it good.

But that just hurts your points. If there are anarchists who are pushing for non violent reform in the government, and not a full blown revolution, then the term "anarchist" is rather misleading, dont you think? These people dont even seem to want anarchy, not even for a little bit.

I hardly think so. If it's to improve the quality of life of other human beings I'd gladly aid in community service or activism or non-violent protests. Anarchists merely make it clear that they can and will strike back if the government cracks down.

"You keep going back and forth on this issue. Just a few posts ago you said you believed that government was "necessary." If government is necessary then how could you ever believe that anarchy is possible? So, do you or don't you think anarchy is possible? Is government really necessary in your eyes? Is anarchy a permenant solution to the worlds problems? If so, then I have no problem with you calling yourself an anarchist (however, see previous points about how anarchy doesn't seem like it could ever work). If not, if you dont believe anarchy is the best system, the one we should try to emulate as much as possible, then it really doesnt seem like your much of an anarchist, as I've already argued."

It comes back to the idea of being able to hold two opposing thoughts in one's mind. Sure, government may be necessary at the moment but it might not be forever, and even if it is necessary it still causes a lot of pain. I think that anarchy is possible. And I still don't see how you can judge anarchism when there never has been an anarchist society. And I think I've pointed out several other qualities of anarchists that, even if anarchy wasn't a possible system, would still unite and describe the values of our movement so it appears that I am indeed an anarchist.

"Fair enough. Most of these things are pretty neat. I wouldn't call a Utopian vision all that great. Utopian visions have two problems: They are often impossibly hard to realize, and they have a nasty habit of breaking down into something not all that Utopian. Take anarchy, for example: its not easy to permenantly enact, and it would probably end up making a lot of people really sad."

We'll never know. Anarchists have been persecuted since who knows when, from the Russian revolution the the reign of terror that swept america during the suppression of the labor movement. So they must be doing something right to scare the governments so much. I say that the vision of a world without a government is quite possible, especially if you consider the idea of evenly distributed wealth and property.

"In summary, I have this (these) problems with the anarchy movement:
Either, its name is misleading (ie they dont want anarchy), or its ultimate goal (of creating anarchy) is a bad one.

Also, do you agree with my point that one can support government and still criticize it objectively when it goes wrong, or did you just grow tired of talking about it?"

I really don't speak for the party ideology, only my own. I believe most anarchists truly believe the vision, as do I. However the vision is not all we're focused on, as I said there a re a great many other things we do that make our movement worthwhile.

I certainly do not. Most in America equate patriotism with blind support of one's regime. Once you support something it's entirely too easy to equate it with being righteous. That is the reason for the sad state of this country today. Those who vote are more poorly informed than those who do not.

[Rory]

"I'm afraid I have to disagree. War is not a good thin in any situation. It may be necessary but that dosn't make it good."

Again, what do you mean by good? A war that is necessary (ie the only solution) towards maximizing overall happiness definetly seem ethical. If Not going to war results in more death, pain, suffering, what have you, then going to war, surely you would agree that the ethical action would be to go to war? And if ethical and good aren't the same thing, then what do you mean by good? Do you merely mean that war is generally unpleasant... well of course it is; no one disputes that! Saying war is not good, but is sometimes necessary is like saying taking the trash out isn't good, but is necessary... or helping the homeless isn't good but is necessary. Both of those things certainly have the potential to be generally unpleasant, but most people would certainly agree they are good things to do.

"I hardly think so. If it's to improve the quality of life of other human beings I'd gladly aid in community service or activism or non-violent protests. Anarchists merely make it clear that they can and will strike back if the government cracks down."

But really, what does that have to do with anarchy, ie the abolition of government?

"It comes back to the idea of being able to hold two opposing thoughts in one's mind. Sure, government may be necessary at the moment but it might not be forever, and even if it is necessary it still causes a lot of pain."

First of all, I don't see whats particularly admirable about holding two opposing thoughts in one's mind. That seems rather illogical.

Okay, so government is necessary now, but perhaps not in the future? What exactly do you predict will change from now until then? Will a bunch of people die? Will people become nicer people? Will everyone become self sufficient loners? None of these seems like they'll happen anytime soon.

And why should the government cause pain? Why would an ideal government that does its job of making the most people happy cause any signifigant amount of pain? Thats what we should be fighting for, not anarchy.

"And I still don't see how you can judge anarchism when there never has been an anarchist society. And I think I've pointed out several other qualities of anarchists that, even if anarchy wasn't a possible system, would still unite and describe the values of our movement so it appears that I am indeed an anarchist."

There's been plenty of anarchist societies; they just didn't last very long for obvious reasons. Any time when the government broke down because of rioting, or a political upheaval or what not... that was an example of anarchy. Besides, we don't need an example of anarchy to effectively criticize it. My friend Joe has never been President of the USA, but that doesn't mean I can't judge whether or not he'd make a good one. In fact, my hypothetical friend Joe would make a rather poor president because: 1. hes terrible at making decisions, 2. he can't read or write, and 3. hes a serial killer. Now, can you honestly stand there and tell me I can't judge whether or not Joe would make a good president, simply because I dont have any examples of Joe being president?

Its not so much what makes YOU an anarchist; my question is what makes ANARCHISTS anarchists?

"We'll never know. Anarchists have been persecuted since who knows when, from the Russian revolution the the reign of terror that swept america during the suppression of the labor movement. So they must be doing something right to scare the governments so much. I say that the vision of a world without a government is quite possible, especially if you consider the idea of evenly distributed wealth and property."

Okay, lets pretend for a moment that we'll never know whether anarchy is possible, or what it would be like. Well, we can take a pretty good guess. And my guess is that anarchy won't work.

Okay, see this is why I think that the Anarchists shouldn't be calling themselves anarchists. Supporting a labor union is supporting a Stronger Government, not a weaker one. Labor Unions are ogranized bodies that can do what they do because there are laws protecting their rights. Or am I wrong? There are laws protecting the rights of a union to go on strike; there are laws enforcing a certain wage, a certain treatment of workers, etc. The labour union pushes for new laws to protect workers rights in the face of big independant businesses every day. Without labor unions, the government would have less power to make businesses treat their workers a certain way.

And really, the idea of evenly distrubuted wealth and property? How do you think thats going to get accomplished? Everyone, spontaneously, and independantly, will suddenly decide to divide everything equally? That just seems logistically impossible! No, there would have to be some kind of government in place, probably a rather nice one, to get something that big and complex done.

"I certainly do not. Most in America equate patriotism with blind support of one's regime. Once you support something it's entirely too easy to equate it with being righteous. That is the reason for the sad state of this country today. Those who vote are more poorly informed than those who do not."

Oh come now, that can't be true. How could those who vote be more poorly informed than those who dont. If they were informed, wouldnt that mean that they're showing enough interest in the political process to at least make the effort to vote? This reminds me of a positively horrible T Shirt, which reads as follows: "If voting mattered, they would have made it illegal by now." Its a catchy little phrase, though what I'd prefer is the following change: "If voting mattered, we all would have voted for it to be illegal by now."

Besides, it doesn't matter if even 99% of the voting population doesn't know what they're doing. All that matters is that a principled person can support a government, and still be objective. Surely, those people exist. It seems silly to say they don't. The point is that one can support an idea, not an institution. For example, if for some reason the anarchy movement (which i can only assume has ringleaders, and what not since, as you are fond of saying, it is one of the most organized institutions in the US) started advocating the assasination of small children (say on the grounds that it sends a strong political message to tobaco companies to stop advertising to small children, or something retarted like that), would you, JM Hoffman, suddenly jump on the bandwagon of infanticide and murder? Of course not! Because you believe in the ideals of anarchy, not the institution (which, as you are fond of saying, is very very organized)! Same goes for any other sensible member of a political party.

Thank God!