[J m HofMarN]

So a government that cant stop people from killing whoever they please is fine and yet when there's no government and people kill whoever they please that's a problem?

[Rory]

"So a government that cant stop people from killing whoever they please is fine and yet when there's no government and people kill whoever they please that's a problem? "

No, both those things are bad. Hence why UN probably isnt doing a very good job. One might say that a problem with the UN is that it doesnt have enough power. In Anarchy, no government has any power, whatsoever, since there is no government. Therfore, it seems like if you want to save lives, and generally make the world a better place, a government with the power to stop people from killing whoever they please (and probably a bunch of other powers) is preferable. That doesn't necessarily make the government oppressive, of course. The government can take any form (democracy, republic, communist regeme, what have you) so long as it has the powers to make and enforce laws, institute various social and protective programs, etc.

[J m HofMarN]

So then, you see anarchy as a void from which a government is forced to emerge. Then is that really such a bad thing? If a government is ineffective to the point where it's supposedly just as bad as anarchy than the only thing keeping that government going is people clinging to its security. When that security is stripped away and the ineptitude of the government lain bare does not this help to create a new government. And so don't anarchists serve the greater purposes of liberty and security?

[Rory]

"So then, you see anarchy as a void from which a government is forced to emerge. Then is that really such a bad thing? If a government is ineffective to the point where it's supposedly just as bad as anarchy than the only thing keeping that government going is people clinging to its security. When that security is stripped away and the ineptitude of the government lain bare does not this help to create a new government. And so don't anarchists serve the greater purposes of liberty and security?"

Well, no, that doesn't really follow from my argument, but I suppose some of that is true. A form of government will Probably emerge from Anarchy, I suppose. And I'd imagine many things can keep an ineffectual government going, including, but not limited to: a genuine desire to make the government work, the mistaken belief that the government is working better than it is, etc.

What I want to know is if this is how you see anarchy? If it is, doesn't that make you not much different from, say, a communist, who believes there needs to be a violent revolution in order to achieve a certain kind of government? Also, if you see anarchy as merely a mean to an ends, why bother calling yourself an anarchist? Why not just name yourself after whatever system you actually support?

Furthermore, it seems like a switch to Anarchy isn't necessarily the best approach to a failing government. A state of Anarchy generally seems both violent and disorganised, not an ideal state for the creation of a new government. Whose to say an oppresive government wouldn't rise from the ashes? It seems like non violent reform might actually be a better solution.

[J m HofMarN]

"What I want to know is if this is how you see anarchy? If it is, doesn't that make you not much different from, say, a communist, who believes there needs to be a violent revolution in order to achieve a certain kind of government? Also, if you see anarchy as merely a mean to an ends, why bother calling yourself an anarchist? Why not just name yourself after whatever system you actually support?

Furthermore, it seems like a switch to Anarchy isn't necessarily the best approach to a failing government. A state of Anarchy generally seems both violent and disorganised, not an ideal state for the creation of a new government. Whose to say an oppresive government wouldn't rise from the ashes? It seems like non violent reform might actually be a better solution."

I see anarchy in a lot of ways and I think that there are many different points to it just as any political party has many different points. Well, no, we're not too much different from communists and socialists which is why we get along. However when the revolution is over the anarchists are still going to shun power. While George Washington preserved slavery, reserved voting rights to rich white men and suppressed dissent from the lower classes an anarchist who had participated in the battle of Bunker Hill would still be on the streets supportign the common good.

Anarchists aided red forces during the Russian revolution and many were killed when the Bolsheviks turned against them and suppressed their movement. Anarchists may be the force that sparks reforms or revolutions but they never stick around to join the government afterward. Power corrupts is a generally accepted statement. Therefore if an anarchist were a communist he'd join the party after the revolution and eventually become as repressive as his predecessors.

We may be rebels often, dissenters constantly and terrorists occasionally but anarchists are never the oppressors and that does indeed give us an element of morality. I know that an oppressive government could well rise from the ashes of an anarchist revolution but, while the republicans or democrats or communists or fascists or monarchists were forming that government guess who would be in the streets fighting it.

[the Anonymous Blonde]

Yes, the anarchists would still be in the streets fighting the repressive government. Meanwhile, the People would be tired of the fighting and tired of the bread shortages and the lack of theme parks, and they would ignore the anarchists and cheer as the totalitarians put 'em down.

The People may be able to take some revolution, but not constant revolution.

[J m HofMarN]

Revolution is not necessarily violent, nor are anarchist actions.

[Just your average movie goer]

Revolution is not necessarily violent

True. Chairman Mao thought that you could only instigate change from the barrel of a gun - but Ghandi did fine without even the aid of a pointy stick.

[Rory]

I think the biggest problem with the anarchist movement, as you define it, is that it appears to view anarchy as merely a means, and not an ends. So, it views anarchy as a necessary step towards a better government, but not as THE Better Government (or lack their of).

I disagree with that for the following reasons:
1. Its misleading. The communists might believe a violent revolution is necessary for a communist government, but they don't call themselves "The Violent Revolutionaries" because that doesn't adequetly demonstrate their ideals.
2. It doesn't always seems necessary, or even preferable. It seems possible, in principle anyway, that a government could change through gradual reform and come out better then if there had been a (possibly violent) revolution that threw the government into shambles before constructing something totally new.

You've argued that being an anarchist gives you an objective viewpoint, allowing you to fairly criticize a government when it isn't doing its job. I, however, have raised the point that any member of a political party, especially one who isn't directly responsible for the day to day runnings of the government (say your average voter) can be just as objective when criticizing his own party. If I'm a democrat who is truly commited to the ideals of the democratic party, I'll be certain to criticize them when they mess up.

[J m HofMarN]

"I think the biggest problem with the anarchist movement, as you define it, is that it appears to view anarchy as merely a means, and not an ends. So, it views anarchy as a necessary step towards a better government, but not as THE Better Government (or lack their of)."

On the contrary Rory, I think that is one of the better points of the anarchist movement. We may know that our current government is corrupt but we don't pretend to know how to create a perfect government. The only promise an anarchist revolutionary could make would be to fight for freedom, not to create a government that would keep people free. A revolutionary, in my belief, should cede power as soon as the ruling government has been overthrown. If they instead give in to the temptation to take power they will eventually be corrupted.


"1. Its misleading. The communists might believe a violent revolution is necessary for a communist government, but they don't call themselves "The Violent Revolutionaries" because that doesn't adequetly demonstrate their ideals. "

I'm not quite sure I get this point. Anarchists are not violent revolutionaries either, not until we have to be. In the words of the great hero, Dr. Che Guevara, "Armed revolution cannot succeed until all non-violent paths are exhausted."

"2. It doesn't always seems necessary, or even preferable. It seems possible, in principle anyway, that a government could change through gradual reform and come out better then if there had been a (possibly violent) revolution that threw the government into shambles before constructing something totally new."

That is just silly thinking. There are times when violent revolution is required. However at the moment it is not yet required because there is still a democracy, all be it a false one. There is the illusion of freedom and until that illusion is shattered we anarchists will simply continue to do our part and stay ready.

"You've argued that being an anarchist gives you an objective viewpoint, allowing you to fairly criticize a government when it isn't doing its job. I, however, have raised the point that any member of a political party, especially one who isn't directly responsible for the day to day runnings of the government (say your average voter) can be just as objective when criticizing his own party. If I'm a democrat who is truly commited to the ideals of the democratic party, I'll be certain to criticize them when they mess up."

No, you won't. When your boss messes up are you very quick to yell at him or her for it? When your football team loses a game do you immediately begin to criticize them? In this society criticism is synonymous with treachorous blasphemy. For instance, criticising Bush at an inoportune time got Bill Maher fired and got stern rebukes for any democrat who dared to do it. Imagine what would happen if a member of his own party had broken lines.

[Rory]

Gah, I deleted my post by accident. Anyway, my arguement in a nutshell.
1. communists are violent revolutinaries, at least initially, but they dont call themselves violent revolutionaries, because they identify themselves by the end goal, communism. anarchists, in the same respect, dont want permanent anarchy so its silly to call themselves anarchists.
2. Its not ALWAYS necessary to have a revolution. So, even if anarchists define themselves by the means, creating anarchy, and building a government on top of that, those means arent always appropriate.
3. I dont yell at my boss because ill get fired; thats the only reason. The government isnt going to do that much to me if i criticize it, when it fucks up. If it did, every anarchist would be a lot more fucked then me. Dedicated fans who aren't silly yokels actually are willing to criticize their team when they legitimately fucked up. Hell, if i can critisize myself for doing badly in a game, I can critisize a team for doing so. An idealist who truly believes in a certain form of government isn't any less willful than an anarchist; im not talking about politicians or some on the fence moderate; im talking about people with serious beliefs here. If I believe in ideals X, Y, and Z and ideal Z isn't being enacted or protected or what not, you can bet ill raise a stink about it.

[J m HofMarN]

"1. communists are violent revolutinaries, at least initially, but they dont call themselves violent revolutionaries, because they identify themselves by the end goal, communism. anarchists, in the same respect, dont want permanent anarchy so its silly to call themselves anarchists."

It is the mark of great intelligence to be able to hold two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time. For isntance, that government is wrong but that it is necessary. Thus anarchists can fight for their ideals just as anyone else does and I believe we can still honestly call ourselves anarchists. These are only my views and I hardly think you're in any position to disprove the merits of an anarchist society since one has never existed and therefore there is no factual base for such an argument.

"2. Its not ALWAYS necessary to have a revolution. So, even if anarchists define themselves by the means, creating anarchy, and building a government on top of that, those means arent always appropriate."

It is also not ALWAYS necessary to have democracy and yet this idea is never brought before a democrat. And in case you have not noticed the anarchists in this country are not frothing at the mouth and storming the bastille or anything. However when the time comes they will be at the forefront of the struggle if they are not the spark that sets it off.

"3. I dont yell at my boss because ill get fired; thats the only reason. The government isnt going to do that much to me if i criticize it, when it fucks up. If it did, every anarchist would be a lot more fucked then me. Dedicated fans who aren't silly yokels actually are willing to criticize their team when they legitimately fucked up. Hell, if i can critisize myself for doing badly in a game, I can critisize a team for doing so. An idealist who truly believes in a certain form of government isn't any less willful than an anarchist; im not talking about politicians or some on the fence moderate; im talking about people with serious beliefs here. If I believe in ideals X, Y, and Z and ideal Z isn't being enacted or protected or what not, you can bet ill raise a stink about it."

I'm sorry but this argument is thoroughly lacking. Those who subscribe to a specific form of government are less likely to criticize those who share and further their ideals. It is a simple statement of fact. If you believe in ideal Z and X and Y are still being enacted properly than you may ask the politician to step up Z promotion but you will not demand that they leave office for their failures or make strongly critical remarks because hteir successor might not like ideal X Y or Z.

[Rory]

"
I'm sorry but this argument is thoroughly lacking. Those who subscribe to a specific form of government are less likely to criticize those who share and further their ideals. It is a simple statement of fact. If you believe in ideal Z and X and Y are still being enacted properly than you may ask the politician to step up Z promotion but you will not demand that they leave office for their failures or make strongly critical remarks because hteir successor might not like ideal X Y or Z."

I think this really gets to the meat of the matter at hand. First of all, be aware that the person who follows this line of reasoning is perfectly aware that ideal Z is not being met, and it probably troubles him somewhat. What he is using is a political strategy; he doesn't critisize the party for failing to uphold ideal Z because he thinks that, if he does, the party will be greatly weakened. Infighting is bad for business, and all that nonsense.

Now, if you actually agree with this person's line of reasoning (I certainly don't), then you would be forced to admit that its the correct course to take. If making compromises on ones ideals keeps the lesser of two evils in power, and there's no other way to do so, then you'd better make a compromise, right? Otherwise, ideals or no ideals, some jerk is going to take over the country and drive it right to the ground.

If that person is right (and god, i hope s/he isn't) then Anarchists are just fucking the country over, what with their criticisms of governments that are doing a half decent job. By criticizing such governments, they are just inviting some creepy dictator to take over! AND NO ONE WANTS THAT (with the exception of the creepy dictator himself, and possibly his friends and family).

But wait just a second... there is another alternative, and it doesnt require you to be an anarchist. If you don't believe that compromising your ideals is actually very effective at all (say because it makes for a lame, generally unpleasant government, or makes your political party look weak and ineffective) then you can hold to your ideals and be as radical as you think is necessary. So yeah, if I feel strongly enough about ideal Z, then i sure as hell am going to kick Joe, Hater of Z, right out of office, right on his skinny little ass.

This is actually a hotly debated topic in the Reproductive Rights Movement, and the Pro Choice/Pro Abortion side is divided almost exactly down the middle. Half the movement (or so) thinks that we should only fight for our most important agendas, like keeping abortion legalized for example, while ignoring the other issues, at least for now. The other half thinks we should broaden the scope of the reproductive rights movement to include transgender issues, and free abortion access, and stuff like that. Yet none of these people are anarchists; in fact, the side fighting for broader goals, who refuses to compromise, is actually advocating that the government play a more active role in our lives. So, it seems true idealists do exist, especially since a lot of people think its the best political strategy! Being an anarchist has nothing to do with it.

[Rory]

"It is the mark of great intelligence to be able to hold two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time. "

Wait a second, isn't this what George Orwell calls "double think." And isn't it a bad thing?

[Rory]

"For isntance, that government is wrong but that it is necessary. Thus anarchists can fight for their ideals just as anyone else does and I believe we can still honestly call ourselves anarchists."

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!

"It is also not ALWAYS necessary to have democracy and yet this idea is never brought before a democrat. And in case you have not noticed the anarchists in this country are not frothing at the mouth and storming the bastille or anything. However when the time comes they will be at the forefront of the struggle if they are not the spark that sets it off. "

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.