Create your own social network with a free forum.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to The Proletariat Coalition. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Short Definition Of Anarchism, By Axel Persson
The Red Factions
Posted: May 7, 2006, 12:12 PM


Comrade Under-Officer
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 169
Member No.: 4
Joined: 2-February 06



An essay I wrote a few years ago.

Short definition of Anarchism
By Axel Persson

The purpose of this essay is to provide a more accurate and meaningful definition of the word anarchism that is often misused even here at The Proletariat Coalition. The apparition of a thread rather insulting to the noble ideals of Anarchism was spotted and this essay will hopefully enlighten the Comrade we all know I am targeting with in this essay.

Anarchy has so far been defined in countless ways by a multitude of different sources, some more reliable than others, some less. The word itself originates from the Greek language used by the very founders of modern democracy. Basically, it is made up by words meaning “absence of” and “authority”. In short, absence of authority. Dictionaries define anarchism as "the absence of government or authority". These definitions of anarchism are based on the writings of anarchists thinkers, rather than the usual stereotypes. Any person seeing past the usual stereotypes that plague the word Anarchism understands that the word represents a liberatory idea associated with what is good and positive. Other sources such as the western corporate press, generally uncultured, ideologically bankrupt and showing no interest or grasp in the basics of Anarchism, will frequently misuse the word and breed misunderstanding amongst the common citizens in a capitalist society.

Anarchism, is a direct threat upon established authority, and will therefore be misused by power holders over the world. It has been misused in the past, it will be misused in the future but this essay will hopefully bring an end to it’s misuse in our Coalition.

First of all, it should be known that Anarchist ideas evolved and blossomed thanks to Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Especially Bakunin wielded a lot of influence internationally and helped introduce the ideals behind the black flag to millions of people. Peter Kropotkin wrote tons of books on anarchism, and greatly helped develop popular notions of anarchism and explained why it served the interests of Mankind as a whole. Kropotkin was the first one to provide the first “official” definition of anarchism in Encyclopedia Britannica in the beginning of the previous century. His definition fitted in fifteen pages.

Mine will be more concise because of practical reasons. I seriously doubt any member of TPC would read a fifteen pages long definition right here and now.

It is necessary to tell you, what anarchism is not. Modern society is nearly clueless about the definition of Anarchy. It is not chaos, it is not murder, It is not a return to the wild state of man as some would be inclined to believe. Anarchism is an evolution, not a reactionary force.

Anarchy is the name given to a principle of life and conduct under which the future society functions without government or state as we know it today. It’s about the rejection of the state that has always turned out to be oppressive and will always turn out to be. Peace and Harmony in a stateless society is obtained not by submission to law or morals imposed by a tyrannous ruling class or by forceful obedience to an authority designed by an elite ruling class. What it is though, is voluntary agreements concluded between various groups in the nation. Wether they be territorial or professional, these are freely constituted in order to facilitate production and consumption, and for the satisfaction of the needs and aspirations of a civilized being without having the intervention of the state that acts only in it’s own interests.

Anarchists reject the notion of a dictatorship of the proletariat, arguing that a state is an oppressive institution in itself and undermines the proletarian revolution by it's very existence. At the core of this theory and practice lies a wish to be free of the conditions, and institutions which are a direct threat to the true progress of any human development. Anarchists, as communists, especially view the state and their corporate puppetmasters, and the multitude of oppressors which comes from these bourgeois institutions as obviously unnecessary, but more importantly, a threat to human freedom. Most, perhaps all, of society's inequities, violence and conflict have their roots in unjust power relations between rulers and ruled. As Karl Marx himself correctly stated, history has been but a gigantic class war, where Plebeians have been faced against Patricians, Bourgeois vs Proletarians etc…etc… social violence, poverty and oppression are all the results of social relations designed to serve only the interests of the rich, and therefore ruling class along with their authoritarian institutions classified as legitimate by the tyrannous state. Any true anarchist seek to identify these authorities using their tools of oppressions and challenge their right to exist. If these fail to serve the interests of human freedom and aspirations they should be abolished and destroyed, for the sake of Liberty. Anarchy is no other than the natural state of the free human being.

Criticism is often directed towards Anarchists by Communists for failing to grasp the mechanics of capitalist society and proletarian revolution, as well as the necessity of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately however, both seek to work together towards their common goal : freedom for the working class.
Bolivar
Posted: May 7, 2006, 08:45 PM


Comrade Soldier
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 28
Member No.: 91
Joined: 7-May 06



A Shorter defination of Anarchism: Utopian Individualism.
Dobbyniania
Posted: May 8, 2006, 10:10 PM


Comrade Delegate
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 57
Member No.: 28
Joined: 9-February 06



*Looks through his copy of "Anarchism and other essays" can't find anything except calls for unified class struggle and the organic self emancipation of the working class. Laughs at the sectarian for being wrong. Takes a nap. *
Bolivar
Posted: May 8, 2006, 10:33 PM


Comrade Soldier
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 28
Member No.: 91
Joined: 7-May 06



Sectarian means pursuing your own interests or own individual group's interests above the interests of your class.

So who's sectarian again?

Answer these questions:

What is utopian? How is anarchism not utopian?

What is individualism? How is anarchism not about individualism?
Ultra Paranoia
Posted: May 16, 2006, 02:56 PM


Comrade Soldier
*

Group: Unconfirmed Guest
Posts: 2
Member No.: 97
Joined: 16-May 06



Anarchism isnt about class struggle. Anarchism is about individual freedom from not just class opression, but also society in general. We should be total free to behave in our own manner.

Unified Class struggle is a Marxist and Revolutionary Socialist philosophy.
Scadinavian Duchies I
Posted: May 16, 2006, 03:43 PM


Always Observing
*

Group: Diplomat
Posts: 16
Member No.: 67
Joined: 25-March 06



If I may be so bold as to step in and offer a generally more bourgeois opinion, anarchism seems closer to Libertarianism than Communism or Socialism. The latter two dictate the presence of large beureaucracies, up to a certain point, and altruism in the sense that man is to work for his neighbour, adn to always share the fruits of his labour. Anarchism seems like a lack of any regulation, and where the individual works for himself, and puts himself first, over the Commune, or collective, or his neighbour.

Libertarianism, or bourgeois Liberalism, dictates an almost complete lack of government regulation, especially in business, allowing "voluntary agreements [to be] concluded," at the people's own free will, and where each party comes out of the contract as stronger, if you like.

I hope I have been clear, and will gladly field any questions. I am very curious to see how you all would convince me that Anarchism as laid out by The Red Factions is more similar to communism than Libertarianism.
Scadinavian Duchies I
Posted: May 18, 2006, 11:50 AM


Always Observing
*

Group: Diplomat
Posts: 16
Member No.: 67
Joined: 25-March 06



It would seem as though nobody seems fit to refute my argument. Is that a perchance a sign of agreement?
The Red Factions
Posted: May 18, 2006, 01:14 PM


Comrade Under-Officer
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 169
Member No.: 4
Joined: 2-February 06



There is more interesting stuff to be discussed here :

http://80.60.190.55/rla/index.php?showtopic=2844&st=30

And as far as Immigration control is concerned.
Scadinavian Duchies I
Posted: May 19, 2006, 12:49 PM


Always Observing
*

Group: Diplomat
Posts: 16
Member No.: 67
Joined: 25-March 06



Thanks for the "invite," but I'd prefer not smile.gif I will stay at the Debate Center in TPC...
Scadinavian Duchies I
Posted: May 19, 2006, 01:05 PM


Always Observing
*

Group: Diplomat
Posts: 16
Member No.: 67
Joined: 25-March 06



I take that back... What a great discussion...
Hydrarchia
Posted: May 31, 2006, 06:41 PM


Comrade Soldier
*

Group: Diplomat
Posts: 7
Member No.: 39
Joined: 20-February 06



yawn

what is individualistic (i.e.-egotistical) is applying the measure of labels and ones (mis)conceptions about them to another...

it matters little whether one labels themselves anarchist, communist, socialist, etc... but rather what type of positive vision one has for a future society, and whether the negative vision (i.e.-critique) of existing society (i.e.-capitalism) is valid. How the negative visions interact and provide an intellectual space (i.e.-theory) for effective practice (i.e.-praxis) is what is of import in defining accomplices (i.e.- comrades) for a shared positive vision (i.e.- anarchy, commune, etc.)

if the critique leads to a praxis where one is simply reforming capital to better extract surplus value and survive crisis (e.g.- trotskyoid muddling) then that is what it is, whatever its label (various strands of "anarchism", "communism", "socialism", "autonomism", etc. can all be seen to do this... i happen to label this tendency "leftism")
Dobbyniania
Posted: May 31, 2006, 09:19 PM


Comrade Delegate
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 57
Member No.: 28
Joined: 9-February 06



Good grief are you a follower of postleftism and the jason Mcquin/bob black crap?
Southern Tasmania
Posted: May 31, 2006, 09:48 PM


Comrade Under-Officer
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 319
Member No.: 14
Joined: 5-February 06



QUOTE (Dobbyniania @ May 31, 2006, 09:19 PM)
Good grief are you a follower of postleftism and the jason Mcquin/bob black crap?

If label-ism wasn't such a problem, intelligent discussion might be possible.
Commonwealth of Seiloa
Posted: Jun 1, 2006, 04:46 PM


An Equal Among the Equal
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 11
Member No.: 101
Joined: 21-May 06



The word "Anarchy" originated around 1539 and comes from the French anarchie and the Medieval Latin anarchia. These in turn come from the Greek anarchia, which comes from the Greek anarchos, which translates as "rulerless" (an prefix means "without", archos means "ruler").

The term, "in a state of anarchy," basically means "a state of no government."
This means that there is no recognized power structure and no regulation. Some argue that nature is like the incarnation of anarchy. However, the fact that many mammal species have power structures sheds doubt on this claim.

As for "how is anarchism not utopian," there is a simple answer, which is quite similar to why nation-sized communist/socialist systems run into so much trouble:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
–Frank Zappa


In other words, the quality of life in a anarchy depends on the choices made by the people living in anarchy.
The Red Factions
Posted: Jun 2, 2006, 07:56 AM


Comrade Under-Officer
*

Group: Guests
Posts: 169
Member No.: 4
Joined: 2-February 06



Anarchists and Communists fight towards the same end. They do however, disagree on the means to achieve it.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now

Pages: (2) [1] 2 



Skin created by Vision of the InvisionFree Skin Zone.net, modified by Blackbird and Star City