[sadie_sabot]

this is *not* a support only thread!

I am an anarchist, and in these times it can be awfully hard to figure out how to relate to elections. In my opinion, Bush is the worst thing to happen to thsi country since, well, since :nana: Reagan, but kerry does nothing for me, either, and I don't think he's gonna "save" us; we're too far gone at this point.

But coming from an anarchist perspective, the question is more than wether Kerry is better than bush, or better enough to make it worth voting for him. It is also a question of, when does an anarchist get involved in electoral politics, if ever? If we do, how do we reconcile that with our anti-state beliefs? If we don't, how do we reconcile our lackk of involvement with our collective responsibility to make the world a better place?

Any takers? (we need a fishing smiley)

and, I am really ok with questions and challenges from folks who don't get what anarchism is about, or are skeptical, although i do not feel obligated to answer every question or respond to every thing.

 

[sohj]

Quote:

In a state like this, what's an anti-statist to do?

Seceed.

 

[wemoon]

Well, I hold Anarchist views, but really it is impossible to actually *BE* an anarchist unless you are living in an anarchist society...which we are not. But I will actually vote for the first time since I turned 18. Bush will make everything worse. Kerry is at least a very small step in the right direction. I loved the article that someone posted in the FYT anarchism thread, that since we are not an anarchist society, we must use the tools we have available to us to move in the direction of anarchy. The major tool being voting.

And really voting isn't anti-anarchist. I could definitely see voting in an anarchist society. You'd go to your town hall, discuss what should be done about that aweful county rd 7 and you put to a vote if Bob the builder or Joe's ABC will fix the road, or if there is some completely different alternative. Everyone participating and working together to make something happen.

 

[TiredX2]

Well, since you opened the subject

...

What does it mean to be an anarchist?

 

[wemoon]

Anarchism...

...is fundamentally based in a belief in the capacity of people to share power with each other and through relationships, families, organizations, communities and institutions build societies based on having power with people rather then over people.

 

[TiredX2]

Okay, I know the definition.

I lived in Eugene for 6 years and all that ever happened at the monthly anarchy meetings (they were very organized) was they jumped on random passerbys cars and caused trouble.

What does *applied* anarchy look like in a country the size of the US? Would there be a US in your Utopia? Police? States? Cities? Taxes? What? No laws or a true democracy? I really just don't understand.

 

[TiredX2]

I'm an avid reader, so maybe you could just recommend an intro book?

Thanks. I've been interested for a long time, and I'm grabbing my chance!

 

[ian'smommaya]

hi- well i am an anarchist and was raised by anarchist. and because i hate bush so much i will be voting out of fear and for the lesser of two evils (kerry) i hope you will too. most elections i wait to see if the democrat will win then i vote for the green or c.p.u.s.a. i feel as thou if i vote for what in theory i believe in then maybe the democrat will get the hint and stop taking right turns every chance they get, no compromise. imo. succeeding wont work we live in the belly of the beast. the country that has enourmous amount of influence on every other country. because i think we are far past a revolution the only way for anarchist, commies or other anti statist to survive with a conceince is to network woth other anti statist, create the community we deserve and desire. here their are 1000 places like this it is easy to work with like minded folx other places too. i dont know where your from of anything but im sure you could find networking in your area.
this is way too long but it is about politics and i could go on forever. but i wont, anymore. thanks for the chance to spout off.

maya

 

[sadie_sabot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sohj Seceed.

all by myself???

did you hear about the libertarian movement to take over a state? i can't remember the details, but they were trying to get enough people with similar views to move to the same state, where they would essentially take over.

One of their potential targets was vermont

that made me mad. i don't live there anymore, but don't go messin' with it!

(of course that brings up the inevitable question of what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian...all I'll say for now is there is a HUGE difference, imo)

It's amazing, too, how much utopian novels there are that are centered on San Francisco...Ecotopia, The 5th Sacred Thing...but I dunno...there's probably more anarcho-types here per inch than most other places but I don't think we'll be taking over any time soon

:nana:

 

[sadie_sabot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiredX2 I'm an avid reader, so maybe you could just recommend an intro book? Thanks. I've been interested for a long time, and I'm grabbing my chance!

I too am an avid reader but I mostly read fiction, which i guess makes me a bad anarchist, if the dudes who read nonfiction nonstop are the standard.

But anyway! The Fifth Sacred Thing, a novel by Starhawk, is a good imagining of how an anarchistically organized society might operate. Also good is Woman on The Edge of Time by Marge Piercy (

Marge!!!) also, He, She, It by Marge.

I actually find these fictional conceptualizations of anarchistic and/or egalitarian societies more useful than theoretical stuff. part of that is probably just about how my brain works, but when you insert characters with rel world isues into the potentil spaces, it makes it easier to imagine how it might work.

Oh, a final fictional recomendation is The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin. Absolutely THE classic anarchist novel.

anyone here able to recomend theoretical stuff? the thing is, a lot of the theoretical stuff was written a long time ago, and personally I question it's applicability to our modern world. a lot of stuff that is being written as "anarchist theory" these days is actually anarchist infighting, which would be a collosal waste of time to read.

I started out reading stuff by Emma Goldman. My first anarchist read was The Traffic in Women and other Essays by Emma, that's a good place to start especially if you are a feminist. her autobiography is pretty great, but it's like a million pages long, so I only got through 1 and a half volumes.

 

[Stacie]

Let the US Military just go ahead and mutiny. Arrest and try our currrent so-called govt on treason against the constitution. Downsize DC. Put the govt back into the hands of the states/counties and out of the corporation hands. Abolish the Federal Reserve Board and its various tenticles(another corporation). We have done it before, we can do it again.

 

[wemoon]

It is so hard to comprehend changing from what we have to an anarchist society. I try to picture it, but it just isn't happening. I really think that something aweful would have to happen on our land for an anarchist society to even start. A terrible war, or something. Something that destroyed every thread. It would be really really hard to switch to an anarchist society without some sort of mass chaos at first. And people are so comfy in their lives, drinking thier beer, watching football....it is these people that hold everything back. If everyone could find the call to move, then something can change, but as long as there are people who just have no clue or don't care....anarchism will only be a dream.

Sorry, just a few rambling thoughts....

 

[ian'smommaya]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadie_sabot all by myself??? did you hear about the libertarian movement to take over a state? i can't remember the details, but they were trying to get enough people with similar views to move to the same state, where they would essentially take over. One of their potential targets was vermont that made me mad. i don't live there anymore, but don't go messin' with it! (of course that brings up the inevitable question of what's the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian...all I'll say for now is there is a HUGE difference, imo) :

this libertarian idea often reminds me of the idaho w.p idiots who have planned out the u.s. according to racist ideas of ppls ethnic background. the entire u.s. in thier idea will be split off california of ppl who families are from south of the border, n.y for p.r's and jewish ppl. etc etc it is awful. there is a huge amount of difference between anarchism and libertarians. one of which is small government vs. no government.

joe hill is one of the great anarchist union leaders there are several books about him to read pick any of them. he was a great man. (and from here i might add)
ill add more books later too
maya

 

[TiredX2]

So, do anarchists just support a totally egalitarian society? Direct democracy or is there something I am missing.

Could you have a large anarchist society, or would each small community be a "law" unto themselves? I am really confused.

What are changes in the US that would make it more anarchist? What would (visually) be the difference?

 

[sohj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadie_sabot did you hear about the libertarian movement to take over a state? i can't remember the details, but they were trying to get enough people with similar views to move to the same state, where they would essentially take over. One of their potential targets was vermont that made me mad. i don't live there anymore, but don't go messin' with it!

Oh yeah! That thing made me really mad. Here is a post I wrote on that topic: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ian#post750178 That pretty much summed up my ideas on that

matter.

No, not all by yourself.

I just can't even begin to imagine how we could get from here to "there" without first breaking up this huge country -- NOT by violent overthrow, I hasten to add.

I've got to re-read The Dispossessed. Been probably 20 years since I last looked at it.

T on the topic of messing with VT...you heard about how all of VT has been declared a Historic Treasure? At a national level?

 

[annakiss]

Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky are both anarchists. Bookchin's "Ecology of Freedom" does some heavy-duty explaining... I believe his vision is for small, direct democracies much like the town hall scenario posted above. Btw, Noam is voting Nader, but only because he lives in Massachusetts, where Kerry will surely win. I live in Ohio, so I think that it's getting to be that I must hold my nose and vote for Kerry. In 2000, I lived in Ohio also, but voted for Nader. Of course, Gore had already ceeded (spelling?!?!) the state before the election.

 

[sohj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by annakiss Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky are both anarchists. ...

I forgot this...and I have so many of Chomsky's books.

Thanks, annakiss.

Also, I've been told by someone who does a lot of work with the Irish Traveller community (the Brit. Isles section of the Romany) that, unlike the continental groups, the Travellers are effectively anarchist. It was an interesting conversation that I didn't have a chance to continue. This thread has reminded me of it and I'll ask the guy for more detail the next time I see him.

 

[sadie_sabot]

TiredX2, hmm, I agree with sohj that the us of a is too darn big. anarchists imagine networks of autonomous entities (collectives, municipalities, ) which interact with each other on the basis of free association and mutual aid. I really think the community described in the utopian sections of Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time is a good imagining of how such a thing might look. I'm sorry to keep referring to fiction, but fictional accounts of utopias are ussuually much more fully imagined and, ahem, realistic than theoretical stuff, imo.

sohj, I don't know how to get there either. i had all my hopes pinned on Y2K

: One thing, i think, is to try to use anarchist models of organizing as much as possible, so folks can practice, and also so that people can know through experience that it is possible to organize stuff with each other based on cooperation rather than coersion.

In my life, I'm involved in a political group that aggressively examines our internal power dynamics and uses consensus decision making, I live collectively, and I participate in a daycare co-op. None of these things are going to make the revolution, but I *know* it is possible to operate outside of authoritarian models.

"Could you have a large anarchist society, or would each small community be a "law" unto themselves? I am really confused."

Well, hmm. Imagine a small community. each person within that community has an equal say and they operate based on an eglitarian principle. Then, when there are issues that involve this comunity and neighboring communities, say, watershed issues or cooperative farming, each community has a representive, empowered by their community to participate in the decisions of this larger network. and just keep increasing that, i guess.

the thing is, no one can tell you exactly how an anarchist society will look or operate. what i think is important to know about anarchism is that it assumes that, given the chance, people will act humanely. that absent of coersion, people will treat each other well and have collective responsiblity and accountability. anarchists believe that we don't need a state or rulers to rule us, but that we are capable of doing it ourselves, collectively.

So, yeah, anarchists are amazingly optimistic.

when I "came out" as an anarchist to my dad, he said,well, anarchism will never work because there's always some a**hole who wants more than his share." and yeah, there is, right? and they are the ones running things right now (and I am not partisan about that...in my opinion all of the political elite fit that description), so clearly having a government isn't the way to prevent it.

anyway, i'm feeling inclined to ramble, so I'll stop for now...

 

[TiredX2]

So, what makes anarchy (sp) *different* than a different political/social structure. Is there no "leader"? No "police"? Is that the only difference? Communes?

Have you all read the book, "Ain't nobody's business if you do: the absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society"? I'm assume those behaviors would fit within an anarchist society? Are there currently what you would call anarchist societies on earth? Are they, by definition, very small?

Thanks so much for answering my questions. I alwasy thought anarchists were "wackos" (Eugene does that to a person, lol) but what is being described (for example in The Fifth Sacred Thing) is my vision of utopia (well, maybe a little less sex

).

 

[Hilary Briss]

Anarchism? Dream on. If things break down to the point where anarchism is needed, the right wing extremists will shoot all of the anarchists, socialists and RCP followers.