h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Surely communism is the most centralised political system and anarchy the opposite. Correct me please.

If this is any help I wrote this a long time ago

"However anarchy for me is the absence of a ruling class or any form of social domination. This means that "anarco-marxists" aim to overthrow the existing social order and not replace it with anything else. This has a basis in theory with the viewpoint that any revolution that overthrows another class and replaces it will leave the new rulers as mirrors of their previous dominators"

I'm not sure if this is much help for me as you still have a contradiction.

Although anarco-marxists may not wish to replace the previous order with a new order you state that any revolution will replace the old order with a mirrior image. Therefore a new order is, according to your statement, imposed by a ruling minority; back to square one.

Does this mean anarco-marxists are doomed to fail?

Why link anarchy with marxism? Are people really trying to talk about equality? Or have I missed the point?

I read a quote recently along the lines of: if anarchy ever really came about the average Daily Mail reader would be picking up a gun and shooting the nearest anarchist. (May/April Resurgence. The artical is not the best but the quote I thought was excellent).

Anarchy therefore does not equal equality?

Communist anarchism, from this point of view anyway, sounds like a very strange contradictory stance to take.

I wrote it a long time ago so I'll remember as much of my argument as possible.

1) The anarcho-marxists institute no new order. They just leave society in a natural state. If they put a new ruling class in place it would just be the same as the previous ruling class. If this hasn't explained it I'll try and clarify more.

2)Anarcho-Marxists consider rules to be a Fascist concept and they are anti-Fascist (being Marxist) therefore they are also anti-rules. It has nothing to do with equality per se.

3)Anarchy is the absolute extreme of far-right thinking. No state intervention in anything, effectively an entirely darwinist society where only the strong (or rich) survive. Unfortunately many people who consider themselves left wing have picked up on the idea for the reasons stated above and call themselves anarchists. In the example the Mail reader would be the Anarchist and he would be shooting the nearest communist.

4) Anarchy is absolute equality in the eyes of law, because no one is favoured over anyone else.

I agree communist anarchism is a contradiction. That was the main point behind my first post. Unfortunately I muddied it by making a second post presenting the other side of the story.

Anarchy simply refers to a state where people live without a ruling factor telling them what to do. However there are several different types of anarchist, the best known being the Mutualists or Individualists. These people believe that possessions are private property and people should work for themselves. Other anarchists strongly disagree because they believe all products are social, in that many different people and crafts go towards making a particular item (for example if you want to make a tool, a miner will provide the raw materials while a blacksmith will use these raw materials to produce the finished tool). They believe all possessions should be owned by society, not by any one person. This theory is often referred to as Communist Anarchism.

Hopefully this will be clearer when I finish the entry.

Thats not strict anarchy in that case. In true anarchy there wouldn't be property merely objects. It's just semantics at the end of the day and unimportant. What you've gots good so far. Just a bit to explain the difference between the word Anarchy and the conept Anarchy would be good.

Sorry, I'm not sure if my explanation was particularly clear above. Basically Communist Anarchists believe that Government should be abolished because the existence of a ruling class leads to inequality, injustice and oppression - Thats the anarchy part. They also believe that people need to work together, in communities, for production to work - Thats the communism part.

As further denegration for Big Mad Mr. T I will tell you about the conversation we had regarding this subject. He stated that the biggest problem with Communist Anarchism would be people not working and simply taking everything that is produced. I asked him whether he would do such a thing and he replied that he would not, but others might. I told him that this seemed to be a very "Better than thou" point of view but he said that he was merely very cynical. I think that is what Communist Anarchism is all about: trusting in mankind's ability, and desire, to help each other out.

For a gander at the basics of Communist Anarchism you would not be unwise to read 'Now and Then: The ABC of Communist Anarchism'. This book was written in 1929 and is available free on-line. There is a link to it on my user page. Mmmmmmmmmm.

I shall look at that while bored at work. My point is that anarchism has right wing connotations and you will need to be very clear as you may be explaining to people with almost no grounding in Marx and communism in general. Have you read much of Marx's stuff?

Be careful when describing anarchism as a far-right movement, because it is also a far-left movement. The left-right conceptualisation of the political spectrum is flawed, because the extremes come together.

This is best explained by comparing fascism (far right) with Stalinistm (far left). There are immense similarities.

I would have thought that "communist anarchism" is the same as what I have seen described as "libertarian socialism". My knowledge and understanding is severely lacking, but I think the basic assumption is that in the absence of the state and its structures, individual rights and freedoms can be maintained (libertarian part...) but the natural instinct will be to work together (socialist part...)

For a good discussion on modern anarchism, check out [url removed by moderator] (please don't moderate, this is academic...)

Cheers,
Rob.

Was Stalin really a Communist or just a fascist in disguise. Remember that HItler called himself a socialist. Anarchy is the opposite of Marxist socialism as far as I understand it. Many laws could be stripped away I'll grant but an underlying respect for human life must be in there somewhere. Most right-wingers will describe themselves as libertarian. I will look at the site and hopefully learn a bit more about it. I used to be an anarchist but a year of arguments changed my mind a bit.

From infoshop - please, moderators, I'm allowed to quote some, am I not?

> In the words of anarchist L. Susan Brown:
>
> "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-
> State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced
> tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists
> oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for
> society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical
> forms of social, political and economic organisation." [The
> Politics of Individualism, p. 106]

Essentially, it is a misrepresentation of anarchist thought to say that they advocate a destruction of the world order - they actually maintain that cooperation is necessary, but that individuality must be maintained:

> Anarchists maintain that anarchy, the absence of rulers, is a
> viable form of social system and so work for the maximisation of
> individual liberty and social equality. They see the goals of
> liberty and equality as mutually self-supporting. Or, in Bakunin's
> famous dictum:
>
> "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and
> injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and
> brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]
>
> The history of human society proves this point. Liberty without
> equality is only liberty for the powerful, and equality without
> liberty is impossible and a justification for slavery.

Further on in the FAQ, anarcho-communism is described:

> Rather than subject the individual to the community, social
> anarchists argue that communal ownership would provide the
> necessary framework to protect individual liberty in all aspects of
> life by abolishing the power of the property owner, in whatever
> form it takes. In addition, rather than abolish all
> individual "property," communist anarchism acknowledges the
> importance of individual possessions and individual space.

I hope this helps... but I will also say that individualist anarchists are generally on the left of the spectrum, too, supporting trade unions, etc because big business forms part of a State.

Oh, befor I forget. The information provided above, in accordance with the "Fair Usage" provisions of any Copyright legislation you could care to think of, is from "An Anarchist FAQ" - http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Before this is removed by a moderator, please note that the reference is required. Failing to include the link is actually a breach of copyright, as the owner has a right to acknowledgment. So PLEASE do not remove the link.

Moderation would not be supported by anarchists.

Cheers,
Rob.

I can see where the communist-anarchists are coming from. However I will fall back on my earlier point that the term anarchy probably does them no favours, because of it's negative connotations. I personally favour a pure democracy where the people are the state and their own representatives. Much like a union without the main board of leaders. That way no one person may decide what is right.

I can see where the communist-anarchists are coming from. However I will fall back on my earlier point that the term anarchy probably does them no favours, because of it's negative connotations. I personally favour a pure democracy where the people are the state and their own representatives. Much like a union without the main board of leaders. That way no one person may decide what is right. Thank you for the quotes they are very good. Thanks also to the moderators for letting that one go...eventually.

Yeah, people are brainwashed against anarchy. But they're brainwashed against communism too. Changing names just because the status quo brainwashes everyone is stupid: it'd only make the powers that be brainwash people against whatever new name you used.

Interesting link thing. I'll point that to the Zaphodistas...

Almighty Rob,

"Moderation would not be supported by anarchists."

Ha! Forget moderation. Would corporate ownership of websites be supported by anarchists?

I think the first thing people need is to be informed about the problems with capitalism. People are constantly told that capitalism is the only practical way of living but, as far as I can see, it seems extremely unpractical. We are told that capitalism gives us freedom ("Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy" -Rage Against The Machine) but are we really, and in what ways. Freedom of Speech - we do have this freedom, up to a point. Freedom of movement - I think the police barricading of people at the mayday demonstrations indicates that we do not possess this freedom. True freedom is freedom of opportunity - absolute equality - which gives any person the right to all paths in life. Are all people given the same opportunitys? A quick look at Buckingham Palace and another at a rundown block of council flats show that this is not the case. The few freedoms that we are given are simply allowed so people are duped into believing they have control over their lives and are therefore more productive.

Capitalist states have wised up to the events of the past. When people believe they are being oppressed they eventually revolt. Capitalist states believe they can prevent revolution by making people think they are free. Looking at America, people who live in the poorest and most disgusting conditions can be heard saying that America is the greatest country on Earth. They say this, despite the fact that the American system has left them in a hopeless situation for them and their children, because the media constantly drums into people the fact that America has a great economy and a powerful military.

Capitalism, or neo-liberal capitalism at least, is based on the fundamental notion of a free market. Everybody can come to this market as equals, with equal bargaining power. Therefore, the market is fair and is the best way of doing things.

However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the market is by no means free. People are *not* born free and equal, despite some flowery gibberish in the intro to certain famous documents of statehood.

Anarchists and socialists desire a breaking down of existing power structures and a rebuilding into a system where people *are* free and equal. They might differ on the finer points of how the new system should work, but they certainly agree on the desire to change the corrupt system that exists today - and that is why they fight together in the ever-growing anti-capitalist movement.

The system is rotten,
The people are forgotten.

Rob.

I have been thinking about capitalism lately and have come to the conclusion that capitalism would 'work' better with no government. However, under capitalism there will always be inequality and this leads to violence and crime. To protect themselves against crime the companies will want some sort of policing force. The masses will not like this so the policing force will be provided written laws to uphold, that will protect everybody, in theory. Thus Government begins. It is my belief that capitalism cannot actually survive without Government to help it.

Re: Anarchy. I don't think anarchism can be regarded as right or left wing. It is simply the belief in a state with no ruling power. Within that context there are many different systems that span the right-left spectrum. I think the extreme left communist-anarchists have the best idea.

Many call anarchists idealist but I believe it is a far more practical idea than capitalism. The notion that capitalism can ever be made to work for the people is the idealist one to my mind.

Capitalists use the Russian revolution as an opportunity to say "Look: that didn't work. Capitalism is the only system that works." While I would debate that Russia always was actually a capitalist state, I would argue strongly against the idea that capitalism works. Huge amounts of inefficiency, misery around the world, murder, rape, violence and war do not make a working system to me.