Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!)

[ermitonto]

Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!)
from the New York Anti-Capitalist Convergence
http://my.execpc.com/~maier/reading/ruanarchist.html

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard about them is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they oppose all forms of order and organization, that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It's a very simple notion, really. But it's the one notion that rich and powerful people have always found the most alarming.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and therefore that they can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways, you are probably already an anarchist-you just don't realize it.

Perhaps it will help to take a few examples from everyday life:

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is "self-organization": the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those other people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that makes people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?
If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of other's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and, therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?
If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren't true?

Is there any real reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely unfounded. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments even today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society there is a lot more that needs to be organized: but technology can also make some of these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshalled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society-that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are just the kind of questions we should start asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?
"It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved people's lives, has come through cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while no doubt there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. A society which encourages competition only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid.

The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it. It just means it would be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of ideas about how a healthy, democratic society could manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this.; anyway, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles - principles which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

ermitonto Reviewed by ermitonto on 10-29-2005. Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!) Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!) from the New York Anti-Capitalist Convergence http://my.execpc.com/~maier/reading/ruanarchist.html Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard about them is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they oppose all forms of order and organization, that they are Rating: 5

[Crow Shindle]

Are you a Nazi?

Chances are you have heard that Nazi's like to cook Jew's in ovens for their gold fillings.....

That couldn't be further from the truth. They are just a bunch of concerned citizens trying to do their part in reducing overpopulation and global warming.

More like a civic group really.

Not a bad bunch.

They serve tea and cookies at their meetings.

Free swastikas. It's great.

Good dudes.

[amsterdam]

Nope, I guess the anarchists we see busting up starbucks with pantyhose on their head give the rest a bad name.

[onwardthroughthefog]

Nope, I guess the anarchists we see busting up starbucks with pantyhose on their head give the rest a bad name.

How do they drink their coffee with the pantyhose on their heads? And would't it make it taste REALLY bad?

Onward!

[amsterdam]

good question, i bet they wouldnt drink it because some poor fellow in South America is being abused by this big, mean, capitalist society. That sounds good actually, I think i might go grab a coffee from starbucks now.

[ermitonto]

Nope, I guess the anarchists we see busting up starbucks with pantyhose on their head give the rest a bad name.

Right. They are in the extreme minority among anarchists, but they're the only ones the media ever tells you about. The vast majority of anarchists are non-violent individuals, because violence is the tool of authority, a means of imposing your will on another, and that is exactly the opposite of what anarchism stands for. If you're going to discredit ideologies that lead people to violence, you should start with the militarism and nationalism of your beloved Republicans.

[andruejaysin]

Are You An Anarchist? (the answer may surprise you!)
from the New York Anti-Capitalist Convergence
http://my.execpc.com/~maier/reading/ruanarchist.html

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard about them is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they oppose all forms of order and organization, that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It's a very simple notion, really. But it's the one notion that rich and powerful people have always found the most alarming.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and therefore that they can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways, you are probably already an anarchist-you just don't realize it.

Perhaps it will help to take a few examples from everyday life:

* If there's a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered "yes", then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is "self-organization": the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those other people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that makes people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?
If you answered "yes", then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don't believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of other's particular situation or needs, you are being an anarchist - even if you don't realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and, therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don't really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?
If you answered "yes", then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today's society - at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don't think there's anything that can be done about it, or anyway - and this is what the faithful servants of the the powerful are always most likely to insist - anything that won't end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren't true?

Is there any real reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely unfounded. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments even today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society there is a lot more that needs to be organized: but technology can also make some of these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshalled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society-that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are just the kind of questions we should start asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?
"It doesn't matter who started it." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "Clean up your own mess." "Do unto others..." "Don't be mean to people just because they're different." Perhaps we should decide whether we're lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we're willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.

Take the principle that two wrongs don't make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved people's lives, has come through cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while no doubt there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. A society which encourages competition only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That's why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid.

The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and put as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it. It just means it would be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of ideas about how a healthy, democratic society could manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this.; anyway, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The truth is we probably can't even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we're confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles - principles which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

Speak for yourself, I am a proponent of violence, chaos, and destruction.

[Ousted]

I think its a nice ideal, but there's several issues Im having difficulty with, maybe you can enlighten me...

1. "Anarchy." I hate the name. I think people who hear the terms "anarchy" "anarchists" "anarchism" automatically hates it as well given the universal definition. Even if your definition is different than everyone else's it has a negative association with it, like chaos and destruction and disorder, and "anarchy" is used commonly today to define the very negative words you say it doesnt represent. And I dont think it'll be a term that'll have your proper definition attatched to it that'll be widely accepted anytime in my lifetime given how it is percieved by the majority today.

2. Who decides the structure? Who enforces it? What motive do people have to keep structure (especially people who simply don't care about others, and there are many, and they will exist even in an anarchist society), what motive do people have to not be more lax about right and wrong since consequences seem obsolete?

3.

"Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don't believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don't those other people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it's necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It's all a vicious circle."

I dont agree with this at all. Read next point.

"If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent - which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else's, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short: anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that makes people stupid and irresponsible. "

So what this is saying is that the reason people misbehave is because of the government's control and lack of validation of their citizens?
Yeah, I dont think so. I do agree that people can become angry, cynical, and violent when they feel unheard or misunderstood, but those feelings dont just arise from government control. Those feelings can be prevalent among their peers, their family members, their community(and are mostly stemmed from those influences). Absense of government isnt going to erase how important or unimportant a citizen finds himself to be any in his world. Except now it sounds like there's no regulation if he reacts to being invalidated.

4.

"Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free - and, therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails."

Are they aware, though really? Do you really, honestly believe people, for the most part, are "aware" of others?

I dont. People are barely aware of themselves let alone other people. And I dont think the government holds much (if any) responsibility for that, either.

5.

"The same goes for sharing: we're always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other's needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive."

What should we be sharing in the real world that we are not? And were we taught as children to share everything of ourselves with everybody? I dont really think this sharing aspect of the anarchist argument makes much sense as Im seeing it here.

6.

" Pretty much every worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that's improved people's lives, has come through cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while no doubt there will always be competitive people in the world, there's no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over the basic necessities of life. A society which encourages competition only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another."

Again, Im not really understanding. Are anarchists for communism as well? If so, then this statement makes perfect sense.
But why do you think society encourages the behavior? Why do you feel that those in power do not deserve to be compensated for instilling drive, want, inspiration, and self respect among the people? How does encouraging people to be competative, educated, and driven help those in power? If they were really about control of the people you and I both know they wouldn't encourage us at all. These coroperations didnt just land here like an alien invasion, anal probing the people and conquering the planet. There's a lot of history behind most of the corperations, and often they started with humble beginnings. What you're proposing is a limitation of one's ability to be great and do great. When people feel limited, or like there is only so far they can go, or only so much they can achieve, and it doesnt really matter anyway cuz you'll be equals with every dipshit from your community. What do you think a person's drive will be then? "Why bother" would probably be mine if those limitations were placed on me. Maybe Im missing something, please correct me if Im not interpreting this right.

7.

"The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn't really work that way. That's why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults;

You really think its because of the government?
I think this is stretching a little bit now...

8.

their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was founded on principles of justice? Wouldn't that be the greatest gift to one's children one could possibly give?

Sure, if it actually worked out that way, which as it stands right now I dont believe it would. If everyone were as smart as you, ermitonto, and has the understanding and awareness that you have...this ideal sounds really really great. But you know thats not the case. People make bad choices all the time, even in our society with government regulation and law enforcement, and even then you'd think the people had never even heard the word "government" before, or "consequences" before, thats how dumb, uneducated, unmotivated, self-absorbed, and senseless a large group of people are, and thats WITH societies influence to be competative. And these people breed the most. I want to be protected from the likes of them, Im not willing to put myself and my loved one's on the line and "trust" them, and "trust" that they are "aware" of right and wrong, or that they actually care, and I dont want to be considered equal to them no matter how nice and sweet that may sound either, because Im not, and neither are you.

Again, if I got this all wrong, which could be a definite possibility, please please correct me and enlighten me.

[ermitonto]

I think its a nice ideal, but there's several issues Im having difficulty with, maybe you can enlighten me...

1. "Anarchy." I hate the name. I think people who hear the terms "anarchy" "anarchists" "anarchism" automatically hates it as well given the universal definition. Even if your definition is different than everyone else's it has a negative association with it, like chaos and destruction and disorder, and "anarchy" is used commonly today to define the very negative words you say it doesnt represent. And I dont think it'll be a term that'll have your proper definition attatched to it that'll be widely accepted anytime in my lifetime given how it is percieved by the majority today.

Yeah, that's a problem that's been plaguing the anarchist movement for quite some time. But no matter what we call it, people somehow assume that not having people dominating other people will result in chaos and destruction. Some people have tried calling it something else to distance themselves from the negative connotations this word has in the public mind. Most of these people have called themselves "libertarians", a word used by anarchists for over 150 years, but this word has recently been stolen by the Libertarian Party and other capitalist minarchists, so that doesn't really accurately describe us anymore. It would be great if there were an unambiguous term for the idea, but I find it is most convenient to just call it anarchism, the word that has been used by the strongest proponents of this ideal in the past.

And I agree that it's highly unlikely that it will ever be attained in our lifetimes. But we can move ever closer to it, in the hopes that future generations might be able to experience the freedoms that we don't have. As Errico Malatesta put it, "the subject is not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow, and always."

2. Who decides the structure? Who enforces it? What motive do people have to keep structure (especially people who simply don't care about others, and there are many, and they will exist even in an anarchist society), what motive do people have to not be more lax about right and wrong since consequences seem obsolete?

The structure is decided by the people themselves, in a truly democratic manner. The experiences of the thousands of anarchist collectives during the Spanish Civil War show that these principles can be used to organize a modern society on a mass scale, without people telling others how to go about things. Consequences for "right" and "wrong" actions would not be obsolete. People wouldn't be allowed to just go out killing and raping, as many people assume. We know that thousands of cultures have successfully lived without government or hierarchy and have still been able to bring murderers and rapists to justice.

So what this is saying is that the reason people misbehave is because of the government's control and lack of validation of their citizens?
Yeah, I dont think so. I do agree that people can become angry, cynical, and violent when they feel unheard or misunderstood, but those feelings dont just arise from government control. Those feelings can be prevalent among their peers, their family members, their community(and are mostly stemmed from those influences). Absense of government isnt going to erase how important or unimportant a citizen finds himself to be any in his world. Except now it sounds like there's no regulation if he reacts to being invalidated.

It's not just government that anarchists are opposed to. Power and hierarchy structures run a lot deeper than the state. Social psychologists have known for years that the best determining factor for whether someone becomes a violent criminal is whether they were subjected to authoritarian parenting techniques. The next factor is probably poverty, which is a result of the class structure of our society, a direct result of capitalism, another system of hierarchy and domination.

Are they aware, though really? Do you really, honestly believe people, for the most part, are "aware" of others?

I dont. People are barely aware of themselves let alone other people. And I dont think the government holds much (if any) responsibility for that, either.

If people don't really care for others, it is because current societal conditions try to atomize society. Capitalism, for instance, instills the idea that everybody is in competition with each other, that society is nothing but a conglomeration of individuals glued together for the hell of it.

But there is undeniably a human tendency for mutual aid. Humans are social creatures. We need each other to survive and be happy, and we have been successfully helping each other to do this for millions of years. That's why society exists in the first place. In the absence of atomizing social conditions, people band together to ensure mutual happiness.

And if human nature really is to not care about your fellow man, then what sense does it make to put such non-caring people into positions of power?

What should we be sharing in the real world that we are not? And were we taught as children to share everything of ourselves with everybody? I dont really think this sharing aspect of the anarchist argument makes much sense as Im seeing it here.

Under anarchism, which is a form of socialism, all the means of production and the means of living would be shared by all members of society, instead of concentrated into the hands of a rich elite. For instance, there is enough food in the world to feed everybody, but since that food is concentrated into the hands of self-serving capitalist corporations, enough grain to solve the African famine crisis is destroyed every year just to inflate food prices and ensure further concentration of wealth into the hands of corporations. Without capitalism, this would not happen.

Again, Im not really understanding. Are anarchists for communism as well? If so, then this statement makes perfect sense.

Yes. Anarchism implies opposition to all systems of hierarchy and power, the main two being capitalism and the state.

But why do you think society encourages the behavior? Why do you feel that those in power do not deserve to be compensated for instilling drive, want, inspiration, and self respect among the people? How does encouraging people to be competative, educated, and driven help those in power? If they were really about control of the people you and I both know they wouldn't encourage us at all. These coroperations didnt just land here like an alien invasion, anal probing the people and conquering the planet. There's a lot of history behind most of the corperations, and often they started with humble beginnings. What you're proposing is a limitation of one's ability to be great and do great. When people feel limited, or like there is only so far they can go, or only so much they can achieve, and it doesnt really matter anyway cuz you'll be equals with every dipshit from your community. What do you think a person's drive will be then? "Why bother" would probably be mine if those limitations were placed on me. Maybe Im missing something, please correct me if Im not interpreting this right.

Competition serves the interests of those in power by making the dominated classes easier to dominate. The more divisions can be created among the dominated, the harder it is for them to band together to oppose the interests of the elite. The more non-essential issues you can get them to quabble over, the more distracted they will become from the real issues, like the fact that all corporate profits come from exploitation (workers never get the full wealth of their labor in return; a certain amount is always expropriated by the capitalists who own the means of production and do little productive work themselves).

Competition is essential for power systems to exist in the first place. If society were based on cooperation rather than competition, there would be no motive to dominate over others, since all problems could be solved according to the principles of egalitarianism and mutual aid.

You really think its because of the government?
I think this is stretching a little bit now...

Not just government, but hierarchy and power systems in general. Children grow up being told to cooperate, to share, to be kind to their fellow man. But when they get into the real world of the state, of capitalism, of militaries, of sexual inequality, of domination and competition, and are constantly told that eliminating these things is just something that can't be done, they become alienated and bitter.

Sure, if it actually worked out that way, which as it stands right now I dont believe it would. If everyone were as smart as you, ermitonto, and has the understanding and awareness that you have...this ideal sounds really really great. But you know thats not the case. People make bad choices all the time, even in our society with government regulation and law enforcement,

Not everybody has to be smart and make good decisions all the time for a society based on cooperation and mutual aid to work. People make bad choices, that's part of life, but what sense does it make to put them into positions where they have the authority to force those decisions on others?

and even then you'd think the people had never even heard the word "government" before, or "consequences" before, thats how dumb, uneducated, unmotivated, self-absorbed, and senseless a large group of people are, and thats WITH societies influence to be competative. And these people breed the most. I want to be protected from the likes of them, Im not willing to put myself and my loved one's on the line and "trust" them, and "trust" that they are "aware" of right and wrong, or that they actually care, and I dont want to be considered equal to them no matter how nice and sweet that may sound either, because Im not, and neither are you.

Again, if I got this all wrong, which could be a definite possibility, please please correct me and enlighten me.

Anarchism isn't some intangible ideal that exists only in the minds of idealists. Anarchist societies have existed successfully before. It was the only form of social organization for most of human history. And even in modern times, there have been large-scale anarchist societies which have endured for years, such as those in the Spanish Civil War and in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. And they didn't degenerate into immoral cespools of chaos and apathy. Quite the contrary; people actually organized themselves along the lines of egalitarianism and mutual aid, and were able to run industries and communities with surprising efficiency. That's all the proof that's needed to show it isn't impossible.

[Mojavpa]

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?
If you answered "yes", then, well, it looks like you aren't an anarchist after all. But if you answered "no', then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.
.

I guess I am not an anrchist because I believe that some people, for whatever reason, are bad. And not because of authoritarian parents, or because they grew up poor, just because they were built that way. I also believe that if all resources were shared among everyone, there would still be many reasons to murder or kill, like for example, jealousy.

I also believe some people have better leadership abilities than other people, and some people would rather be followers than leaders. Just imagine any kind of group task, from sports or even a jury, no matter how you would like it to be, usually some kind of leader emerges out of the situation, and other people are more apt to follow and agree with his/her ideas.

And how do you propose that people just conveniently forget about the luxuries and temptation of capitalism and government?

Unless you can bring up a recent example of an anarchist community in the Western World that worked on the scale of millions,and that was succeeding in its objectives you really have no proof that anarchy can work.