Does anarchism have a serious future?

Joe Reilly · Nov 29, 2004

As idelogies go, anarchism is as old as the hills but has never made a difference anywhere, and looked at objectively, never looks likely to. At a fairly basic level it is theoritically incoherent; not sure that the state has power by virtue of the economic system or whether it is the other way round.

Even in the 21st century it seems most comfortable defining itself against rival ideologies that are either dead or discredited. While theory is all about the high moral ground, practice is often grubby 'ends and means' stuff with hostility and fear of the 'other' the heavily pronounced and self-serving rationale.

Or as Raymond Chandler once put it: 'Once you identify with an ideology, you don't own it - it owns you.'

All told anarchism does not have much of a past. So does it have much of a future?

catch · Nov 29, 2004

Theories put out by people calling themselves anarchists may be theoretically inconsistent, either within the work of individual writers, or between different writers. But there's plenty of consistent theoretical writing by anarchists. Read any Bookchin lately? Examples please of this endemic inconsistency.

Which revolutionary philosophy is your preferred?

General Ludd · Nov 29, 2004

Which revolutionary philosophy is your preferred?

At best Joe Reilly is a Bolshevik.

catch · Nov 29, 2004

He could say so himself if he's going to go banging on about everyone else.

Russia's position as a unique international beacon of socialism bears him out on the long-lasting effectiveness of Bolshevik theory and practice doesn't it?

oh shit, wait a minute...

neilh · Nov 29, 2004

personally i don't care that much about the future of "anarchism", i just hope most of the basic ideas like a non hierarchical, free society come about and whether this is through an anarchist movement steeped in "anarchism" and theory or through just more folk coming to conclusions about best/happiest/most efficient or whatever ways of existing i couldn't really care. i do think some of the more "theoretical anarchists" in ways aren't that different from theoretical marxists, capitalists etc.

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

Did it ever have a serious past?

october_lost · Nov 29, 2004

Does anarchism have a serious future?

The problems not anarchism, but rather anarchists...

Dubversion · Nov 29, 2004

Lock&Light said:
Did it ever have a serious past?

why, that's the funniest comment i ever did hea....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In Bloom · Nov 29, 2004

Joe Reilly said:
As idelogies go, anarchism...blah...misinformed shite...hypocritical bollocks about ideology...blah...

Am I the only one who knew exactly where this was going?

neilh · Nov 29, 2004

october_lost said:
The problems not anarchism, but rather anarchists...

i kind of thought it was the other way around that the problem was anarchism, not anarchists, ie folk acting as anarchists and rejecting having masters or slaves and trying to not screw folk over etc wasnt the problem, but it was folk who are right into the theory of anarchism but dislocated from reality. but mebbe these are the folk you mean by "anarchists", and by anarchism you mean what i mean by anarchists; i just think anarchism can be just a different theory like marxism that someone can profess to believe in, but if they act the same as if they werent into it, and they dont think for themselves, but believe stuff because its what anarchists believe its all a bit pointless and aint gonna change fuck all.

blamblam · Nov 29, 2004

Hmmmm I wonder what the motive for this thread was...

Hmmmm...

kropotkin · Nov 29, 2004

Reilly is a trot pretending not to be. You can take the lenninist out of the party...

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

Dubversion said:
why, that's the funniest comment i ever did hea....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's more than can be said for anything I've ever heard you come out with.

kropotkin · Nov 29, 2004

That was good, L+L,snappy and not at all playground-esque...

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

kropotkin said:
That was good, L+L,snappy and not at all playground-esque...

And you, too, are acting as well as can be expected.

ernestolynch · Nov 29, 2004

Lock&Light said:
That's more than can be said for anything I've ever heard you come out with.

My, U75's resident ulcer is on form tonight....

kropotkin · Nov 29, 2004

we've had piss-all run-ins before. Don't add me to your enemy list just yet.
But try and make some informed comments, eh?

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

ernestolynch said:
My, U75's resident ulcer is on form tonight....

Unlike Urban's resident louse.

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

kropotkin said:
But try and make some informed comments, eh?

Up till now I've been waiting for you.

ernestolynch · Nov 29, 2004

Lock&Light said:
Unlike Urban's resident louse.

Like your pissant 'pwease ban him' plea on the Moon Hoax thread, after I said I wouldn't post anymore on it?

Lock&Light · Nov 29, 2004

ernestolynch said:
Like your pissant 'pwease ban him' plea on the Moon Hoax thread, after I said I wouldn't post anymore on it?

You know, and I have no doubt that you know, that I have never asked for your banning. That I have regularly been able to enjoy your absence is not to say that I have ever asked for it. Ever!

Steve Booth · Nov 29, 2004

It is not rocket science

Joe Reilly said:
As idelogies go, anarchism is as old as the hills but has never made a difference anywhere, and looked at objectively, never looks likely to. At a fairly basic level it is theoritically incoherent; not sure that the state has power by virtue of the economic system or whether it is the other way round.
....

All told anarchism does not have much of a past. So does it have much of a future?

There is this problem with the state, that it produces yet more and more regulations, bureaurcracy, taxes, laws about security etc etc yet people have never been more insecure.

The economic system becomes ever more of a problem, job losses and insecurity, pensions crisis, housing market fears and so on. People having run run faster and faster on the treadwheel just to stay on. Longer working hours...

The mainstream political parties tweedledum / tweedledee are so close that you can barely get a fag paper in between them, and less and less people vote. Political corruption and nepotism are rife.

Alienation and mental ilness are increasing.

OK. So there is a political approach called Anarchism which provides a lot of the obvious answers to these problems and what we need to do is not that complicated. It's not rocket science. But it means questioning fundamentals and it means people assuming responsibility for their own lives and actions instead of deferring to the authority of the state and corporations.

They won't thank you for that message...

Anarchism has a past which we all know about, and a lot of recent historical baggage which largely prevents the anarchists from getting it together and putting their political philosophy across in a coherent, concentrated and convincing way. But then again there are a lot of small and local initiatives like the LETs schemes which use anarchistic ways of working and which have a lot of potential to develop.

So why is it not possible for anarchists to change and for anarchism to be put across in a reasonable way to people, and for a lot more folks to start to believe it and put it into practice?

Perhaps some sort of large scale economic, political and social crisis resulting from the problems outlined above will encourage more people to consider it as a live possibility.

Joe Reilly · Nov 29, 2004

Steve Booth said:
So why is it not possible for anarchists to change and for anarchism to be put across in a reasonable way to people, and for a lot more folks to start to believe it and put it into practice?
QUOTE]

See ludd and kroptokin for answer perhaps?

kropotkin · Nov 29, 2004

Why? Because we called you on being a wanker?

General Ludd · Nov 29, 2004

See ludd and kroptokin for answer perhaps?

Anarchism really wouldn't have a future if we started tolerating Leninist twats.

Joe Reilly · Nov 29, 2004

catch said:
Which revolutionary philosophy is your preferred?

Instinctvely and predictably you set out to define yourself against a rival idelogy. Don't you know what you believe in a free-standing sort of way?

Joe Reilly · Nov 29, 2004

kropotkin said:
Why? Because we called you on being a wanker?

Evidently 'an ends justifies the means' kinda guy. That makes you different from the likes of Rebel how exactly?

Joe Reilly · Nov 30, 2004

General Ludd said:
Anarchism really wouldn't have a future if we started tolerating Leninist twats.

Your definition of 'Leninist/Bolshevik' is what exactly? Someone who isn't a card-carrying anarchist?

Joe Reilly · Nov 30, 2004

In Bloom said:
Am I the only one who knew exactly where this was going?

Scaredy cat.

catch · Nov 30, 2004

Instinctvely and predictably you set out to define yourself against a rival idelogy.

Anyone starting a thread saying anarchism is shit/historically dead is already defining themselves negatively against something - you may have forgotten that you started the thread and I responded, not the other way 'round. I think people who criticise ideologies (if anarchism can be considered to be one, which I think it can't unless very strictly defined) and start threads about them should be prepared to present their own views in a full and frank way, or admit they don't have alternatives views to present.

My political views are very much my own, and are based, to the extent my knowledge and understanding allows, on the history of both events and ideas. One or two things I may have pulled out of my arse at some point, but I have no hesitation in aligning myself with things that have already been thought of if I happen to agree with them. I disagree with large swathes of stuff written by anarchists, it doesn't yet stop me from calling myself one.

What do you want and how do you want to get there?

Until you answer that I'll keep my nose out of the thread, since it looks like a bin candidate anyway.

Does anarchism have a serious future?

Well-Known Member

runt.littercom.org

Banned

runt.littercom.org

└┴┬─├┼╔╩╣

Ignoring most idiots

It's not hip any more...

Gorn

Joyless and full of hate

└┴┬─├┼╔╩╣

New member

libcom

Ignoring most idiots

libcom

Ignoring most idiots

Banned

libcom

Ignoring most idiots

Ignoring most idiots

Banned

Ignoring most idiots

Bourgeois apologist

Well-Known Member

libcom

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

runt.littercom.org

Similar threads