Anarchism

[scottdisco]

let's be very clear that one can hold & strive toward an ideal while being fully aware that it will never be reached.

well said P.

so Mistadubalina is banned again?

man, that guy.

 

[Mr. Tea]

As mentioned already, Anarchism (as I understand it) strives to eliminate hierarchy, but where this is not possible, the hierarchies it does create must be justifiable and transparent.

Couldn't this be said of democracy as well? In theory, of course.

 

[droid]

Couldn't this be said of democracy as well? In theory, of course.

No. It doesn't strive to eliminate hierarchy, and it certainly doesn't offer transparent and justifiable hierarchies.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

so Mistadubalina is banned again?

again....? what did he do (apart from argue some pretty daft points very vociferously)?

 

[Mr. Tea]

No. It doesn't strive to eliminate hierarchy, and it certainly doesn't offer transparent and justifiable hierarchies.

OK, clearly democracy doesn't seek to eliminate hierarchy - my bad, I didn't mean that bit - but it does supposedly create a justifiable hierarchy, doesn't it? Justifiable because it enacts the will of the people, and transparent because, in a liberal democracy at least, the workings of parliamentary processes are accessible to public scrutiny?

Note the all-important words "in theory"!

 

[vimothy]

And the mechanism doesn't seem, from what I've read on this thread, to be any different from anarchist decision making processes. Anarchists would either hold more referenda, or make fewer decisions.

 

[droid]

 

[matt b]

again....? what did he do (apart from argue some pretty daft points very vociferously)?

Yes he is banned. Again

He has a history, both here and elsewhere and seems incapable of moderating his language towards people.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

OK, clearly democracy doesn't seek to eliminate hierarchy - my bad, I didn't mean that bit - but it does supposedly create a justifiable hierarchy, doesn't it? Justifiable because it enacts the will of the people, and transparent because, in a liberal democracy at least, the workings of parliamentary processes are accessible to public scrutiny?

Note the all-important words "in theory"!

really what we're getting that is that anarchism is a more pure form of democracy than representative democracy (what you're calling liberal democracy). "direct democracy" is the term you usually hear.

& I know you specifically said in theory but in anarchism theory is inextricable from practice, the means = the end.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

And the mechanism doesn't seem, from what I've read on this thread, to be any different from anarchist decision making processes. Anarchists would either hold more referenda, or make fewer decisions.

again, a purer form of the same mechanism, essentially. in theory.

In practice, yeah, it's usually more talking, less decisions. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on how immobilized you are, at a practical level, from being able to make decisions & take action.

 

[nomadthethird]

So is everything. I might tell my boss, "I think we should do this", and we'll do it (which is pretty typical). Or he might look at what I'm doing and say, "let's do this". We both might look at the signals our case studies are sending out, and act on them. But he's still the boss. Either there is no such thing as a hierarchy, or there is. If there is no such thing as hierarchy, that's fine, even if it will make talking about certain things more difficult, but it doesn't leave a lot of space for anarchism.

I don't think there is anymore...there are figureheads but power doesn't work so simply that we can easily define "hierarchies" anymore...i'm not so sure it ever has, really

 

[nomadthethird]

again, a purer form of the same mechanism, essentially. in theory.

In practice, yeah, it's usually more talking, less decisions. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on how immobilized you are, at a practical level, from being able to make decisions & take action.

A lot of what people think of as "efficiency" now (letting leaders make swift decisions and then not holding them accountable when they fail) is really very inefficient and cumbersome. A la the Iraq War.

 

[nomadthethird]

You dont have kids do you?

The baby is sending out instructions, and in a very coercive fashion... orders that the parent is biologically compelled to obey - ie change me/feed me/talk to me or else I'm going to scream my lungs out, keep you awake and wreck your head.

Babies are the worst kind of tyrants. There's no negotiation or compromise with their pudgy faced diktats.

If you're a good parent, that is. There are plenty of not-good parents out there.

My mom's latest job is in a special education (CSE) office at a public school. She calls me crying all of the time about the horror stories they have to deal with. Something like 50% of the students are labeled with a learning disability of some kind. Most of them neglected from birth.

 

[nomadthethird]

on the merits of equality - it's true, it's complicated. I do believe that at the most basic level everyone is "equal".

If people were all equal, wouldn't running societies be a lot easier than it is?

I think people aren't all equal but they deserve equal rights just the same.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think people aren't all equal but they deserve equal rights just the same.

this is really what I mean by equal anyway - worthy of the same treatment despite they fact that we are not all equally proficient at everything (& what a boring world it would be if we were). essentially that everyone deserves to be judged based on their actions rather than "who" they are - that their actions are inseparable from who they are. I don't think any of this is particularly or primarily an "anarchist" belief tho I do think it goes hand-in-hand with "anarchism". again coming back to a general concept of means=end.

 

[matt b]

I think people aren't all equal but they deserve equal rights just the same.

e.g people with learning disabilities- almost every political theory struggles to address the issues that (potentially) arise from a truly inclusive concept of humanity/ equality in a way that anarchism can.




(I suppose at this point, it would be honest to state that I too am a fan of anarchism in theory rather than practice, in the main. The 'in the main' being very important)

 

[nomadthethird]

e.g people with learning disabilities- almost every political theory struggles to address the issues that (potentially) arise from a truly inclusive concept of humanity/ equality in a way that anarchism can.




(I suppose at this point, it would be honest to state that I too am a fan of anarchism in theory rather than practice, in the main. The 'in the main' being very important)

Yes, that's a good point. I wonder when we'll ever have a form of collective organization that truly accounts for the fact that there are people with greater biological and medical needs than others, so that a "one-size fits all" solution simply can't account for the reality and complexity of human embodiment/beings as they experience the challenges of "taking care of" themselves everyday.

 

[scottdisco]

universal rights FTW

 

[craner]

There she is, wiping the floor with them!

 

[craner]

There he is!