problems you have with some anarchist schools

[TehRedDragon]

The title says it all really we all have certain problems with various schools of anarchism, almost to the point where the majority of the anarchist movement spends more time arguing with each other then arguing against statists. Now I'm going to focus on three I have problems with, just so I don't ramble on.

Anarcho-capitalism-You're probably confused now, you're most likely thinking, "wait he's an agorist what kind of problems could he have with anarcho-capitalism"? Well I'll explain the name is one thing I really take offense with. I believe Rothbard made a mistake when naming it, mostly because it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. In that no economies that have gone under the name of capitalism have ever been a free market the plutocrats have always dirtied the market with their presence and replaced the so-called invisible hand with an iron fist. Many, though not all, of the individuals who go under the label are also vulgar libertarians in that they lack adherence to their stated principles. Such as defending the outcomes of state market systems, as if the property of "capitalists" were justly acquired rather then a fraudulent perk of the political class. Also some of them advocate voting, that pisses me off.

Anarcho-primitivism- Their anti-technological views run contrary to my ideals of science and logic, in that I believe that this school of thought will drag humanity back into the dark ages. So because of that superstition will rule over the lives of individuals and our explanations for natural events will be usually limited to "god did it". Does anything else really else need to be said?

Anarcho-Nationalism- My least favorite school of anarchism, seeing as I'm an anti-nationalist and a rugged individualist after all. I find the collective concept of race that they seem to be so fond of to be nothing but brutish and illogical. Seeing as race as a biological concept hasn't been used since the 19th century. Also the way they talk about economics reminds me of the Third position that most fascists take, which doesn't put this school in a very good light for me.  

[aufheben]

TehRedDragon

Anarcho-primitivism- Their anti-technological views run contrary to my ideals of science and logic, in that I believe that this school of thought will drag humanity back into the dark ages.

Logic doesn't give one s**t about your ideals. As much as we dislike primitivism, it is internally logically consistent. It's a matter of personal taste, not logic.  

[Mr. Awesome!]

I'm not too fond of anarcho-individualism.
To me, that stands out as chaos, anything that promotes the desires of one being regardless of another I believe to be more damaging than anything else.

Any anarchist school of thought that promotes any type of greed, is a failure, and is no better than our current society.

I don't hate anarchist-primitivism, I adore technology, but I wouldn't be devastated without it.
I see where they are coming from, and agree on many points.
But I believe we could some day find a way to repair the damage we do to nature.  

[Arson Hiroha]

I would say that the two major Anarchist schools I dislike are Anarcho- Capitalism and Anarcho- Syndicalism. STOP ARGUEING, DAMNIT! Sorry, I had to get that out of my system.

First, Anarcho- Capitalism compared to most Anarchist schools. Most advocate a system without corporate hierarchies, and this I can understand- with this element, it remains very similar to other forms of Anarchism. However, I dislike currency as the medium for this. Personally I would say that the best idea is to cut out the middle man, and if compactness is an issue, simply use notes for items that you're giving people. The use of the word capitalism implies that everyone is out for oneself and that the primary deciding factor in society is trade, a state of being I vehemently oppose. However, with individual forms of Anarcho- Capitalism, what I like to see is lack of corporate hierarchies and people working together in a community for

Second, for Anarcho- Syndicalism. In my opinion, most people who follow this doctrine usually have their hearts in the right place, trying to make a cooperative socialist movement, but I dislike where they place their trust. Worker's Unions, simply put, are frought with hierarchies- for example, the Union foreman, chairs, co- chairs, etc. With these, my greatest concern is that these pre-existing hierarchies would take over society, and soon shed their old self- image. After all, a union is a governing body. With individual versions of Anarcho- Syndicalism, I like to see the idea of Unions replaced without their current forms of hierarchies. Also, I tend to like to see community unions, as having workers defended based on their trade could soon lead to sharp divisions- say between the coal workers and those who work in electricity, or on its simplest level, teachers and textbook companies. By individually formed unions based on individual trade, it seems to create incentives against other unions- hence my advocacy of community unions.


Well, there you go. Unlike many of my arguements, this one is not designed to persuade, but simply outline my opinions.  

[TehRedDragon]

aufheben

TehRedDragon

Anarcho-primitivism- Their anti-technological views run contrary to my ideals of science and logic, in that I believe that this school of thought will drag humanity back into the dark ages.

Logic doesn't give one s**t about your ideals. As much as we dislike primitivism, it is internally logically consistent. It's a matter of personal taste, not logic.

Logic is a study of valid interference, it can't care about anything by definition. But I suppose I did speak out of turn, maybe it's just because I'm hostile to anti-scientific forms of thought. I'm guessing it has something do to with those conservative creationists that live in my area.

Mr. Awesome!

I'm not too fond of anarcho-individualism.
To me, that stands out as chaos, anything that promotes the desires of one being regardless of another I believe to be more damaging than anything else.

Actually I think most individualist would argue that, "it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS". Or at least that's according to Josiah Warren.  

[Mr. Awesome!]

TehRedDragon

Mr. Awesome!

I'm not too fond of anarcho-individualism.
To me, that stands out as chaos, anything that promotes the desires of one being regardless of another I believe to be more damaging than anything else.

Actually I think most individualist would argue that, "it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS". Or at least that's according to Josiah Warren.

But if you're a follower of Agorism, which is like a blended version of anarchist-capitalism, and anarchist-individualism.
I believe both are very negative.
I've read over the styles of thinking in individualism, and noticed that for the most part, they agree that a free market is a good thing, but that cooperation is wrong, unless it is spontaneous, such as in finding you need to protect both of yourselves from a common enemy.
Also, I've read that they believe they are entitled to whatever they produce, and that they should share if someone else is in need and they have surplus.

I still think of chaos when I read over anarchist-individualism.
Especially the more egoist side of it, it seems violent, unnecessary, and violence is inherently oppressive, so it is not something I think is good.

I understand there are many different styles of thinking for the a-i school of thought, but they are all roughly similar, and are completely opposite from my belief in anarchist-communism.  

[joykiller1985]

TehRedDragon

Anarcho-Nationalism

What exactly do you mean? You mean anarchist icon Edward Abbey's brand of xenophobic anti-immigrant rhetoric, the philosophy of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, or just the ways in which white supremacy, cultural appropriation and US-centrism tend to creep into our movement?  

[Arson Hiroha]

Lol, you said international socialism.

(Tehe, in german that's Nazi)


Edit: (Which wouldn't have been so funny if I had clicked the link first)  

[aufheben]

TehRedDragon

aufheben

TehRedDragon

Anarcho-primitivism- Their anti-technological views run contrary to my ideals of science and logic, in that I believe that this school of thought will drag humanity back into the dark ages.

Logic doesn't give one s**t about your ideals. As much as we dislike primitivism, it is internally logically consistent. It's a matter of personal taste, not logic.

Logic is a study of valid interference, it can't care about anything by definition. But I suppose I did speak out of turn, maybe it's just because I'm hostile to anti-scientific forms of thought. I'm guessing it has something do to with those conservative creationists that live in my area.

I weep. Logic is not "scientific." Assuming you meant inference, rather than interference, then you're only supporting one branch of logic: inductive.

But inductive logic is held to a lower standard than deductive reasoning, since inductive logic allows the fundamental Cartesian Circle: the future will behave like the past.

Science, like religion, is just the ungrateful b*****d of philosophy.  

[Jungle Boots]

in my studies i find it hard to bash on the primitivists, because as far as i know, the only sucessfully anarchistic society ever in existance is a primitive indiginous tribe known as the Saimae (im drunk, check ants-and-communist's thread on 'what not' for correct spelling)

i also cant bash because i figure the entire idea of primitivism in regards to the removal of oppression and crime has to do with the established 'progression of technology' and is direct influence on human desire. desire creating oppression being the agreed upon part. greed, in my thought is the number one cause of crime and oppression, greed is an exrtreme of desire. a society filled with technology and desirable objects then creates a potential for more desire, thus more greed thus one hell of a foundation for oppression and crime to take root and infest. primitivism claims to remove this effect by removing the technology itself. simple as that, if there isnt anything that can be wanted no one will covet no one will have greed no one will have powerhungry madness.

however simple this is, (and i like simple,cause im drunk and simple means easy to understand) it has its flaws, i agree , with dragymagysaggy. i think with the removal of technology i feel there is a loss of potential knoledge. a loss of knoledge leads to a loss of potentially progressive critical thinking. without critical thinking a regression back into oppression is all too easily possible.

but i think maybe its not so complicated to avoid this whole fiasco. i take a lesson from the buddhists, greed stems from desire, desire stems from passion, passion dose not stem from the availability of things it stems from the in-availability of things (which is the greatest basic exploit of capitalism and trade, people with desperation will pay big bucks for what they need if it is nhard to get, I.E. expensive). thus if all things were free, technologicly amazing or as fundimental as stone and stick; everyone would have the equal chance to have it, and thus the fight to gain it and weild its power over others will be erradicated because the phallacy of greater value/greater need will be nullified by freeness. kind of like the conservative's gun rights rationality, if everyone had guns fewer people will be interested in committing gun crimes cause they have a 100% chance of getting shot in the face by someone's 'take no s**t' gramma.

same concept, if all is available and everyone has the ability to have the same thing, (sounds rather marxist actually) then no one will covet the other's thing. no one will be able to hold a greater physical power over the other either, the only greater power between to humans would be through the level of local influence.

maybe i will revisit this because i dont trust my drunken rableings but i think that (and i understand very well the improbobility of this actually happening) if people removed the passion and desire for things from their lives, anarchy would just happen, and happen peacefully, and continue on forever. or untill some a*****e interstellar capitalist aliens come and want our planet's resources and our women's vaginas.

basicly instead of removing technology just remove greed itself. remove monetary value, remove pollitical/influential value, and remove all adgendas all togather. An object becomes no longer "big'n'large INC.'s " copyrighted nonsense. but becomes the product of an ingenious team of scientists, whom have invented a great cure for 'god knows what' for the benefit of ALL mankind, all at once. freedom would infact become free, litterally. ******** the bumperstickers.

oh i forgot the important point: the key to everyone realizing that they can remove the desires from their mind and the method to which we as a people could sell everything we create for free; is if we somehow all understood that the concept of ownership is entirely a myth driven by egotistical and powerhungry madness.

(again sorry for drunkenness, lemmie know if there is any circular logic, or holes or impracticalities. Im all about practical, thus i'd vote for mckain over clinton, ron paul even.)  

[The Leninator!]

Mr. Awesome!

I'm not too fond of anarcho-individualism.
To me, that stands out as chaos, anything that promotes the desires of one being regardless of another I believe to be more damaging than anything else.

Any anarchist school of thought that promotes any type of greed, is a failure, and is no better than our current society.

I don't hate anarchist-primitivism, I adore technology, but I wouldn't be devastated without it.
I see where they are coming from, and agree on many points.
But I believe we could some day find a way to repair the damage we do to nature.

I agree actually, anarcho-individualism seems to me to be the least effective school. Of course I'm a communist so the problems presented by individualism to me are obvious, I think a society without any government would have to function collectivly with very little focused on individualism.  

[The Leninator!]

Arson Hiroha

I would say that the two major Anarchist schools I dislike are Anarcho- Capitalism and Anarcho- Syndicalism. STOP ARGUEING, DAMNIT! Sorry, I had to get that out of my system.

First, Anarcho- Capitalism compared to most Anarchist schools. Most advocate a system without corporate hierarchies, and this I can understand- with this element, it remains very similar to other forms of Anarchism. However, I dislike currency as the medium for this. Personally I would say that the best idea is to cut out the middle man, and if compactness is an issue, simply use notes for items that you're giving people. The use of the word capitalism implies that everyone is out for oneself and that the primary deciding factor in society is trade, a state of being I vehemently oppose. However, with individual forms of Anarcho- Capitalism, what I like to see is lack of corporate hierarchies and people working together in a community for

Second, for Anarcho- Syndicalism. In my opinion, most people who follow this doctrine usually have their hearts in the right place, trying to make a cooperative socialist movement, but I dislike where they place their trust. Worker's Unions, simply put, are frought with hierarchies- for example, the Union foreman, chairs, co- chairs, etc. With these, my greatest concern is that these pre-existing hierarchies would take over society, and soon shed their old self- image. After all, a union is a governing body. With individual versions of Anarcho- Syndicalism, I like to see the idea of Unions replaced without their current forms of hierarchies. Also, I tend to like to see community unions, as having workers defended based on their trade could soon lead to sharp divisions- say between the coal workers and those who work in electricity, or on its simplest level, teachers and textbook companies. By individually formed unions based on individual trade, it seems to create incentives against other unions- hence my advocacy of community unions.


Well, there you go. Unlike many of my arguements, this one is not designed to persuade, but simply outline my opinions.

Many unions, when run properly are worker's collectives. I have a lot of experience with both unions and anarcho-syndicalists (I've been around them constantly since I was 4 or 5 years old). Some unions are extremly centered around hierarchy, some have it to quicken functioning and if you think there's any other way to do it in this society then you're dreaming. Complete collectives and organizations that try to function in capitalist society while being totally void of hierarchy either fail or work so slowly that they have no effect at all. Many properly working unions function like this- there is a hierarchy at higher levels like union president and vice president, but getting to local branches they are very collectivist with very little hierarchy past organizers who are above those they train simply because they need to train them. Other then that there's not that much hierarchy, and even if there were, unions are neccesary regardless of corruption or anything else, they're the only real functioning organizations that help workers. It's interesting that a lot of anarchists are anti-union although I've also noticed (not talking to anyone here at all, just an observation from where I live) that many anarchists aren't actually in the working classes, for the most part they seem to be intellegencia. You know, suburban raised kids going to college with bandanas around their necks who don't understand what it's like to work a hard job for a living (not like a high school summer job, something to live), and I don't trust any judgement of unions for someone who hasn't been in a job where you need one. Again though, I don't know anyone in this guild well enough to make that judgement of them so I'm just talking about a lot of the people I meet (I live in a city with a huge college campus on it), and I've gotta say that a lot of socialists are the same, although not as many (it's fashionable to be a faux anarchist). Hm...rant.  

[Astrox]

I'm not a fan of anarcho-individualism.

Only listening to the self and completely disregarding what other people in a community have to say or want to do, seems to harbor the potential for something incredibly destructive.

Besides, this world is at it's maximum capacity with selfish agendas...
Why the ******** do we need to promote another excuse to be selfish?  

[Mr. Awesome!]

Astrox

I'm not a fan of anarcho-individualism.

Only listening to the self and completely disregarding what other people in a community have to say or want to do, seems to harbor the potential for something incredibly destructive.

Besides, this world is at it's maximum capacity with selfish agendas...
Why the ******** do we need to promote another excuse to be selfish?

Pretty much is how I feel.
The majority of people are already on a personal selfish agenda, using people, or things to their advantage to create their happiness at the expense of others.

And whether or not anarcho-individualists believe in only doing things that affect themselves, and no one else, or not, isn't important.
I believe people can do much, much more, when working together, rather than working alone, or to fulfill some personal agenda.  

[interweb_buddha]

Arson Hiroha

Second, for Anarcho- Syndicalism. In my opinion, most people who follow this doctrine usually have their hearts in the right place, trying to make a cooperative socialist movement, but I dislike where they place their trust. Worker's Unions, simply put, are frought with hierarchies- for example, the Union foreman, chairs, co- chairs, etc. With these, my greatest concern is that these pre-existing hierarchies would take over society, and soon shed their old self- image. After all, a union is a governing body. With individual versions of Anarcho- Syndicalism, I like to see the idea of Unions replaced without their current forms of hierarchies. Also, I tend to like to see community unions, as having workers defended based on their trade could soon lead to sharp divisions- say between the coal workers and those who work in electricity, or on its simplest level, teachers and textbook companies. By individually formed unions based on individual trade, it seems to create incentives against other unions- hence my advocacy of community unions.

As a union delegate with the Industrial Workers of the World and a hardcore anarcho-syndicalist, I have to say that most anarcho-syndicalists hate the AFL-CIO and their affiliated unions with a passion because of the hierarchy within them. We have worked with them on single issue campaigns in the past and will from time to time but we don't necessarily trust them, we just know we need numbers at times. The IWW and similar unions such as the CNT, try and be as non-hierarchical and bottom-up as possible.