Any other anarchists here?

Post Reply New Topic

I am an anarchist, I do not believe others should tell others what to do or force others into doing things.

I am against hierarchies and all for TRUE democracy (that is direct democracy) and for direction action as well.

I do not personally believe in violence and destruction as a way of getting things done, indeed I'm a very peaceful person, however, I do not believe that others have the right to tell me what to do, except if I willing let them, and even then I am still allowed to question that "authority" if it's no longer legitimate. Unquestioned "authority" is problematic even at the "best" of times.

Anyway, just my two-pence (though by no means an exhaustive list of my beliefs/thoughts) and wondering if others have similar views?

I hold to Stirnerite egoist anarchism in principle. I was a left-anarchist when I was younger and more naive. Here is an online copy of Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own: The Case of the Individual Against Authority".

I might concider myself an anarhist as well! I firmly believe in freedom and have a natural urge to resist authority, at the same time being somewhat horrified by power and authorities (the police, army, security guards, teachers, doctors, psychiatrists). From an early age I have been interested in politics and political theory, I did actually believe there is a way to change the world and so on, but I finally understood, when I was about 16-18, that there is no need for it whatsoever. My philosophical theory is personal and not universal, therefore I consciously avoid any generalisations and attempts at universalisations. I think, each person should decide for oneselve, what one is, what one should and what is better for that person, I guess, this is the idea of Nietzsche... Nietzsche said a very important thing- there is no need in ascetism and dogmatism, but a strong individual does not have to be as weak as to engage in low, useless and harming activities, but, instead of preaching about the bad points of such things, should 'turn away'. This is what I believe in.
Another wonderful point about the way society functions is provided by Michel Foucault in his book 'Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison'. Basically, what is authority is an anonymous set of restraining actions, discipline- schools, hospitals, the army and finally prisons differ very little.
And, I guess, the way I understand anarchism, is that it urges people to QUESTION things, not follow them blindly, like a herd of sheep. But sometimes anarchism becomes JUST ANOTHER ideology for how people should be used- just like Marxism had become. It uses the same methods it criticises, just in its own way. I think, I need to be an individual, that is important, that is how I understand it. When you make new ways of using people, it all ends up in discipline and punishment...

Direct democracy won't work, simply due to logistics and scalability. Each referendum has a cost (check out what the last referendum cost), it and takes up time, there are huge amount of issues to deal with, which are barely touched on in a Parliamentary system.

Also, someone has to set the referendum questions. So it is never really independent of governance.

Then there is the issue of having no time to get anything done (implementation), between the referendum, which would be often switching back an forth, as view are fickle.

“Direct democracy” is a buzzword that sounds cool, but in practice can't really be achieved at any scale. Just because it has the word 'democracy' in there doesn’t mean it would be feasible or better. I could tag the word 'democracy' on to anything, countries do this all the time.

Don't be fooled, politicians that play the 'direct democracy' card know full well it can't be implemented fully, they do so as a political tactic only when it suits.

One of the myths is the Athenians had direct democracy, they didn't, they had compulsory political office (bit like national service), and a lottery system of election. This could work for a a small city state like Singapore. It is more difficult at scale (though it is my preferred option for the House of Lords reform, without the compulsory part).

Switzerland, holds a lot of referendums, but it hasn't replaced governance by any stretch not even close.

An anarchist society would result in people who are best at killing other people being in power. If you don't believe in telling people what to do, then sociopaths would rule the world.

If you want to enforce non-violence, then it is no longer anarchy, at least as I understand it.

Wut. Anarchy =/= chaos or warlordism. You can get rid of the state-as-it-is-now and still have a functioning society.

Yeah, I'm an anarchist of sorts. Free market, post-scarcity, city-states and communes, big on phyles, and supportive of the right to secede. I don't think polities should be allowed to imprison or harm people for non-violent crimes, but I'm fine with them exiling them. I think people ought to be able to live among people of a similar political viewpoint. Also, cities-as-political-units shouldn't extend further than the city itself, taking in the land surrounding the city - though if the owners of that land wish to freely associate themselves to the city, they can do. Personally, I'd want to live in a city with a ban on hard drug use and selling, a general hospital operated by the city, and a licensing system for concealed carry. But I won't demand that your city operates the same way, and I will not take kindly to you demanding mine operate according to your principles.

As for direct democracy... referendums don't need to take long at all, not with modern technology. Use iris recognition to prevent double voting, and automate the counting. No need for humans to be involved at all.

I don't think polities should be more than 20-40k in population though. Once most people don't have any mutual friends, you fall apart as a community.

What if the USA invades Britain?

Why would my city decide to join yours and become a single political unit? Perhaps a loose commonwealth. But even then, we'd just leave if we didn't like it.

Typically, city-states have never voluntarily joined to become larger states, they've always been conquered.

I'm sympathetic to anarchism and libertarian socialism, I'm not sure if I'd qualify as an anarchist though.

Wow, some great answers and discussion, thank you everyone! Keep going if you'd like to. Thank you for giving me lots to think about.