The Fraser

I read "Where the Fraser River Flows" many years ago, and highly recommend it.

I think Leier's values are laudble, but I remain skeptical about Anarchism, as I am about all utopian programs (though I guess Anarchism's not really a program, is it?). I agree though that we need always to push for those ideals of democracy, and remind "leaders" that they serve us, they don't own us.

chomsky's take on anarchism

i like the talk about 'push for what you can'. it's not exactly how i view anarchism, but pretty close to it.

i arrived there by stumbling upon Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism, where he quotes Rudolph Rocker about anarchism being a 'definite trend' towards freedom. A brief snapshot of it here:

and that is how i came to name my new anarchism blog Definite Trend.

:)

good interview.

What a very cool article!

What a very cool article! I'm continually amazed how many articulate writers and thinkers we have, writing about meaningful options for our life. Which we NEVER hear about. But now we do. I'm so glad I cancelled our cable TV. Never been happier. Thanks Tyee and Charles Demers!

Anarchism not really utopian.

Some kinds are of course, but in the main, it isn't. What we seek is to empower the population, continually expanding the role of direct democracy and decentralization, replacing the authoritarian hierarchy with horizontal relations. The capitalist corporation replaced by stake holder coops and worker coops. Government and the state are not necessarily synomymous. Anarchists believe in government in the sense of organization, collective response etc., but not in the state, which is an authoritarian, top-down structure separated from the people it supposedly governs. Nor do anarchists seek to impose anarchism as an ideology, as Marxist Leninists or Conservatives do. We only wish to see anarchist practices become adopted whether they are called anarchist or not. Hence, any step in the direction nof greater freedom or sociality is sen by us as a victory. The final goal - one of pure anarchy - is a social myth, or a kind of ultimate guide post, but is not something we expect to ever see. Thank you, Tyee, for running this interview, by the way.

Ownership

Bang on Booker. These so called leaders need a reminder they don't own us. It's going to come as quite a shock when they hear it, and it may take a couple of memo's before they take it seriously. Until the voter becomes "enlightened" I don't see them getting the message period. More of the same. As heard on Co-op radio this morning, we have the NFU, National Farmers Union going to Edmonton to protest the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. Sounds like another attack from the likes of Cargill and others to "deregulate" our food production. On another issue, there appears to be concern that grain reserves are at an all time low, partly because food is being diverted to biodiesel/ethanol production. Can we just skip the next few years of bashing our heads against the wall and just start the revolution? How does May 1st sound? It's the only way to send the message now that the theft and enslavement has started in earnest and in plain view.

Leier

A number of years back I had the good fortune to take a history course taught by Leier at SFU, completely by accident. He was the most articulate, informative, and enjoyable prof I had at my four years on Burnaby Mountain. The man certainly has strong convictions, but was perfectly willing to discuss and entertain alternative beliefs if that's what the students wanted.

Also, I'll never forget Leier playing his banjo, leading 200 students in singing songs from the time period we were learning about.

Leier avoided the tough

Leier avoided the tough question on how an anarchist state would regulate such things as environmental issues, etc. The Tyee brought it up and he used it just to give the regular lines that corporations are all evil or what not, and while structure can certainly change people I don't think its a one-way street. If there are people in corporations today that are willing to pollute and wreak destruction why wouldn't they in anarchism and how would it be stopped? By mob rule?

I'm fine with pushing towards anarchy as a critique of the state and what not but I think hard questions like these must be answered, especially when anarchism is being advocated by a university prof....

No mob rule, no corporations either.

Apollyon, the goal of anarchists is to replace corporations with stake-holder cooperatives. Since the economy would thus reflect the wishes of the population, rather than a tiny corrupt minority, I think it unlikely that these institutions would pollute. Furthermore, anarchists wish to make development and environment local concerns. Each community would decide for itself through meetings or referenda and by a practical concensus (say two-thirds majority) how to proceed. Today, such decisions are made by the higher levels of government which make decisions favoring their corporate buddies and to hell with the locals. Not so with anarchist practice., which is to decentralize those powers. One possible objection you might have to decentralization of these powers might be a situation where a community voted in favor of pollution. This could be offset by having a Provincial Charter or Constitution which set minimum stardards, below which a community could not go.

Re: Getting closer...

Anarcho...

Thanks for the response but if you are truly an anarchist then you should at least realize the absolute profundity that the word entails - a social order unlike any other. To just write it off as easy since you can imagine it is poor judgment. Which is not a reason to be against anarchism but to ensure a vigilance of thought on the subject (which seems lacking).

Further to your proposition, we have a group that, however unlikely pollutes, as you said. Luckily a provincial charter is there to stop them.... wait... its a "charter" ... as in a piece of paper? Indeed...

Anarchism in many ways is more totalizing than capitalism because it requires every single person to fit in exactly right. In fact, one would almost say that with the horizontalization of neoliberal capitalism we are approximating that goal (except neoliberal capitalism knows enough to have enforcement).

Memo to Leier: there's a Canadian socialist tradition, eh?

Silly me, I kept wishing that Leier or even his interviewer had given the nod to any aspect of the rock-solid Canadian socialist tradition.

It reminded me of the gap I always felt, while at the otherwise wonderful SFU, that the faculty orientation was so blindly and wilfully americanized.

Before I bother to look it up, let me guess: the banjo-strummin' Mark Leier, the SFU lecturer (and, I betcha, tenured professor), is a U.S. citizen, right?

Some points...

I want to thank The Tyee for running this piece first of all. As "some sort of" anarchist myself, it warms my heart to see our ideal, if nothing else, being made clearer to mostly (and often rightly) skeptical audience. That having been said, some points for apollyon...

Wise words, but I would caution you in turn not to lable all anarchists with the same brush stroke. There's no doubt there's a lot of kids running around with mohawks, rings in their nose and leather jackets calling for "anarchy". And while I have no problem with these kids, many I've met and their heart is usually in right place (not all, some think of it merely as an excuse to nreak things) they lack, very often, the intellectual baggage (I simply mean they haven't reall read up on the subject, have a very lackluster knowledge of the issues and the premise) to make the case for anarchy.

There is a rather extensive anarchist literature out there, one that seeks to answer many of the preplexing and complex and difficult questions that face both this line of thought and the world as a whole.

There's really nothing in anarchist philosophy that says having a charter or some form of a constitution is a bad thing. Some set of values, ideals and or "laws" will always been needed. But don't think of it in the material sense, think of it in, often, the very organic sense of a living, breathing document, that may or may not be written such as the UK constiution.

Besides, different anarchists are more open to to various forms of "state-like" operation. Council-communists and anarcho-syndicalists (different things, but close enough) would be far more open such ideas than some of the "post-left" anarchists, or those that have some, disparigingley, have called "lifestyle" anarchists.

And keep in mind, in the anarchist ideal, we'd still need many of the same insitutions we have today. They would simply behave and be organized in a different manner: democratically, accountably, transparently.

Anarchism does not require everyone to fit in, not in the least. It simply makes the obvious point that living in a society, it is better(as in more beneficial to the individual, first of all) and more sensible to work for the good of all, than for the good of a few. It however prefaces this by saying in order for people to truly be able to work and live in such a manner, they must be free. And freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg put it, is always freedom for those who think differently. So, now anarchism does not demand that everyone fit in.

Quote:Anarchism in many ways

.

While I certainly fail to see why this above statement should be especially true of anarchy, for we are all always fully capable of collectively "enforcing" anything, with or without police and a state apparatus as we choose. The problem largely is that the long history of class societies and their ruling class serving "enforcement structures" has much "conditioned" in the Pavllovian sense, an obedient working class that does as it is told by its "betters".

That certainly has to change in order for there to be any kind of a "self-governing" citizenry, for sure. And what has been "conditioned" by soft or hard "oppression" has likely as much chance over a generation or two to be "un-conditioned'.

And a "self-governing citizenry" certainly does exclude all organization and structure, which is a narrow mechanistic view of the concept.

That said, I don't, at this point in my life, currently hang any particular "ism" out as a shingle for myself. I favour taking life as it comes at me, dealing with the issues that arise therefrom, but from a profoundly radical "left" working class "populist" perspective. That said, I do favour the evolution of a "self-governing citizenry", with which the ideas of anarchy do "seem" to have something in common. (And again, contrary to the spin class societies have put on that word, I certainly don't see it as in any way a sanction for mindless chaos.)

But then this society as well, with notions of "democracy" that it does not control or are not rooted in its ruling class sensibilities, tend to equate all other notions of "democracy" as well, as chaos.

But then I stopped buying this system's shite a long time ago, on just about everything. What may have made sense about its views of the world at one time, haven't now for a very long time.

And though I really don't carry the card, I can work quite well with anarchists. It's fascist, Conservatives, and Liberals, the card carriers for capitalism that I have a problem with. :-) Ehhhh, and I wonder... have major doubts about the party of "official" social democracy in this country. :-)

Now there's the real sources, especially the fascist, con, lieberal group, of mindless, self-serving chaos in the country and the world. .:-)

Who said it was easy?

No, applying anarchist principles to society as a whole is not easy, (understatement of the century!) but on the other hand, it is not a utopia either. It exists embryonically within existing coops, existing mutual aid institutions and existing forms of direct democracy and decentralization. As for a charter, this would only be a contract or agreement among the various communities or regions making up a federation. In the case sighted, communities would agree to a set of minimum standards.
As for "anarchism ... is more totalizing than capitalism because it requires every single person to fit in exactly right. ", this completely untrue. There are only 3 things you could not do in an anarchist society - not coerce, invade or exploit others. The whole point about anarchism - the maximization of liberty - you seem to have missed...

Not true Mary!

Mark is a Canuck. (I know him personally) and he is fully aware of Canadian socialism., (having debated him on the Socialist Party of Canada and the OBU. There is a long tradition of libertarian socialism in Canada that fits in well with the anarchist tradition. Pleae don't knock him, he is one of us!

Totalization...

To those with a favouring tendency toward classism, the very idea of a "self-governing" lower class citizenry is anathema, Armageddon, the end of the world... at least as they know it from their ruling and/or privileged perch, where they oversee we denizens of the ant pile.

It sends them into an apoplexy of alarm. :-)

Amusing, not? :-)

i like the 'push for what you can' part

it reminds me of chomsky's "Notes on Anarchism" paper/chapter where he quotes Rudolph Rocker:

i liked the description so much that i named my new anarchism blog 'Definite Trend'. :)

p.s. it seems my first comment got swallowed-up. not sure why. :(

trend in the historic development...

An excellent definition, which cofirms anarchos own comments on the subject. One can have his/her disagreements with Chomsky, no doubt, but it really is amazing how many times he nails it.

And the thoughts of an "unfixed" social system, again, drives the ruling class and the professional/managerial strata of the working class which serves its interest :-), with all that class stratas illusions and delusions, to distraction.

A little creative, imaginative, and courageous anarchy has never been more needed in society. There is far too much obedience and genuflection to the "fixed" social order. Enter Parliament and its tame pussycats political parties all.

Fssst! Fssst! You beasts!

apology...

Whats an "...apoplexy of alarm".?

Clearly the fellow is retarded. Errr, challenged.

You can send them into apoplexy, a fit of apoplexy, even alarm driven apoplexy, but and "... apoplexy of alarm" just sounds so, so... It's what happens when one opens their mouth and lets words fall out. :-)

I've always felt that a few

I've always felt that a few political assasins might help to keep things/everyone honest.

Thanks, anarcho!

Thanks, anarcho! I'm pleased to be wrong, in this particular case.

Sorry Me3, but this is

Sorry Me3, but this is nonsense, written by some egghead with no life experience, apart from the reading of books.

Such ideal can only exist in dreams, but not in real life, where the populace would be the immediate victim of the conspiracy of criminals and ruling classes, without any protection . Bd enough as it is, with corporate dictatorships looming on the horizon.

How would you like to drive on a road governed by anarchy, without strict laws and enforcements ? How about work, or food safety, or necessary services ?

Nobody loves and demands personal freedoms more than I ,and we have achieved a great degree of it, but we couldn't have it without laws protecting us.

Bloody, academic nonsense, without any practical use.

Ed Deak.

Real Life Anarchism

Unlike Mr. Deak I reckon our world at present would not function very well without humanity's remarkably persistent Anarchist spirit.

We are not crashing into one another willy-nilly on our sub-standard road system because of we are afraid of the policeman's watchful eye. We are careful, to the extent we are careful, because it is mutually beneficial to behave wisely: that's Anarchism.

There is nothing more practical than liberty.

The most misused word in

The most misused word in every language is "freedom"

In WW2 all sides, including the nazis and the communists have been fighting and dying in the name of "freedom". How about the "Peoples Democracies" where millions disappeared without trace, while the radio was blaring "freedom" songs.

Right now people are killing each other all over the world, particularly in Iraq, the Palestine and Afghanistan also in the name of freedom.

When a concept, or ideology can not be defined, it will fall prey to mind benders, criminals and becomes the tool of oppression and mass murder.

The prime examples are "free enterprise", and "free trade", used for forced collectivization, expropriation, colonization and enslavement.

How would you persuade the 2%, who now own and control 50% of the Earth's resources, in the name of "freedom", to give them up so that 30 million wouldn't starve to death every year ?

Some people are born to be predators and will come to the top under every flag to oppress others.

Ed Deak.

Freedom

I think misappropriated is a better term than misused for the way the word freedom has been hijacked by those none too keen to walk the talk.

Within the context of Canada we see the results of people acting freely often. i.e. women's liberation, gay liberation, the repeal of the death penalty, the release of unjustly convicted prisoners, changed civil, if not governmental, attitudes towards pot users, a government freely choosing not to participate in the war in Iraq...

Ed is an anarchist!

Sorry Ed, but this is only the second time in three years that you and I have disagreed about anything. I have always considered you a natural born anarchist. I think the problem might lie with with your thinking that anarchism means "anything goes". It doesn't. Take Swiss direct democracy and federalism, mate it with a cooperative economy and you have a basic anarchist society.. It would be worthwhile for you to check into the history of anarcho-syndicalism, for example, and the Spanish Civil War. Furthermore, I repeat we are not interested in winning people to an ideology, but of encouraging anarchist practice which includes; mutual aid, direct democracy, decentralization, cooperatives, local control, human scale etc.

Mark a workin' stiff

I should mention that Mark, before he became a prof was a working class guy, just like yours truly, and most of the other anarchos I know. The greater majority of us who re-started the anarchist current in Canada in the late 1960's early 1970's came out of the NDP and were dissatisfied with its failure to empower the average person. While the social welfare reforms were good, they ignored the core issue of the socialist idea - which is empowerment . This we found in the anarchist, syndicalist and libertarian socialist traditions.. The goal is to re-introduce this lost, but crucial aspect, into the socialist movement, not imposing some ideology or utopia.

anarcho

Anarcho, I look with interest at your dispatches. Particularly at your inclination toward direct democracy.

I too wish for direct democracy, thinking that where direct democracy rules, the politicians are really just servants over looking the day to day affairs of the state/nation. Nothing more.

Meaning that the people rule the governing, not the other way round. Am I correct in this assumption? I come to this site as something of a rightwing socialist(?) if that's possible. I preach the gospel of democratic reform on the assumption that the voters are not stupid people. And that given enough information, there is no reason to believe that the collective wisdom of the people will be wrong.

This is not 1860's when knowledge was weeks/months away from the population. We are as instantly informed as you can get. Does that mean that rule by majority is bad?

I'm feeling you out due to possibly misplaced suspicions. You are using words I like to use, but I am not sure we speak the same language considering the site and all...

Swiss Direct Democracy

I wasn't aware that this system was at work in europe. Or anywhere for that matter. Is this a model you would like to use anarcho? Are citizen sponsored initiatives binding on an elected government to enforce intact?

On Anarchism

Pure anarchism has never existed, in same way that pure communism has never existed. However, the anarchist experience has been, all things considered, much more true to its ethos. Many aspects of anarchist theory have been adopted by non-anarchist movements, i.e.: direct democracy, horizonatalism, mutual aid, etc.

Prominent examples are the Swiss cantons, Spain during the Civil War, the EZLN currently in Chiapas Mexico, the Ukraine during their Civil War, and even our own "local" Dukobers (sp?), and of course Vancouver's only radical book store Sparatcus Books is run on these princples as well.

Kudos to the Tyee for running this piece. Mark is a great guy, and anarchism is a great ideal.

Why anarchy??

Why anarchy?
Due to the gov't rountinely violating our Constitutional rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived(book)

Anarcho, having grown up

Anarcho, having grown up and experienced all forms of dictatorships, and having studied history to find out how they became powers over life and death, I became a diehard supporter of democracy, especially of participatory democracy and prefer to call it such.

It could be a question of semantics, but as an old propaganda buster, I take semantics very seriously.

At the same time, I have to admit that, from the emotional angle, I may be called an anarchist, but in the practical sense, I want to see safeguards that will protect my freedoms, which can only be achieved in true democracies, now going downhill, fast. The one adcantage we have by living in the backwoods is, that we can look at things from a distance.

We have a lot of Swiss around here, not economic, but in a way, political and refugees from overcrowded, dead end Europe, and their governments and unions demands for joining the EU. They go back to Switzerland, some of them, every year, to "make money", then come back to enjoy their freedom and their "Lebensraum", no longer possible in sardine can Europe.

Our own partners are a Swiss family, living on our land, now under joint ownership. and I also correspond with other Swiss on economic debating lists, which makes me a full supporter of the Swiss form of democracy.

On the other hand, like our Swiss friends, can't help wondering, how long it can survive under the pressure of
the dictatorship of the neoclassical market economy theory, taught in their universities and practiced by some of the biggest Swiss owned, exploiter corporations on Earth. In the name of "freedom" of course, as their own
democracy restricts them in their own land, whereas they can go on rampages anywhere else, which bugs the hell out of them.

In other words, I consider the neoclassical theory more of an anarchist nature, than Swiss democracy.

But then, as I wrote before, it could be a matter of semantics

Ed Deak.

There is that advantage...

There is that advantage, no doubt.

And no doubt, there are many legitimate points that Fait makes on these twin issues of anarchy and democracy. But then there are big and serious problems that stand in the way of further democratizing society, and advancing equality enhancing social change in any case. And these problems arise in the main from the same class and social strata sources Fait describes, whether one particularly buys into "official" anarchy or not. (And I do not either myself.)

For there really is that tendency for the old aggressive, violent and not infrequently criminal "types" from the old ruling class to have the expertise, connections and plain old "will: to rise to the top again and rule in whatever new social form is thrown at it. It is the problem the early communists and anarchists were in the end defeated by, and all lower class "social revolution" attempts before it, And it is doubtless in my mind, as Fait says, that we will no less have to deal with the threat of these types in the present, certainly in the early going, of whatever movement(s) for more radical national and democratizing social change may emerge eventually in this country.

It is a problem, in my experience with anarchists, as much generally recognized by themselves as the rest of us.

But additionally, there does seem to be a rather strong "compliance/obedience" current or tendency built into, or that runs through much of the lower class citizenry as well. Who knows at this point, it may be as much a built in or genetically coded phenomena as it is in say ants or bees, with the social divisions as occur there. It is not an unknown phenomena in nature. (My own view tends more to be that it is a phenomena which arises out of this lower class social strata more as a consequence of the relative hopelessness of their socio-economic and imposed cultural situation, such that it is still amenable to modification over time, but there may also be other or another element that works against we social revolutionaries here. At least large sections of the working class seem that they may be so effected here, by say a genetic element that is much beyond their or our control. It is a possibility that I have had to concede the possibility of over the course of my life. Which is a disturbing possibility, no doubt.)

I hate to think this might be true, but one does need to be aware of the possibility in order to more rationally temper their expectations of large masses of the people at any given time, or in any particular historical situation.

But even such a reality if it were true, and I am not yet myself definitively ready to buy into that anymore than I am any other "ism" at this time, history has still demonstrated to us, post early primitive tribal societies, that while the history of class divided societies have been long, and have to here survived all attempts from below to bring them down in their essential character, the forms of class society have nonetheless been forced to change, democratize at least somewhat, , and mitigate its more harmful aspects. Overt slavery afterall, such as existed in Rome for example, was a quite different and more brutal slavery than that of the wage slavery of modern capitalism. (By and large.)

So there has been some progress.

The struggle to change society, and make it more user friendly to all its citizens, more equally, economically as well as politically, in terms of the distribution of decision making power and the benefits therefrom, is an ongoing process. Now whether it leads to "anarchy" per se or not, I'm not here ready to say, but I still continue to be in favour of the radical transformation of society, and to consider it desirable and possible. And I still, even here in my advanced years :-) anxiously await every opportunity to challenge "the system" , take it on, and advance the interests of my class-, which includes myself of course.

Lead through obedience!

Freebc
“I too wish for direct democracy, thinking that where direct democracy rules, the politicians are really just servants over looking the day to day affairs of the state/nation. Nothing more. Meaning that the people rule the governing, not the other way round. Am I correct in this assumption?”

Absolutely! Or as the Zapatistas say, “lead through obedience (to the people)”Even if the majority was wrong from time to time, at least these would be mistakes made by the people and not by a controlling minority. The people can learn from their errors, controlling minorities “errors” are deliberate policies, in the main, which they have no wish to change. Furthermore, when you study polls and surveys, the majority usually take a progressive stance on most things. Also people who might be reactionary on an abstract level, are often not so on a local level, ie, where it effects them personally. Someone might be for the idea of having nuclear waste dumps, but absolutely opposed to one in their region. Direct democracy can harness this positive form of localism.

Those Swiss!

Fiat, participatory democracy could be a synonym for direct democracy. I know that directly after the NDP I got involved with the New Left and participatory democracy was the phrase used then. I soon found that its ancestor lay with the anarchists who practiced direct democracy in their trade unions, mutual aid societies and collectives.
I too, as you know, am worried about our loss of democracy and see as an antidote the building of a grass roots movement for direct democracy.

Freebc and Fiat, I know the Swiss can be roundly and rightly criticized, but nonetheless, their model of decentralized direct democracy, with binding referenda (and even some mass meeting direct democracy in some smaller cantons) is something that ought to be exported. (Before it disappears says Fiat, and he is right!) Do any of you know the name of the Swiss President? Thought you didn't, that's because each leader takes a turn for one year. Furthermore, contrary to our situation 80% of Swiss vote in local elections and only 30% in federal. They do this because the local is where the power is. As for neoclassical economics being somehow anarchistic, not the case. Anarchism first started as economic theory in opposition to classical economics. Proudhon attacked the banking system, interest, profit and the authoritarian way work was managed back in 1840. His main opponent was Frederic Bastiat, a Manchester-type free marketer.

direct democracy

anarcho, I would like to know the ins and outs of this.

As posted earlier, I am a rightwinger with some socialist tendancies. You as stated have gravitated towards left leaning things. But it would appear that our common ground is the belief that the people as a whole have the collective wisdom to do the right thing. Thus it would seem to me that while the party system would likely survive to some degree, merely being attached to some political party would not be some powerful end all as it is now.
Am I reading this correctly? If then direct democracy was the goal, could I a rightwinger and you a leftie work together to this common end? Idiologies would obviously vary on approaches to a miriad of topics, but can we work together on a project such as this? We would look like some strange bird. But at least there would be two wings...

if you wish. I would love to discuss this more.
Mike

Try this and see if TILMA

Try this and see if TILMA fits right in here.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Korten/WhenCorpsRuleWorld_Korten.html

Swiss Direct Democracy

The Swiss system is pretty interesting, but low turnout is a problem. There is a speach from the Swiss Federal Chancellor here that gives a decent overview of the Swiss system.

The only point I would like

The only point I would like to make here is that there're no right and left wings, except in the imagination and propaganda messages of would be "leaders".

The political spectrum is not spread on the horizontal, but sitting on the vertical scale, like C and F on thermometers, with the vast majority of people stored and pressed into the bulb at the bottom and the true ideologues facing and swearing at each other, across a thin line, kicking down on their own to maintain their top positions.

The higher they are the more brothers under the skin .

The difference between communist politbureas and captialist boards of directors is in the colour of the flags they conspire under to keep their powers and steal more.

I don't like government any more than I like toilet paper, but I can remember when we had none, so I prefer to choose and pay for some.

Ed Deak.

voluntary blackout

February 01 2007 at 10:55 shut off the main electrical breaker in whatever building you happen to occupy. Wait 5 minutes and throw it back "on" at 11:00.

We will see what happens

Would total compliance be anarchy or a working democracy?

By the way, this is not my idea: check
www.lallieance.fr

Quote:Am I reading this

I would certainly assume.

There is likely to be no less disagreement on responses to issues within a "direct" democratic system, than there is now, I would think. Meaning that all differences between, what I would call "left and right" approaches, or "conservative/autrhoritarian" and "more liberal/democratic" approaches or tendencies, though Fait would disagree or invert it onto a different scale set, , would continue to have to be worked out through this more "direct" democratic system-, be it applied to the economy and its "enterprise institutions" , or such "political institutions" as continue to prove indispensible.

Such disagreements within society, I would expect, are not going to disappear with the wave of any wand. And they will find their solution through these new "direct democracy" institutions, or they will continue to have to be physically fought out on the street.

The fight here around this issue of who and/or what social class interests will democracy be organized and primarily serve, privileged ruling class ones or the mass of larger, especially working class society, even assuming its eventual satisfactory resolution... Not an absolute certainty either, I don't think, ...is certainly not going to be the end of all differences within society.

People will continue to be people afterall, even after having presumably evolved to a new and higher stage of social development. We are the victims of our flesh.

And ever possible is that we will get it wrong and wind up extinct yet.

DD

It would indeed be a pipe dream to expect that differences would disappear.

But like so many optimists of the past, I believe a system where policy is established by the people rather than a handful of elected representatives would make for a lot greater concensus on many issues rather than the violent knee jerk reactions we get now.

That of course means that we as canadians could establish ourselves as a more neutral country and as more of a peacekeeping country.

Nothing wrong with having a military such as the swiss do. But having the military efforts redirected instead.

I would assume if things went the way of direct democracy, the politicians would be a tad more responsive to public demands. Is that how it is in Swiss politics?

Quote:I believe a system

I would expect and hope as well.

That said, I am not familiar with the details of the Swiss system, only its broad outlines.

Though what I would expect and shoot for, is that "professional politicians" per se, to the degree they continue to be necessay in an "effective" direct democracy system, and I would personally prefer that they become extinct as a species, would be but mere paper shufflers and bureaucrats, responsible for the implementation of direct democracy decisions.

And to the degree that direct democracy would be something that evolves as well, I would certainly work indeed to ensure, as much as is possible, that they "wither away" to an extinct species.

That said, they are a remarkably tenacious lot. :-) Like weeds in a well tended garden even.

In which case, strict limits on length of time in office , and steady replenishment with fresh blood, and regular schooling on "obedience training" would probably be a good thing. :-)

the economy....

And one could say without fear of error I think, that Switzerland continuing to be a fundamentally capitalist society overseen by the same ruling class elites/types as ourselves, does not have a complete "direct democracy" system applied to the institutions and enterprises of the economy either, as I consider fundamental to any meaningful, effective and all inclusive "direct democracy system".

professional politicians.

I don't have a problem with elected officials making laws.

However, I do want those laws ALL to be within the grasp of the voter via iniative. People are not stupid despite the best efforts of all the political parties to make you think so. Any law that is so draconian as to ingnite the ire of the populace needs to be forcibly repealed.

Everyone understands the need for taxes. Myself, I like the flat tax system. So much simpler than long wordy texts which are subject to misinterpretation and misapplication, and so many fewer people to gaze over your taxes.

A simple what did you earn, send in the amount shown. No need for refunds and other games. If you are paid by an employer, perhaps a simple percentage of income will suffice. In a business. Income, out go, left over is the taxable part.

And no more expensive accountants either!!!

Re: Swiss democracy... I

Re: Swiss democracy...

I just wrote to a very knowledgeable Swiss friend in Suisse, asking him, if he could clear up some of the questions on Swiss democracy.

I've been on the same economics list with him for close to 10 years and highly value his knowledge on a wide field of subjects.

Ed Deak.

There, see...

There, see, I do. With a little bit of help on the wording perhaps, from lawyers, attached as advisory employees to the new democratic system, I think the engaged citizenry, through systems of polling, mass meetings, and even a participatory online voting system, or a combination thereof, could prove quite capable at debating and passing or rejecting all proposed laws for themselves-, even proposing them.

And eh, in even the current parliamentary system, there are those that doze through much of it, are off shagging there secretaries, or simply taking mental health days. And they are not all equally bright either. And it's not like they never fuk up and produce bad law.

In any case, even this is something we could disagree on and fight about, even within a new "participatory" or "direct" self-governing citizenry system. :-)

We'll win you right wingers over to the new system, one rightie at a time. :-)

Canadian Anarchism

No one ought to be at all surprized by the turn taken in this forum towards the way the Swiss have organized themselves for several centuries. Like us, the Swiss are a conservative lot. If memory serves, they too lack the revolutionary history that tends to recycle itself in societies that have favoured such an approach.

To me Anarchism is about the people Kunstler calls the the lower orders organizing themselves to fight back against fascistic elites and in favour of basic needs and liberities. There is quite a bit of that sort of thing going on in Latin America and a fair bit of it bubbling away up here in Fortress America.

The Anarchist solution to the closing of the sawmill in New Westminster might be to occupy it and take control of the assets. Nevermind the lobbying government approach.

DD

We'll win you right wingers over to the new system, one rightie at a time. :-)

I don't think you would have a problem getting the rightwingers to run with this. It's the extremes that scare the hell out of everybody.

If everyone would just drop them rocks for a few minutes and elect just one crew whose express purpose is to slap a really short leash (attached to choke chains...) on the politicians and their respective parties, then call an election for real, while ratifying the constitutional amendment/agreement at the same time i think there is a chance at change. But not before unfortunately.

But I would love to stand beside some long haired character from Denman Island with locked arms to tout such a proposal as this!

We can fight over other things later. The big enemy is the traditional party system.

Amen...

Now we're talking a more real "direct democracy" this side of capitalism that I can relate to. This is what real "direct democracy" is in my understanding of it, like I said, this side of the elite ruling class system.

Take it over. Figure it out. Make your mistakes and learn from them. Run it yourselves. The economy like society as a whole belongs to all of us.

So long as we let them claim it as theirs, they will, and run it to serve themselves first and foremost.

The economy and all other institutions of society, in the end and in the final analysis, belongs to those with the cojones/ pussy power to just up and take it. Right now, that's them-, even though they couldn't make it work or make sense without us..

You come back here anytime Mr. Beer N Hockey. :-)

Bang bang, shoot shoot

Another one of those theories that assumes a state not given. As long as everything is good, anarchy is great. I've always thought the real meaning of 'democratic freedoms' was those parts of life not governed by anyone else.

The best parts, sez me. But....

Unfortunately, there remains the black hood of the executioner. Somebody above mentions his pining for a few political assassins, presumably to regulate those he disagrees with. Humans tend to enjoy crime. Lots of theives among us, lots of murderers, greedy bastards polluting the world, child molesters, noisy neighbours, bullies and bozos.

So who decides? If anarchy is the choice, then that responsibility, like all responsibility, rests on each individual. Who will pull the trigger, and on whom?

I think what I'm asking here is, when was the last time you cut somebody off in traffic, and how comfortable would be placing your fate in that person's hands?

Would you really want to rely on the tender mercies of that creep who lives down the street, the one who complains about your cat, or your kid, or your love life?

We ARE descending into Anarchy....

http://www.answers.com/anarchy
...if only because the enforced movement of peoples into cities, which in the end become completely ungovernable.

We shoud be ascendinig into Anarchism:
http://www.answers.com/anarchism
but that would mean a MAJOR restructuring of society, beginning with an extremely large de-population, along with a complete razing of the what we call "cities".

Anarchism is only possible when there is room for (as Ed infers) lebensraum

A sterotype again

Bailey, you are using anarchism in the stereotypical sense that the media uses to close off all discussion. If you have read the comments here you would realize that this is not how we are using the term.. Think of anarchism as an organized tendency beginning with Pierre Proudhon in 1840 to Noam Chomsky today, seeking to empower the population by promoting direct democratic, decentralized and federated government. It also means mutual aid, and, as Coyote and Mr. Beer and Hockey have pointed out direct action.

Convention

I always wanted to watch a convention of anarchists.

Media Stereotype again!

.Why don't you learn about a subject before making inane comments? In the last 38 years I have been to quite a number of anarchist conventions and gatherings. They are not much different from any other gathering, say of environmental or peace activists, cooperators or trade unionists. I suppose you expect us to act like a bunch of raving loonies? Hate to disapoint you, but you would probably be bored at one of our conventions....

Self defeating

A convention of anarchists by it's very nature is self defeating, a true oxymoron. A gathering of the deluded might be a better way to put it.

How do anarchists feel about

How do anarchists feel about big, especially multinational, business and their control of the world's economy, food supply, globalization, the separation of producers from users, requiring huge, long distance transport systems to ensure middlemen profiteering, and the resulting environmental damage ?

Do they believe that so called "free enterprise", as practiced today, the planned destruction of governments and the national state, in search of unlimited profits, is really some form of "individialism", as claimed by the protagonists?

These are genuine questions.

Ed Deak.

Quote:Do they believe that

In most of the cities of the world (especially in the "developing" world), the ordinary citizen lives in a state of anarchy, in that there is very little available to him that does not require him to scrounge for himself, he has little to no recourse to social amenities, and the laws of the land are applied to him in a capricious manner. Consequently, he finds some comfort and security (if not outright survival) in gangs that necessarily form in this virtual anarchistic "muck". That is why right-wing governments are being turfed in S. America, among other manifestations of the anarchic realitiy many of thweworld's dispossessed are required to exist in.

Ed's Question

Anarchists are in the lead against multinational capitalism and the environmental and social damage it does. We are an important factor in the opposition to corporate globalization and seek instead local, environmentally sane production.. We see so-called free enterprise as nothing more than a fraud, since it is based upon corporate law, patent, law, banking law, the military and the police. Corporate capitalism rather than being free enterprise is a form of state capitalism, or the socialism of the rich.. It is pseudo-individualism, or individualism of the gangster, psychopathic in nature. Individual and community are inseparable...

I must confess, I'm still

I must confess, I'm still confused about the real differences between anarchism and libertarianism.

Is it possible both are more personal philosphies guiding behaviour, interaction and outlook, rather than ideologies married to Left and Right respectively?

I can see the viability of anarchism as a personal philosophy or ethic. I'm not sure how viable it is as a model for organizing mass society in a globalized world. How is multi-generational planning possible (which environmental sustainability most certainly now demands)? How does an anarchist model of society account for the spontaneous development of hierarchies, institutions and organized coercion (both 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate'). Can we really get away from all that, or will we only sweep the board for more unrestrained manifestations of hierarchy, coercion and institutionalized hegemony?

As described here - there seems to be a division between 'pure' anarchism and a 'lasallian' anarchism. If this is the case, then how does anarchism differ from the other Noble Lies out there, used to galvinize constituencies and (in particular) tap and harness youth-driven movements for self-identity and change?

One Last Attempt

One last attempt to dispel the media cliches about anarchism as promoted by Do Not Confuse My Mind With Facts Snert
An anarchist organization, Spain's CGT has 70,000 members and represents 2 million workers making it the third largest trade union movement in Spain.
http://www.cgt.es/
International Libertarian Solidarity unites anarchists and libertarian socialists worldwide. The GGT belongs as well as the CIPO-RFM which represents some 200 Oaxacan communities and played a major role there recently, the CNT of France (4000 members) the SAC of Sweden (12,000 members)
http://www.ils-sil.org/en/index.htm
The IWW in the US has more than 2000 members and is busy organizing barristas, immigrant truck drivers etc.
http://www.iww.org/
SDS was reformed last year by anarchists and libertarian socialists. It now has more than 200 chapters across the US.
http://www.studentsforademocraticsociety.org/

Anaracho..... I fully agree

Anaracho..... I fully agree with the sentiments against corporate dictatorship, but what mechanism would you use to break their powers without the national state, strictly enforced laws, and when they claim that they're only following the tenets of "free...." whatever, and individualism ?

Ed Deak.

Why...

Hmmmm. I always seem to have absented myself when some of the best discussions finally get rolling.

As I've said a number of times here, I really don't hang the anarchism label or any other label per se on myself. (And it can possibly be legitimately charged that I at least have a kind of "anarcho-syndicalist" bent, that is a natural and integral part of my view of the world.. I accept this claim of some and recognize the tendency within myself.)

That said, given what little I "formally" know about "official" anarchy, I do nonetheless recognize much of the stereotypical depiction of anarchist ideas some of you seek to advance here. For example, I never met an anarchist that didn't understand the importance of organization, or certainly wasn't capable of engaging in a convention, say. To say otherwise is sheer drivel. (Chaotic running about like chickens with their heads cut off is, I suppose, a kind of anarchy. That is more a product of the of the ruling class fear of the "mindless mob", from which they feel an ever present need to be protected by laws, courts, cops and militaries.. It is not the anarchy we are speaking of here however.)

There are a number of competing visions of "freedom" in the world. Capitalism for example claims the freedom of its so-called marketplace, the freedom to hire and profit from the labour of the mass of society, and the freedom of his/her bourgeois right to enrich himself at the expense of those who must work in his factories, mines,, mills, retail outlets and offices for his/her supper.

And to the capitalist, no doubt, this is a kind of freedom that he/she has historically already demonstrated across a long history of class warfare, their preparedness to secure and defend, with laws and courts that restrict the rights of working people to organize, bargain collectively, and especially in defence of its "management/ownersip rights" to prevent the working class from organizing production and the entire economy themselves, and the distribution of the social "wealth" or "money" product share of the benefits of that economic activity.

No doubt it is a kind of "anarchy", in the organized chaos/criminal sense of the word, but such as primarily benefits their own particular class interests. And it is an anarchy that only works as a consequence of an exercise of control and behavioural restrictions over other or another competing claims set; that of the majority of society. (Hidden behind special property and minority rights protection laws etc.)

But, you see, there is another sense of the word "anarchy" being quite deliberately or unintentionally ignored here, that serves a quite different "interests set" than the ruling class one described above, by those who would serve or apologize, or skirt around their obedience to this notion of "law and anarchic order.". (That particular "anarchy" product of capitalism being evident in the sight of the bodies sleeping upon the streets, for example, or selling their bodies to buy drugs and feed children there upon those same mean streets as well. No doubt a kind of anarchy that is the other side of that ruling class "freedom of the marketplace" coin. It's how the working and other underclasses experience that particular ballyhooed "freedom".)

And this other competing "anarchist" or "freedom" vision that arises from time to time to compete with this market driven one, is a reflexive anti-authoritarian response against that ruling class/co-operating managerial strata control over the rest of majority society, i.e. the "anarchy" in capitalist society as allows that and sees it as "law and order". Additionally this kind of competing "anarchy" with this ruling class notion of "right" is an attempt to put together a competing organizational, rights and freedoms set of ideas, and arrangement of civil society and its economy, such as serves and sets in motion the means of securing it: a self-governing citizenry, organized but not ruled over and exploited by elites. Doubtless, no mean feat to achieve, granted.

But as the current ruling class over the "anarchy" of capitalist society, (again, look to those streets and strikes etc.) is the beneficiary of the violent upheavals and revolutions that wracked Europe, beginning with the English Civil War , from 1642-49, and the subsequent driving from the land of the peasantry, dispossessing and forcing them, our modern wage slave ancestors, into the then rising cities to become the working class of the industrial age , so the modern working class is going to have to be similarly prepared-, if necessary. We too are going to have to be prepared, no less than was this earlier "merchant class" of Europe, over the protests of "right" from the then landed aristocracy of feudalism, to do whatever is necessary, if no more than that, to dispossess and force this ruling class of our time to bend and submit to our "notion rights" of a more meaningful and real "democracy" with its "attendant" majority working class freedoms.

So it is much a matter here of whose notions of "anarchy" and the organization of society and democracy do we choose to serve.

And , for as much as I otherwise respect him, though such as Bailey ever refuses to see it, that is not so much an argument in favour of "violence" per se, as it is an argument in favour of the right of the working class to defend itself against the violence of those who perceive a "right" to rule over them. It is a matter of whose "law" and whose concepts of "order", as well as "freedom" are we talking about here?

And there are ever those who in their preoccupations with this already established "law and order" and "anarchy" business, such as tend to include all the recognized political parties of capitalism, from Conservative through Lib/NDP to Green, see it as something crystalline and pure, and above partisan service or interests. (Consider the way they all fawn over the current ruling class managed, money run "parliament" of our own capitalism) It is an attempt,whether it is intended again or not, to freeze the frame in the present and circumscribe any attempt to peer out at such possibilities as may be outside the box, let alone to punch an actual hole through the box and escape the limitations of the present.

Hogwash.

The forces for change will have to be prepared to do what they have to do. And the choices will not all just be ours. Period.

Nightbloom's excellent questions

Excellent questions Nightbloom! I think part of the problem people have in understanding anarchism is due to traditional politics. Here we have parties who say, “put us in power and we will do so and so.” We are not interested in imposing ourselves upon you, or even converting you to our ideology. Basically, our goal is to change consciousness and to generalize the liberatory and social practices that already exist. We want our ideas to be stolen! We want people to realize the many ways in which they already practice mutual aid, solidarity, direct action, act in a communitarian manner and say, “Why can't we do more of this?” “If we have credit unions, why do we need banks?” If we have coops, why do we need capitalist corporations?”
Yes, true at the micro level anarchism is about small groups forming and disappearing as needed. But this is not the case where permanence, planning and co-ordination are necessary. Credit unions and coops are imperfect from an anarchist perspective, but due to their egalitarian, solidaristic and democratic natures, they are a vast improvement on corporate capitalism. World wide about 1 billion people belong to coops, total value about $1 trillion. You ask about multi-generational planning. Well, the Caisse Populaire Desjardins has 5 million members and has been in existence since 1901. The Spanish CGT union, I mentioned in a previous posting has been around since 1912, in one form or other. The organizational form that anarchism takes for the large scale is the federation. Here again you have the continuity you talk about.
Anarchism arose as a theory of power in large measure due to the possible development of hierarchies in organizations. The “Iron Law of Oligarchy” is pretty well inevitable within large scale organizations. It must be made as easy as possible to get rid of “would-be oligarchs”, hence recallable delegates rather than representatives, consensus (or near consensus) rather than simple majorities, federation, rather than centralization, the use of public assemblies, talking circles, etc. We can never “get away from all that”, but we can make it a hell of a lot better. Summed up, anarchism is a process not a thing to be imposed, and we seek a better situation and not utopia.
Yes there are “pure” anarchists out there, as with any belief or tendency. But the vast majority of us are practical, seeking to build this coop, organize that union, stop this ecological devastation, do support work for the Zapatistas or Oaxacans, etc. A state of complete anarchy may well be a myth, but this does not make it a Noble Lie to con people. If so, having any goal that you might not reach is a lie and I don't think so. Furthermore, we don't present it that way , either in theory or publicly in our propaganda. We dwell on the possible, rather than fancy utopian pipe dreams.

Democracy isn't Anarchism

I'm surprised how "anarcho" keeps confusing anarchism with democracy. The anarchists I know _reject_ democracy (as being "rule by the majority") and prefer consensus -- which isn't "2/3 majority" as "anarcho" wrongly suggested, but agreement by everyone.

Swiss direct democracy comes pretty close to consensus only due to the de-centralized structures of Switzerland and the various checks and balances in the referendum process which take care that the proposed solutions are acceptable to as many citizens as possible. Still, a total consensus is not practically possible.

But apply direct democracy to centralized monolithic countries and you just have a dictatorship of the majority -- a far cry from anarchism.

As to Coyote complaining that Switzerland is "a fundamentally capitalist society overseen by the same ruling class elites/types as ourselves", I can say that Switzerland traditionally has state-owned public services of world-class quality, and a popular referendum has stopped the privatization of electricity which has ruined the EU electricity markets. Another referendum introduced a moratorium on GMOs, after which the Swiss government had to admit that it will have to follow the people's orders. While in neighboring Austria, the EU government prohibited a similar ban on GMOs that was wished by Austrians.

Alternatives to "the state"....

What Beer N Hockey said above:

Though I would suggest the attempt to reshape society likely needs to go on along all social fronts, from the State, to education, to the workplaces of the corporate economy, it fundamentally and most effectively boils down to, be prepared to seize and occupy. Take ownership of it. it. Make it yours. Make your mistakes and learn from them.

I would not, however, immediately, in the short run, entirely write off the national level state. Though I certainly would seriously begin a process to radfically "circumscribe" its current almost "absolutist" power, localizing much of it current power over society, in addition to radically improving the set levels of working class/majority society representation there.. (I still some buy into the early communist notion of "withering away" the State, only as quickly as possible, given the ever present danger embodied there, for so long as it exists.)

(The mom and pop shops of the economy are quite another matter-, where they have employees, to be dealt with through special arrangements that provide more co-operative style "worker rights" on a kind of sliding or graduating scale, depending how the potential of the particular business evolves.)

My view.

Excellent...

Anarcho,

An excellent response to nightbloom immediately above me here.

A good and useful thread all around, I think. Politics, even left wing politics, is about much more than just the NDP, Liberals or Greens-, who tend to get the majority attention here.

Refreshing. Like lemon on the tongue-, cleansing the palate. .:-)

Ed's Question

First off, Ed I am not really opposed to social democratic methods of controlling corporate capitalism. Anarchists prefer social democracy to corporate neo-feudal barbarism. This may seem like a contradiction, but the fact is, no theory, no ideology can cover all the bases, so to speak. Human need should always come before any ideology or theory, as well. That said, I believe that social democracy mis-understands the genesis of corporate capitalism and therefore does not apply the most effective remedies. The corporatist system is rooted in state granted privileges. I would eliminate these. I would get rid of the corporation as fictitious individual, limited liability, I would replace patent law with a limited term of royalties, severely restrict eminent domain, make the Bank of Canada issue credit like it used to (rather than the state borrowing through banks) abolish all forms of corporate welfare and demand shares in return for the gifts given in the past. All shareholders would be made voting shareholders, abolishing feudalistic control of corporations. All stakeholders in a major industry would be made board members. All corporatized (so-called privatized) services and industries would be re-nationalized without compensation and turned into stake holder coops. Each of the criminals who stole the public's property would go to jail for life. I would tear up NAFTA and all the other fraudulent “free trade” scams. Of course, this is all hypothetical as the Americans would invade...

Helvetius comment

Anarchism cannot be reduced to direct democracy. I don't if you read the other postings I also refer to direct action, solidarity, regionalism, decentralization, cooperatives etc. Yes, we are critical of majority rule, which is why we prefer a consensus approach. I suggest super majorities as a practical measure, consensus works well in small groups but not thousands of people. Anarchism is I repeat a process, not a thing to be imposed. A minority of anarchists don't understand this and would hold back in pristine purity from the real struggles, but this isn't the majority of us.

Warning

I see.
No response to my post above.

I intend to respond thusly: I will not be frapping away on this or any other computer at those times
February 1, 10:55 to 11:00am
Even if you do not take part in what I think is an "Anarchist/direct Democracy" experiment you could be affected by it if enough people in your neighbourhood participate.

So far there have been no reports regarding this event in the "media" However, it is on the internet. I hope BCHydro is also aware of the possibility.

Europeans might take more notice. Especially the French where the call originated.

If you do nothing else I recommend that you unplug any sensitive electronic equipment because some electrical transmission systems could experience fluctuations in voltage if enough customers hit the switch at the same time.

I expect this to be a "non event" here in BC but I intend to symbolically turn off the main breaker in whatever building I find myself on that occasion:

February 1, 10:55

More for Helvetius

I should add that the most important recent manifestation of anarchism in practice has been the Oaxacan APPO which is a direct democratic assembly. Not only are the Mexican anarchists an important factor in the APPO, it is also supported by anarchists world-wide, many of whom came to Oaxaca to help out.

Doggone...

Go for it. :-)

Chumbawamba

The British anarco band Chumawamba latest release is now available through the AKPRESS website.

Always great music from this band now celebrating it's 25th anniversary.

Can't afford it? Request that your local library purchase it!

Chumbawamba continued.......

Oh...it's called "A Singsong and a Scrap"

You're still deluding yourself

anarcho

In total absolute utter denial of the fact that the instant you organize you become subject to the exact same vices you so despise. It's human nature. So what, if anarchists and libertarian socialists worldwide are united. All they are after is power, the same as any other superficially altruistic organization.

"Human need should always

"Human need should always come before any ideology or theory "

This is a lesson many still need to learn.

But I think that they'd / we'd need to learn the difference between wants and needs.

Or maybe the lessons should be on empathy and compassion.

In any case we humans have had thousands of years to learn these lessons ...how close have we gotten to it?

Total hoseshit!

Snert, "In total absolute utter denial of the fact that the instant you organize you become subject to the exact same vices you so despise. It's human nature. So what, if anarchists and libertarian socialists worldwide are united. All they are after is power, the same as any other superficially altruistic organization."

Tital and utter horseshit! Study a little anthropology first before you spout your reactionay cliches. Human nature is a very flexible thing. Yes, large scale organizations are subject to the Iron Law of Oligarchy as I previously pointed out. But I also said there are ways of combatting it and that it is a continuous struggle. Anarchists recognize that there are some problems which are more or less eternal, but this does not mean that society cannot be improved. We are not after power over others , for the simple reason that such does not work for maqking a better society. What does work is empowerment of the people and that is what we seek.

nightbloom

Simple answer.....it cannot function as a model for "organizing". Organizing always means forcing someone into doing someting they would prefer not to do.
A society by its very nature, both infers and confers obligations on its particpants (or as anarcho alludes to, force change - but that is not anarchism). The only alternative to this is for objectors to leave. That is why I made reference to "lebensraum"........

Yeah, right.

That's easy for you to say , doing it is another matter entirely. I see nothing to indicate that this movement is not going down a road that has been travelled, without success, many times before.

When you use terms as you did before you show that although you may be aspiring to higher principles it's the same old bullshit and bafflegab that has been spread for years by those who feel they are the underdogs of society.

If you feel oppressed then you are oppressed. Whether or not you actually are is usually a matter of opinion.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be helped to improve their status just don't waste their time with pure unmitigated BS.

Social democracy

I will freely admit that my mind is having problems with a few words used owing to their relative misuse perhaps.

Anarchy as I am used to thinking is everyone doin' their own thing with no way to stop that doin'. I am having trouble accepting the idea of anarchy as a good thing.

The other ones are 'social democracy'. The way they are being bantered about here is frightening to guys like me. It sounds an awful lot like communism to me anyway. The idea of nationalizing anything that is currently private or corporately held is troublesome to me.

That and the idea of afflicting mom and pop shops with the expensive perks that come with large corporations is also difficult when margins are small.

My wife currently owns a small boutique. She has one part time employee who costs as much as she is making for herself. My wife works at the business the full open period from 10-5 six days a week, plus she works at buying for another 20-25 hours a week. How much is that worth?

Why not instead just make medical and dental coverage part of a universal care package?

I was watching on the news the other day and there was a story about medical plans in Europe and such. They have a block of dollars that would follow the patient rather than being issued to a health authority as they are now. According to the story, medical services are better and it's costing the system less in those jusidictions. I would like to know more about that. But it seems that anything medical is subject to unreasonably high fees for service. I know I can't afford that.

And there is the view from the employers of what is occuring in San Fransico. Again, I would have plans to move if I was a small business person there. Either that, or I would have everyone laid off yesterday. In a society which wants Cadillacs at Hyundai prices, there just isn't the margins to pay for everything demanded by the socialist hoards. Sorry...

However, that all said, I will have zero problem with stealing away the absolute powers the politicians seem to enjoy right now. Politicians may have the most wonderful intent at the outset, but after they have inhaled whatever noxious gas is vented into the house in Victoria or Ottawa, they turn stupid. They all seem to do it...

But power mad are they ALL and they all need a leash, that's for sure.

Then, by all means, take these ideals before the population as a whole, let them be debated and then voted on, and let the chips fall where they may. I will go for that.

Dishonest argument!

First Snert says anarchists are chaotic, that proven wrong, he then says, because we are organized we are as bad as the dominators. Buggered if you do, buggered if you don't. This is a classic propaganda trick, of course, and it isn't just anarchists that it is used against, but the progressive movement as a whole. And I would like to see how my putting human need above ideology, as expressed by a certain level of critical support for social democracy, makes me a power-seeker. I think it does the opposite. Anyway, Snert does not accept the class nature of this system and foolishly thinks exploitation and oppression are all in your head. Climb down from Cloud Nine, fella!

re-social democracy

freebc, social democrats are no longer into nationalizing anything, though it would be a good thing if they nationalized was was essentially stolen property and then handed it back to the people in the form of stake-holder coops. You see corporate capitalism is essentially a racket based upon state priviledge. Genuine entrepreneurs and small business, I have no trouble with, in fact life should be made easier for them. The reason it isn't is to put them out of business so the corporations can eliminate any competition.. Anarchism as "doin yer own thing" is a popular way of putting it, but there is a social movement by that name which seeks to empower people and get rid of authoritarian hierachies.

Organizing not necessarily coercive

RW, "Organizing always means forcing someone into doing someting they would prefer not to do."

Organizing can be either coercive or non coercive. An army or a bureaucracy organizes in a coercive fashion - you have no power to refuse them, you lack the choice whether to join or not. Anti-authoritarian organizing on the other hand is a matter of going around and asking people if they would like to join or not and not having the ability to force anyone to do so. Organizing a birthday party does not involve coercion, neither does organizing a coop or an environmental group. Non-authoritarian organizing is in fact a key part of the democratic process., please do not confuse the two kinds. (otherwise you end up looking like that idiot, Snert)

Anarchists are chaotic

anarcho

You did not prove that anarchists are not chaotic. You proved that those calling themselves anarchists are in actual fact not.

Also, another classic propaganda trick is to accuse those who don't agree with you of spreading propaganda.

Further, if you don't think you are a power seeker then go forth and put human need above ideology all on your own without any political agenda. It can be done.

You didn't finish this off. You should have ended it with - and replaced them with another authoritarian hierarchy. That is precisely what the end result will be.

I don't know if you have ever been involved in a pure democratic process but I'll tell you right now if the room was full of anarchists absolutely nothing would get done so why would any group of individuals with such noble goals as you espouse want to associate themselves with such a screwed up philosophy.

Does the word 'anarchist' carry some sort of mystical property? Does it imply that if one can change the meaning of a word one can change the world?

I think that smoke and mirrors are present at this masquerade ball and that people are just fooling themselves into thinking they are actually coming up with new ideas that have never been tried before.

It begs the question that if you think of yourself as a 'social democrat' why would you want to call yourself an 'anarchist'?

Says who?

Ah, but you see Snot, even though from your political positions you will not concede it, of course, Anarcho and others here have, in fact, proven that "Anarchy" does not equate with "chaos".

And that anarchists are in fact not anarchist, because they do not equal "chaos", in order to fit with your wingnut definitions, says who?

Only you and your kind, of course. But then that can scarcely be said to be an "objective" judgement-, and so because you have your political axe to grind and your class prejudices and positions to defend. Defending the ruling class positions of capitalism that you do, of course, from that privileged perspective with all its class prejudices and assumptions, anarchy equates with chaos,

All that you have demonstrated is that one's class/political view of a thing tends to prejudice ones view of a counterposing phenomena, such as anarchy, differing views of democracy as they apply to the economy and the political institutions of society, and the legitimacy of direct action by working class/broad community forces to secure their interests.

Anarchy and other "liberation ideologies" equate chaos to you, so if they do not themselves claim and demonstrate that, they are illegitimate. And we understand exactly where you are coming from.

But which is your judgement alone, and that of the class interests you are part of and/or have chosen to serve.

I/we would beg to differ..

One cannot be...

One cannot be, or a description of oneself cannot be more than one given, narrow thing at one and the same time, having nothing in common with any other thing? If one claims a label, another cannot?

Such a pathetic, unbalanced, non-connected fuk that person or idea would be.

Look deeply here. This is a mirror.

See yourself?

More nonsense from Snert.

Pulling a double bind trick like you did is a propaganda stunt. Why shouldn't I call a spade a spade? The majority of the world's anarchists are in the organizations whose URL's I presented you as examples of organized anarchists. I could present other groups as well like the IWA (INternational Workers Association) or the IAF (International Anarchist Federation) plus numerous non-federated groups, as well, all of which are organized. Who speaks for anarchists.? You who know nothing about it, or the anarchist organizations, some of which are 100 years old? I could also quote you every anarchist theorist from Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin down to Woodcock, Bookchin and Chomsky, who would also say the same as I do. You are out of your league, fella! Go learn something before you babble your childish nonsense.
I have been in many many direct democratic anarchist meetings over the last 38 years, and stuff gets done, just like in any other meeting. Sometimes it is slower to get a consensus, but it does work, nonetheless.
Where did I say I was a social democrat? I said that I can support some of what social democracy has done to help people. That is not at all the same as saying that I am one, and you know it!

peyote

OK peyote we know just how valid your argument is when you start it of with name calling. Enough said on that one.
BTW I don't know how many times you used the word class in this page but until now I haven't used it once. Feeling a little oppressed are we?

anarcho

I still don't understand why a supposed respectable philosophy (the impression you are trying to give) should represent itself with a word that is subject to unintended interpretation. I don't care how wonderful the philosophy is, equating it with chaos and calling yourself an Anarchist just makes one wonder. Do you have secret handshakes?

I have watched an interview with Chomsky done on PBS and was not impressed.

Yawn...

It was an appropriate response considering you spent every post previous to that making inane assertions and sniping at people.

Nothing wrong with using the appropriate language.

Please don't use your ignorance as proof of anything. Anarchism comes from the Greek anarchos which simply means "without rulers". Now, if this is anidea that gives you a panic attack, then clearly you, yourself are some sort of closet fascist and this whole conversation is a waste of time.

Well, hot damn! You're ready to write a PhD on anarchism then! One whole interview with Chomsky!? On PBS no less?! You have put me to shame, that's for sure.

anarchy

Back to Orwell and "Homage to Catalonia":
The best (and only) account of an anarchist society which functioned for a short time there.

Before it was kneecapped by the Russian "Communists" the P.O.U.M. actually held the fighting line against the Fascist armies. Very good description of the behaviour of the elite in the situation: they made themselves invisible.

Errr...

Errrr... My apology. I meant "Snert" not "Snot".

My spellchecker didn't catch it. It let "snot" through just fine.

:-)

Nahhhh...

Nahhhh! I'm liberated beyond your ability to believe, let alone understand.

Snert again,

"I still don't understand why a supposed respectable philosophy... should represent itself with a word that is subject to unintended interpretation."

Ever hear of propaganda? Because a tiny handful of supposed anarchists set off some bombs back in 1890, the media has smeared the anarchists with the chaos and violence cliche ever since. But anarchist isn't the only word that has been perverted by the propagandists, so too, socialist, communist and liberal. It isn't unusual Snert. By the way, I use the term anarchism here because I expect the people on this list to be educated enough to distinguish between media propaganda and reality. but in your case, I see this isn't so. Well-read people know that anarchism is a political and social philosophy based upon an analysis of power and has had an important impact on fields as varied as education, sexuality/ gender equality, art and literature, the environmental movement and city planning.
As for Chomsky, I suspect someone as knowlegeable as yourself would not be impressed with one of the world's foremost thinkers, after all, you know so much more than he does.

Doggone right!

Homage is a first rate book and is probably the best intro to anarchist practice you can find. I first read it in 1968 and up till then I had been flirting with Trotskyism, but Orwell changed my mind on that. A couple of months later I ran into an old Wobbly who gave me oodles of anarchist literature to read and I never looked back...

If you're gonna quote use the full text

anarcho

or is that anarchist MO? Did a quick perusal of anarchism on Wiki and it seems that there are more flavours of anarchism than Carter's has pills. Sounds pretty 'chaotic' to me.

Propaganda: a word that is a double edged sword if I ever saw one.

Having studied ideologies

Having studied ideologies for many years, and fought one or two, I have left all of them long time ago, because history shows that even the most beautiful religions and logical
ideologies can be twisted into weapons of extortion and mass murder.

As we can witness with the 3 major religions today.

Unless humanity turns to strict, physical laws based, local and from the ground up economic systems, - yes, it can be done and I've been working on it for 22 years, in practice, backed up by world class scientists who gave me a lot of advice- to put it mildly, the human race can kiss its ass goodbye.

I'm a member of the NDP to register my protest and with a faint hope that one day the Party may wake up, but not for ideological reasons.

Ed Deak.

Variety is its strength

Yes, there are many types of anarchism, but all share certain common aspects. Furthermore, except for a small sectarian minority - inevitable in any system of thought - they work together. People used to authoritarian politics might find that hard to deal with, but it is a form of unity in diversity which makes it stronger in some ways than authoritarian beliefs.

I don't think there is much point continuing this as I see that you are determined to discredit anarchism no matter what. No matter what evidence I could produce, it would not satisfy you. Your mind is made up already. As a parting shot, just to show you what a nice guy I am, Snert, I will let you in on a bit of wisdom that will help you immensely in this life. (I assume you are about 17 years old, by your comments) It is this; whenever you encounter someone who knows more than you do about a subject, learn from that person. This does not mean that you have to agree with everything the person says, but when you have picked that person's brain, make up your mind about what you have learned. Do this through life and you will become an educated person rather than wallowing in a gutter of supermarket tabloid cliches.

anarcho

Unless one has no choice but to attend. That's what I mean about lebensraum. If your society chooses to be one big happy birthday party, the only choices you would have would be to join or to leave the society.

I'll keep it in mind

for when I actually do.

Do you have anyone in mind?

RW, Quote: Organizing a

RW, Quote:

Organizing a birthday party does not involve coercion

Unless one has no choice but to attend. That's what I mean about lebensraum. If your society chooses to be one big happy birthday party, the only choices you would have would be to join or to leave the society."

We are in danger of going around in circles here. Non-coercive organization by its very nature would allow one to join or not join. I don't get your point. The essence of the anarchist approach is a mass of voluntary associations.

"anarchism seems not to

"anarchism seems not to contain the potential for totalitarianism".
Anarchism sounds good until the bullies take over.

Law and Order

"There are only 3 things you could not do in an anarchist society - not coerce, invade or exploit others. The whole point about anarchism - the maximization of liberty - you seem to have missed..."

Very interesting discussion, but when anarchists look at the type of society they want, they usually gloss over the whole law and order issue. Many that call themselves "anarchists" have no problem with violence against law and order officials or destroying other's property. Sadly, their issues get largely ignored because of their willingness to create "anarchy" in the streets.

If we weren't to be ruled by anyone, that would include, I assume, the judiciary. Wouldn't that have to go? Imagine judges taking away our personal freedoms. I would imagine law and order under an anarchy society to resemble something like old, Frankish law. A harm visited upon me allows me to respond in kind, perhaps even in a harsher way. That is true freedom. Can't I decide what my justice should look like; especially when a wrong has been perpetrated against me? What would law and order look like under anarchy? It is a fair question.

It is an interesting article, and I will try and read the book. Thanks for pointing me to it, Tyee!

Respect...

As much as I respect your "ideological" viewpoint Ed, and understand there are very many really good people in the NDP, in addition to your own clearly thought through positions, ideas and policy sets, which I would certainly describe as a "kind of" ideology, the NDP itself is steeped in its own "official" social democratic ideology. And the essence of that NDP ideology has long been, and become even more so since the passing of that generation of its leadership personified by Tommy Douglas, who had their roots in the realities and memory of the Great Depression of the 1930s, more and more a compromise with capitalism, and an underlying acceptance of the limits, democratic and economic, of capitalism.

We could argue this point here 'til the cows come home, I understand, but I would suggest still, most respectfully that you carry a clearly definable and well articulated "ideology" yourself, how e're much it be one developed by yourself and grounded in objective science,. (Marx made the same claim, as you likely know.)

An ideology by any other name remains an ideology just the same. Likely it is, the minute one puts ideas, certainly of a political nature to paper, and all that touch upon it from philosophy and economics certainly, one is either creating or articulating rudimentary ideology at least-, be it one's own or another's.

The issue is, how well grounded in reality is that ideology, and useful to the purpose for which it is designed. And I would say that yours is overall very well crafted, grounded and useful.

All that remains is for it to be distorted and misused by future followers of it. :-) Or to become dated by new "objective" developments, and thereby rendered practically unusable in the then "new socio-political and economic conditions" such as have evolved.

After all of which, I myself find much practically correct and useful in your own, personal ideology. :-) Except on this lesser point.

On the other hand...

On the other hand, it occurs to me, that the problem with any ideology, even "science based" ones, outside of those clearly so like religion which make no such claim even, is their tendency over time to become fixed or static, and to decline into a "belief system" with religion-like tenets that are more rote adhered to than any longer evolving, and hence any longer truly "scientific". At that point in the development of an ideas set or "ideology" it is, that it becomes something else, often potentially more dangerous and a tool of socio-political manipulation.

The fate as likely befalls eventually, all ideologies and ideas sets, given the passage of enough time. Which eventually seems to catch up with and pass them all, how e're timeless they may think they are.

Which is my "ideology" on this point. :-)

Which applies...

Which applies to the working and dispossessed classes within capitalism, no less. So long as society remains divided into different social classes, this has to be the overarching rule, or right of response.

The street is the real court of last resort within class riven capitalism, in response to its manipulations, inequalities and oppression.

Sad but true, and necessary.

What bullies?

mjf

"anarchism seems not to contain the potential for totalitarianism".
Anarchism sounds good until the bullies take over."

The bullies are already in charge! The whole point with direct democracy, self-management and decentralization is to eliiminate the bullies. I think that you have not bothered to read the postings here and have just assumed the media cliche about anarchism being "anything goes", rather than a process whereby the population is empowered in its communities and work places.

Good question, Chris!

I must reiterate the point that anarchism is a process and not a thing to be imposed. We will NOT wake up one day and find we have a full-blown anarchist society. Should the anarchist movement succeed, instead we will have a continual pressure to empower the population through the replacement of representative democracy by more direct-democratic forms, centralization by federalism, the concentration of power at the top by decentralization and the capitalist corporation by various forms of cooperatives. As for justice, the traditional anarchist response is the use of the jury. Most crime in society is artificially created by inequality and the creation of black markets. I don't think rules and laws are going to dissappear, but they would be rational ones and reflect the will of the populace, not special interests as today. For example, anarchism in practice right now, is the demand to treat drug addiction as as social-medical problem and not as a criminal one and to eliminate all laws against victimless "crimes" like pot smoking. Yes, some anarchist have been yahoos, but no more so than in a hockey-riot. This sort of thing has also gone out of style pretty rapidly as the young trashers grow up. Note too that some of that "law breaking:" is also civil disobedience which has always been part of the democratic process, though I suspect you may be referring not to it, but window smashing.

gotta love wikipedia

I got this from wikipedia: "The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply nihilism, anomie, or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the spontaneous order of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid, voluntary association, and direct action."

So, Anarchy really isn't only about personal freedoms. But, the only modern society that was an anarchist society, with no government, was Somalia. How do you stop the anthropological "big man" from emerging in such a society? Getting rid of authority and replacing it with warlords isn't the best. Perhaps the first step in producing the kind of society that anarchists seem to want, you'd need the entire poplution of the world to put away any religious, racial, and cultural differences. Only then would you be able to form communities that wouldn't clash with others, forcing these groups to seek protection under warlords. I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime. The religious differences alone make it impossible.

Somalia no anarchy

Warlords were probably the first form that illegitimate authority took. I would not consider Somalia an example of anarchism. There was (is?) no central state government, but rather a lot of warlord-ruled micro-states. And since warlords grow out of a situation of intensely brutal conflict, I would suggest anything approaching an anarchist concept of government is impossible to achieve through extreme violence. As for religious, cultural and ideological differences, these present no problem if people holding these views are libertarian enough not to attempt to bully, suppress or persecute those with differing views. I suggest this already exists among most Canadians and that the authoritarians in this regard are only a minority, and a declining one at that. The thing is, not to get people to give up on their cherished beliefs, but simply to respect other folks right to have their own different beliefs.

" I would not consider

" I would not consider Somalia an example of anarchism."

Wikipedia did.

"The thing is, not to get people to give up on their cherished beliefs, but simply to respect other folks right to have their own different beliefs."

That is the anit-thesis of many religions, including Christianity.

Response to Chris H

Chris H, Wikipedia is not infallible. Somalia may have been in a state of "anarchy" -- to use the word loosely, as a synonym for chaos -- but it did not and does not remotely resemble the kind of society actual Anarchists envision. And anyway, the word "anarchy" does not appear in the current Wikipedia article on Somalia, except in the titles of some external sources cited there.

Freedom of belief may or may not be the antithesis of Christianity and other religions. Regardless, anarcho is right that most people, religious or otherwise, in a liberal society like Canada's generally have no problem letting others keep their own beliefs. (My devout Catholic mother isn't happy that I'm an atheist, but she's not disowning me any time soon. Yes, there are sobering exceptions, but in general we enjoy freedom of thought.)

I sure as hell wouldn't

I sure as hell wouldn't consider Somalia or any other warlord state an example of the kind a philosophy of anarchy we are talking here, but more an example of the post colonialism, failed state "anarchy" of quite the other "chaos" kind which status quo society attempts to exemplify political anarchism.

Many words have more than a single meaning, of which this is but one example of many. And the failure to make that clear is but one example of the shortcomings not uncommon with Wikipedia. Warlordism in Europe after the collapse of Rome, in fact, laid down the foundations for feudalism and the rights of Kings and Princes, and the other landed aristocracy. Not anybodies idea of anarchism, of which I am aware. :-)

Wikipedia is certainly, while frequently useful, not the last word on this subject or many others.

As for Christianity, or other forms of absolutist "belief system" fundamentalism, folks will just have to deal with it as best we can, as we do now, increasingly by ignoring it, and where it attempts to impose itself or attach itself to elitist political trends, smack it back into place as absolute need be. That's life in any social order: Where it is impossible to resolve a problem peacefully through consensus building negotiation, if its serious enough, you just have to physically fight it out on the street or wherever.

Life ain't never to likely be perfect, whether we're talking anything.

Anarchism is, in the eyes of most of its beholders, at least those with whom I have been familiar, an ongoing process, ever becoming but never achieved, like perfection-, not a clearly definable end in itself, as anarcho continues to attempt to make clear.

The problem here with many, I suspect, is we have lived under or been ever ruled over by clearly definable and more or less rigid social structures, with its system of ruling class heirarchies, such that some cannot any longer conceive of another possibility-, or they benefit in some way, as part of a relatively privileged professional-managerial strata for that ruling class, by way of example.

anarchism

I think the issue finally boils down to semantics for anarchists. Because of the number of associated meanings that come with anarchy, among which the worst seems to float to the surface first and foremost in most people's minds. That being the case, I guess what is needed is a different word or phrase to get the point across.

Anarchism explained to me sure doesn't seem to do it with the bulk of the population, and sure don't do it with the older folks. I mean, I'm 50 and am having trouble still with the definition you have given for anarchism.

In the sixties, the hippie/black movement in the states wanted "POWER TO THE PEOPLE!" or "PEOPLE POWER!".

We don't want anything different now. Perhaps it's time to resurrect the terms again.

At least old buggers like me can relate to that...

Power to the People, Right on!

Freebc, generally when talking to the populace at large I never bring up the "A" - word. What I talk about is direct democracy, decentralization, self-management, regionalism, coops etc. Very few people - not one in 20 disagree with me, however, had I used the A-word we would be tangled up in the semantic arguments that we find here and our potential common ground forgotten about. I do use the A-word in Tyee, because other than a few semi-literates like Snot and The Clueless One, most folks here are at least open to exploring new ideas and concepts in a rational manner.
I would also like to point out that it was the New Left that gave rise to notions like participatory democracy and Power to the People. And guess where the New Left (in its pre-Maoist stages, that is) got much of its ideas. Yup, those A-folks! Anyway, you and I agree on what is important and bugger the ideologies and semantic. Altogether now, POWER TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT ON!

anarcho & circles

Imagine a room full of people, and with no exits. If everyone in the room, either through active particpation or lethargy, agrees to a birthday party, except you, there is immense pressure (however subtle) to partake. And if you cannot "escape" you may be forced to at least pay lip service.
For anrachism to be effective, an individual needs to be able to exit a situation to avoid coercion. Case in point is our taxation system. We are coerced into playing their game....no choice.

Direct Democracy

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. It is really making me look at anarchism in a new light. As a school teacher, it is similar to the problem of maintaining "control" but allowing choice, expression, and individuality among the students. Luckily, we have great thinkers, like Alfie Kohn, to guide us on the correct path.

It seems to me that "direct democracy" had a large foothold in the Preston Manning Reform days. They had no problem taking away minority rights because it was the will of the majority. Look at the "direct democracy" that has taken place in certain Surrey schools. More than 80% of parents voted for school uniforms, and some are upset that all children cannot be forced to wear them. It isn't only the "Left" that wants to empower the people.

A different spelling for Anarchism

Anachronism.

Give Snert a hanky...

Ya just can't say it enough.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Right on, right on.

Snot, you're running again. Take a wipe. Gross.

Aha! True colours.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE! Told you it was about power.

I may be dribbling but, peyote, you're drivelling.

It always has been...

It's always been much a question of the level of people's understanding.

There's always a choice, even in capitalism. Pursue your own interests, or take up those of the ruling class as your own. The working class are not angels or saints. They are that weak flesh kind of stuff.... with "potential".

And the fact is, which even we "lefties" have to face up to, to here in historical time anyway, there is a long history of folks reliance on ruling classes. It's the tide we're still bucking, as I have been all my friggin' life. :-) (And all "they", the enemy have to do is, keep just barely enough bought off, or just enough of the mass to decide it, contented at least enough that they won't rise up. That they will at least grudgingly accept their servitude/lot in life and behave,at least with their standing aside and not getting involved on the side of "the anarchists" and anti-capitalism radicals.

And though there are important periods where ruling class greed goes too far and they piss folks off, generally they have ruled for a long time because they understand that. And folks do "comply". Which always leaves the serious left waiting for those cyclical periods where [the ruling class system miscalculates, as they invariably do, sooner or later, and our cages are opened and we are released again into the world. :-)

Until then, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of its ruling class. It's always been hard for folks to overcome that handicap.

Again, it's that popular level of understanding thing. It's what has caused the NDP to give up and content itself with just going with the flow, and to play the game with the ruling class system.

But we of the great revolutionary unwashed are becoming emboldened again, because our instincts tell us that with the rise of the Neocon lean and mean economy, and its reversion to its old steriotypical capitalism "survival of the fittest social model, the betrayal of the country to the US Empire and involvement in its wars, and given the rising danger of global war, they are miscalculating again. They are going too far.

The time of the anarchist and other social revolutionaries approacheth. :-)

Keep it up you Neocon fuks. All the world is a stage and we expect all you mindless Snerts to play your assigned and rehearsed roles in the piece. :-)

Bring it on.

The problem is that the

The problem is that the "people" don't want that power, or any power. They want "leaders" to do their thinking and acting. This is why we have this morbid fascination and propaganda for, who is the best "leader" ?

All democracies of the past have become self imposed dictatorships, because people don't want to think and make decision, rather leave it to somebody else

One of the big propaganda items in the Soviet bloc "democracies" was that people didn't have to think who to vote for, which meant that they were "free". I'm not joking.

What percentage do make up their minds on their way to the polling stations, which candidate and party to vote for? I don't know, but must be quite high number.

We only have one polling booth in our small community and sometimes we have to wait, and wait, for somebody to make his, or her, mind up between 4-5 names on the ballot, standing there like an idiot , and we can see their legs stomping around in despair of indecision.

So, how do we make people think, or want to think?

Ed Deak.

Flavour of the day.

So you're saying that you want to replace/become this or both?

Oh, that's right, in reality if you replace it you become it.

snert

http://www.answers.com/Anachronism

Ed

I am not sure about the "want" to think, but make think would be to create a perpetual state of uncertainty - to remove those who "volunteer" to do all the thinking, so we don't have to.....

The problem is...

Christ! I've been in here off and on all day. I really must get a life. :-)

But I had to say that I agree entirely with you, Fait. It really is that simple.

That said, I know that working class folks have busy lives and their own day to day worries that occupy them, and really, all they want is some space like all animals, to reproduce safely, have an adequate food supply and raise their families. That is the essence of working class life, at least as I have lived it.

And most working class folks don't have high expectations is the fact of the matter. That is what is really sufficient for them.

Which is a good thing for the future, if we can create social and economic models that are in synch with their lives and needs and wants. And it really is. Their numbers at sustainable levels, working class folks and their real expectations are about as good for the "environment" as it it is likely to get.

And as mujch as they can, within the framework of those needs and wants, they will shut the rest of the world out.

The problem is these frigginj' assholes who understand that and seek to use it against them. And they, the working class need to be educated to understand that. Save what it takes, unfortunately, in my experience, is that the unequal relationship has to come to an irresolvable crisis in order to compel them to act.

(I have supper in the oven here, and have to quickly get back to it.)

So if there is a "key" right now, I think, it is "education", not in the abstract, but of the working class-, about economics, class and social systems, and the importance of their role in it if it has any hope in hell of changing. And engagement. Drawing them in, at whatever levels and around whatever issues that impact on their lives as can.

It's a matter of finding that single page, like with your wet thumb and a great book, so that you can turn that page to the rest of the story. For even working class folks have the potential for greatness, in my view.

And the survival of our species and our world depends upon it, again in my view.

Now Mrs. Coyote is clamouring for supper.

just thinking...

I would think all ideologies involve process... they, in fact cannot escape it. The danger is when they become petty , a kind of romanticism....well, a narcissism, really, that falls in love with itself and recognizes no values above their own ...not freedom, truth or life itself.

Then they must yield and wither... or be forced to do so.

That anarchism requires that people actively participate..well, more than that , that it requires that people be continually aware of the process that they are part of ...especially in regard to the ever-changing nature of it, well... I think that can only be a good thing. How all this is to be accomplished I am not so sure.

Ed asks a good question above, because my instincts are that the answer is not to be found in just economics or politics, and Ed may very well disagree with me but also, I think, in the larger questions involving human psychology and philosophy.

One has only to read the Tyee comments to see all the varying psychologies at work.

Eventually it will all come down to that.. not just "how do we get people to think?" ...but also "how do we get people to think about what life is really about?" (And just so I don't sound too airie-fairie here, I recognize that, in turn, the choices of the systems we choose determine the quality of thought...that these are interconnected).

In the end, despite all the political labels, what we are really voting about again and again is our individual take on the meaning of life.

Our luck was having been

Our luck was having been born on the wrong side of WW2 and waking up to the fact that all our growing up years, and most of our schooling have been lies.

For most people it would have meant jumping into another pot, and we watched many doing it, but for my wife and I, it was a brutal awakening, never to fall into the same trap again.

We met when I was an 18 year old wounded veteran in a POW MASH hospital and she a 17 year old refugee girl, with her parents.

It took us 6 years before we could get together, we went through hell a few times, but made it and live happily, ever after.

Our house was always a place of learning, creating and thinking freely, without preconceptions and prejudices, surrounded by hundreds of books on any given subject.
Our dinner table was always an open forum for the discussion of the greatest variety of subjects, often surprising our guests.

Our children, now in their 40s, rejected everything we stand for, from day one, and apart from a rough idea of where we may have been born, they don't know, or want to know, anything about us. To them we're a couple of old fools, who talk nonsense they don't want to hear.

I'm not telling this as a complaint, as we have stopped worrying about such things ages ago and as far we're concerned, they're welcome to their own lives, as long as they leave us alone.

But, if our home environment of learning, free thought, experience and influence didn't make any difference to our own children, how does anybody expect humanity at large to become active thinkers and decision makers for a better world ?

Ed Deak.

BC Hydro knows

Back to the world wide Anarchy experiment:
Obviously no one here is taking it seriously.
I just received an email from a BC Hydro employee quoting the website mentioned above and here:
www.lalliance.fr
This could affect you whether or not you choose to vote with your elecrical main breaker or not.

February 01, 10:55 to 11:00 am

Democracy in Action

Use it or lose it

The very important question...

Okay, there. Mrs. Coyote and myself are fed. A shagged and/or fed woman is a contented one.

Damn fine to read you again Lynn, and the only reason I came back in here this evening is because I too think the question Fait asked is a very important one. It is the critical one-, to the future.

And the answer, I think, based on really not much more than a simple "working class life" myself-, for I was not and am not, nor desired to be, a major mover and shaker, on the left or anywhere else, (I got put in the position once, in the trade union movement, and really didn't like it.) is to over-simplistically repeat, "Education>"

And I mean that. The problem with most working people's lives is that they cannot and do not have widespread enough or easy enough access to "alternative ideas". Unless they actively seek it out, and following the line of least resistance over the "prosperity years" of the post WW2, there was little enough pain or other incentive to do that.

And it is a situation the corporate media anxiously and with great energy and vigilance woeks to maintain. (Really thinking BC here.) We with alternative ideas are cut out of both the money, and thereby the means to easily, readily and widespread get those ideas before the mass of the citizenry. It is the insidious manner of censorship and "thought control", built into the corporatist, money dependant system of ownership and control, and all its natural survival instincts built into capitalism.

All you gotta do is flop in front of the tube after a long, noise filled and grinding day, in a tree snipper in the bush or looking at the world through a compuer screen in an office (In which latter case, like driving a bus, your ass aches.)... Ya don't even read newspapers anymore. It's the 30 second sound byte fix. ...and there before you is all the explanation for the way life is, its potential, that you will ever need. And so long as it is not the 1930s, when for awhile folks were motivated by a collapsed capitalist economy, to be more inclined to cast about for "alternative" explanations for the poverty of their circumstances around them, there is in this time still, for most, though all that is rapidly changing under the Neocon influence, there is still not enough "pain inducement" to view the world other than what has been laid out before them by the talking heads, relatively comfortably enough for most of their lives to here. (Like I say, working class expectations, contrary to rightist claims of their greed, are not really high. (It's just that it has pissed "the wealthy" off over the postwar prosperity years, that working class folks have been able to have cars and medical care,even holidays, same as them.) As in can you imagine what it would all be like if they all expected Marine Drive/UBC lands kind of lives?)

So really, even though many working class folks are aware that things are suddenly not quite as they were, and that there is more insecurity in their lives (medical, dental, the education of their kids, declining purchasing power etc.), most do not have the availability of ideas providing alternative explanations and solutions to the ones provided by ruling class propaganda/media systems. For most, that is all, in any detail, that they know. It is how ruling class ideas rule through them. They posses a near exclusive channel into their heads.

I don't think it is simply a problem of making people think. If you scratch beneath the surface appearance of loggers millworkers, miners, store clerks, waitresses and such, they do think as much as they can within the framework limitations of the ideas and solution concepts they have access to. And most already know that they know next to fuck all.

So, if I am right, and I am reading my class more or less correctly, their primary need in this period is "education"; access to the world of alternative ideas and ways of seeing their reality, than just those too readily to hand, working to numb and dumb them down.

Things need to be happening politically as well, on the street theatre stage of social life, by way of demonstrations and actions that catch their attention and provoke them, and educate them, and movements need to be working creating media and means of securing access to alternative ideas for working class folks, challenging their ruling class shaped perceptions of the world.

And there likely has to be a "pain incentive" there, encouraging them to pay attention, and cause them to cast about again for alternative explanations for their declining realities. Which, I think, is beginning to happen.

But until all of this is present there, more or less, I don't expect any quick transformation of the potential for working class involvement in the political life of the country. All the dumbing down of social life within capitalism, especially over the years since the early '80s", combined with the betrayals of the trade union movement leadership (Operation Solidarity etc. etc.), has had its effect, and it will not be easy for the working class movement to come back from it.

It will likely have to get really bad first, UNLESS, those people and that movement or movements which can help educate them arises magically somehow, to tease it and encourage it along.

Blocked air waves

There is a world wide experiment in Anarchy/direct democracy happening just now and what we get from commentators is a whole bunch more information about history. I usually heed and read that stuff with interest but I'm seeing no response to what I posted before:
www.lalliance.fr
Which leads me to imagine that your heads are embedded either in the sand or somewhere worse.

Could be I'm wrong: There will be no event . You tell me after
February 01, 10:55 to 11:00 am

Don't be too complacent if nothing happens here. This is just the first attempt at "direct democracy global".

by the way

our local geological area is currently experiencing what is known as:
"episodic tremor and slip"

This could be associated with the buildup to the "big one"
or not.

Will we be able to tell the difference between a major earthquake and a fluctuation in the power grid?

The Jury is still out

Ed Quote:So, how do we make

Ed

This looks really good on paper but be really careful what you wish for.

There is a reason for behaving the way we do when we do not feel threatened and everybody has a different threshold for this. Further not everybody is going to be on the same wavelength as far as future perception. Simply put, people may not care or they may appear to not care because there is no issue in their minds or they have resolved the issue in their own minds to their own satisfaction. Not every issue requires everyone's attention all the time for society to function. If you try to force it then issues will just get talked to death.

I don't think it is necessary to keep the masses riled up all the time for society to properly function. The lunatic fringe can't seem to grasp this. There's is the only right way.

RickW: That is correct.

Ed

Kids are not rational, almost as though some sort of gene demands kids view the world 90 degrees from their parents. Kids are bundles of reaction, and need to work things out for themselves, beginning with mindless, physical activity, which (with luck) morphs into actual thought. But the road from one to the other is fraught with pitfalls, and in many parts of the world, one of these pitfalls is death. The mortality rate among teenagers is relatively high -- except in our own society, where we tend to protect them to the n-th degree. So kids leave home, convinced their parents are "old fools", and little in their ensuing experiences tells them otherwise, if only because there is little risk factor in their all-too-often errant "thinking". Here, they have many chances to make fools of themselves with little consequence. In a large chunk of the world, they would end up dead.

We have removed mindless physical activity from the "curriculum" of life. Kids aren't ready to be intellectual until they get this out of their system.

Wow, great conversation and

Wow, great conversation and great example of anarchy methinks. People voluntarily participating in a dialogue because they want to; rather like a potluck!

Anarchists are some of the most cooperative people I know. I like the term anarcho-collectivism if we want to "ism" the concept.

I need to recommend a book called "Days of War, Nights of Love" by the Crimethinc Ex--Workers Collective. (www.crimethinc.com) It is the most emancipatory book I know and has changed my life for the better.

I will keep chipping away at the other forms of rule because I believe that one day, we will have matured enough as a species to deserve to live by the application of our personal values and that enough people will recognize that our personal freedoms are bound to the healthy and voluntary cohesion of our communities.

Thank you all, and thank you Tyee.
M

Rick.....so when are :"kids"

Rick.....so when are :"kids" supposed to grow up and become rational human beings, able to think and wanting to think ?????

We just had a visit by a single mother friend and her 11 year of daughter, who has never been to school, but is on a free and open, home learning program, without exams.

In a way, this girl reminds me of myself. I was a very poor student, barely scraping through the years, but at the same time, constantly reading anything that came into my hands, except school books.

This little girl wants to start building her own library and rest assured, she will inherit much of ours.

The longer I live and see what is going on in the world, the more I have to consider the possibility that much of humanity is born and programmed to be sheep.

I hope to see 2012, when, according to the Mayan Calendar, the world will either come to an end, or the Age of Enlightenment begins.

As a perennial optimist, in spite of what some people read in my writings, I sincerely hope to see the second option.

Ed Deak.

I must 'fess...

I must 'fess as well that I fear sometimes, Deak. (In fact I already addressed this fear back up there somewhere too.:-)

Yet I too, really, at rock bottom, remain an optimist-, overall.

Oh, and by the by, my kids don't sound a hell of a lot different than yours.

Take care, brother.

One of my psychology

One of my psychology instructors, a firm believer in reincarnation, had the theory that after death we go into a pool, where we examine our past mistakes and reborn into situations where we can correct them.

His theory was that the vast majority of mistakes, which may include the born to be sheep, are commited either by "new" souls, or those with little past experience.

Who knows ?

We can observe these great differences in people every day, born in the same families and even as twins.

We know young twins where one has been top student, now working on her Masters with honours, the other a very good physical worker without any ambitions .

One sibling a bookworm and craft expert, the others hockey fans and skateboarders.

Our children had all the options, the only thing we insisted on that they all learn some trade of their choice, as trades give people an advanced kind of thought process.

They all have, neither now working in their original trades, but doing OK in other fields, without a clue on what's going on in the world, except the newest rock CDs and stars. At 49.

Ed Deak.

Mink Quote:I will keep

Mink

Once again a very noble goal except for the fact that your idea of maturity may not be somebody else's. The same goes for values, ethics, ambition etc. People will continue to be people.

Mass extermination or brain washing by tyrannical rulers in recent times has shown that life has a tendency to carry on in the same fashion if you are a survivor only a modified set of the same rules gets followed.

The desire to reach the top is bred into us. Some conclude that self-fulfilment does not have be a continuous struggle and set lower goals for themselves. Contrary to what some might think the world would not really be better off if we were all enrolled in Mensa.

It should be readily apparent to anyone with half a brain that if you strive to make all people the same then you will be striving for mediocrity. You will wind up in the black hole of an Orwellian world.

Anarchism appears to not recognize this and if it was to become the ruling political philosophy would probably succumb to internal power struggles in very short order.

To see how this works just watch the dance that goes on amongst the political elite in BC as they change parties to remain in power. When you right-of-centre party gets tossed out move to the left-of-centre party and modify it to suite your own needs. Take-overs happen all the time because the targeted organization is in a weakened condition. Business, politics, your local union meeting, can all fall victim to people with their own agendas. Trying to neuter power and control by diluting it at the top will not prevent this.

Just wanted to quickly add

Just wanted to quickly add what an interesting interview this was of Mark Leier by Charles Demers...and how much I enjoyed reading everyone's comments including those of friends and some new voices here...and thanks anarcho for all the information you added to the debate.

..and hey, doggone, merci beaucoup, to you, too ;-)...for the reminder to POWER-OUT ON Feb. 1, 10:55 PST...hope everyone realizes this is a world-wide event to bring attention to global warming.

("People all over the world should turn off their lights and electrical appliances on the first of February 2007, between 1.55 pm and 2.00 pm in New York, 18.55 for London, and 19.55 for Paris, Bruxelles, and Italy. 1.55pm in Ottawa, 10.55am on the Pacific Coast of North America. Why February 1? This is the day when the new UN report on global climate change will come out in Paris. This event affects us all, involves us all, and provides an occasion to show how important an issue global warming is to us. If we all participate, this action can have real media and political weight. ")

Ed

I myself was 35....and it took a bankruptcy for me to see that I wasn't "special".......

Kids become adults all through the age spectrum. It wasn't that long ago that, by the time a kid hit 15-16, he was out making a living, if not beginning a family. Didn't do much to contribute to "book learning", but the "school of hard knocks" is a wonderful teacher. Now there is no room for 16 year old wage earners (at least until these neo-cons re-arrange things!), but instead of emphasizing learning, it's "let them be children a little while longer", with the result that we have adult bodies outfitted with childrens' minds.

snert

Try reading Homage to Catalonia.
And I don't think you've understood the first thing about anarchism - certainly not the sort of thing Leier is talking about nor the kind of society anarcho envisions.

Let's find out what anarcho thinks

In 25 words or less what is the primary tenet of Anarchism?

Really great words, but...

Mink says: "...I believe that one day, we will have matured enough as a species to live by the application of our personal values and that enough people will recognize that our personal freedoms are bound to the healthy and voluntary cohesion of our communities."

I don't think that this will ever happen as long as this current humanoid species is around. Maybe the next version, though.

Species don't mature. (Unless I've missed it.) What signs of maturity can you point out so far, Mink? Hockey fights? Professional Wrestling? Buying stolen property? (A big thing where I live.)

Anarchy, eh! Snert was just voicing his opinion and our resident anarchist basically blew him off.

Exactly, RickW, there's a lot of "adult bodies outfitted with childrens' minds" around.

And when somebody says, "Turn off your electricity," we're all supposed to obey?

Why? Exactly what effect will it have? I don't know so I'm not doing it. I'm fairly certain it's about good intentions, but isn't this kinda how the Rwandan massacre got started. People doing as they're told.

Thanks Lynn

We will see how many "anarchists" in BC actually find the time to participate in the protest?, statement?, action?

I have my doubts - in fact I recieved an email from the originator of the north american notice about the action and he disclaimed taking it seriously himself.

I do admire the French: the idea has a clean feel and it's so simple: everyone simply syncronizes their timepeice (Telus continually updates my cell phone) and co ordinates action - in this case turning off all electrical demand at the same time and flicking it back on at the same time. The electrical provider has to balance a sudden drop in demand with a sudden surge.
I think I have convinced my 87 year old mother to do it but she thought the event was today. My daughter read the same post and argued that it was supposed to happen on february 02. I'll be watching for news from the European grid.

name change, anyone?

I know that anarchy (as a political and social movement) is not really about chaos, as the word is commonly perceived to mean, but I think the anarchists
should stop being petulant about the name of their movement and do a name change to show their good faith to people trying to understand what it's all about.

Yes, snert, I've been trying to fix my ignorance on the movement and there seems to be as many opinions on what it's about as there are anarchists.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.