Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2017, 05:22 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(21-01-2017 06:45 PM)momo666 Wrote:  Were they the result of anti-religious sentiment ? I have heard this claim recently and I want to know what is your take on it.

You could look to African tribal groups in the Congo and Niger River Basins prior to European Colonization. A good introductory source that also functions as a quasi-ethnograph would be Achebe's Things Fall Apart. You get a good look at their economic system, property rights, social security, crime and justice and how they handled external matters, such as inter- and intra- tribal conflicts with other villages (how the democratic process works for foreign policy matters). While their social system was largely patriarchal, their religious system was matriarchal.

They were organized in villages of 2,000 to 7,000 people with no government. Pure democracy: effectively anarchic-communists. Generally, they maintained:

1] an oracle;
2] with a serpent;
3] and a priestess who cared and fed the serpent and ran the oracle;
4] in a cave.

In the late 1890s when British and Belgian missionaries arrived, they destroyed the oracle, killed the serpent, murdered the priestess (often raping her first) and then used dynamite to seal the cave shut.

The enemy numbered six hundred - including women and children - and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mircea's post
20-03-2017, 05:24 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2017 05:37 PM by Fred Hampton.)
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 05:15 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 02:50 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  In post #135, I explained the LOGICAL fallacy of the term, "anarcho-capitalist".
A number of anarcho-capitalist writers would disagree with you.

Quote:"Anarcho socialist" would more properly be labeled "Anarcho-communist", but that gets a bit redundant. To me, it's like "agnostics" v "atheists". The atheists are serious, have a commitment.
Well, there's your problem. "agnostics" v "atheists" is an apples/oranges comparison. Agnosticism is about knowledge; atheism is about belief.

I repeat, there are many kinds of anarchist philosophy. I, for example, am a social anarchist. This is not the same as "anarcho-socialist", though I know some people of that persuasion. I am not a communist, though I admit I did flirt with communism when I was younger.

Quote:The anarchists can never seem to get enough numbers to get on the same page with a pointed policy program, which is necessary if you want to accomplish anything--especially on a grand scale.
That, too, comes with the territory. Organizing anarchists is kinda like trying to heard cats. Wink

I think we do fulfill an important educational function, however. And, as has been pointed out, education takes time. Change can be accomplished through evolution, as well as through revolution.

Quote:If words DO mean something, which they hopefully should, "anarchism" and God(a ruler), ergo religion, are antithetic. Ergo, a self proclaimed anarchist
What anarchist isn't "self-proclaimed"?

It's not like there's a central office, like the DMV, where we have to go to get approved, y'know. Big Grin

Quote:cannot be a believer in God(s) at the same time. Simple logic.
"Government is for slaves; free men govern themselves." -- Albert Parsons

Who are you to tell an anarchist what his anarchy should mean?



Quote:Too much mishy mushy "thinking" goin' 'round.
On that point, we are in agreement.
The world will be over before the anarchists "educate to raise awareness", with their multiheaded beast of categories that none of them agree on. The revolution, once again, will pass by the waiting-around, twiddling-their-thumbs anarchists:

[Image: By1h3RhIMAAncNG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:33 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 02:56 PM)ImFred Wrote:  Doc

What do you think about spokes council model anarchism?

It doesn't sit well with me and I identify as anarchist.
In my limited experience with it, it can work, but only in very small groups. True consensus is hard to achieve, and I believe that anyone should be able to dissolve a social contract when they feel it is no longer meeting their needs.

Quote:I'm atheist because theism is stupid. Cyclical or whatever I don't believe because I don't believe. I always thought it was stupid to believe in God even when I was a little kid.
I'm an atheist because I was born that way. I didn't realize I was an atheist for 13 years. I didn't realize I had been born that way for another couple of decades.

Quote:Anarchism, for me, is what all my political beliefs boil down to no matter what the issue. The main thing I like about Fred's politics is he hates capitalism. So do I.
I am not a fan of capitalism, either. But I see communism as a useful means of social analysis, not an end in itself.

Quote:I don't need a leader and I don't want to be a leader. I don't need to be governed and I behave like a person who doesn't need to be governed. At this point, I think anarchists should be focused on personal responsibility. Thoreau, Tolstoy.
That was Parson's point: free men govern themselves. To be free, you have to do it yourself; no one else can do it for you. That is the ultimate in personal responsibility.

Quote:There's no chance anyway. Humanity is doomed.
That's a pessimistic view. I am an optimist, myself. I don't think I could be an anarchist in the modern world without being an optimist. Sure, there's the chance that I could be wrong, and we'll wipe ourselves out as a species, and be replaced by cockroaches. But the human brain is a wonderful thing, and there are all sorts of other possibilities, as well.

Quote: But if there was going to be a future I'd take my peaceful anarchist vision over anything else I've though of.
No one can foresee the future; might as well do the best we can, right now. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:50 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 03:37 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  To the anarchists I say, "good luck" trying to take over a global industrial economy w/o some sort of state(s) for awhile(~100yrs, so sayeth Marx/Mao).
Some anarchists want to do that; I don't, nor do most social anarchists. "Taking over" implies being in charge, and most anarchists aren't interested in being in charge of anything but themselves.

Quote:That doesnt mean states necessarily should be oppressive Mao, tried his best to avoid all that. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
True. And if people are oppressed enough, they will revolt. Not always with a good long term plan of action, but sometimes circumstances are bad enough that getting from one day to the next is the best you can do at the time.

Quote:If you have guerilla insurgences trying to bring down what millions of people are working toward. I dont know why exactly he came down on anarchists, but it was prolly for the usual reasons.
Pretty much.

Quote:Also, your boys anarchists during and shortly thereafter the Bolshevik Rev kind of went around murdering as many peasant farmers as they could find both in Russia and the Ukraine, so there WAS some backlash at them from the Soviets.
Not "my boys" -- their own boys.
Traditional government has trouble seeing a bunch of people, each independently moving in more or less the same direction, as anything other than "a group". So they tend to erroneously ascribe motives and actions to others which they see as being members of "the group".

Quote:The anarchists and so-comms generally dont see eye to eye on fundamental organizational issues, so there's the rub. But ideally, anarchism and communism are pretty much the same thing, I suppose, in an idyllic sort of way.
To the extent that the goal is personal liberty, I would agree.

Quote:The anarchists should just join the communists, is my opinion.
Anarchists have, at times. But when an anarchist perceives that an organization that he has formed a contract with is no longer moving towards his goals, he leaves. Organizations tend not to like that -- even communist organizations.

Quote:Marx was light years beyond what any of the anarchist writers had to say.
He was talking on a different subject, is all. Marx was coming form an economic viewpoint. The anarchist view tends to be more fundamental -- the social system of some person asserting control over another, by whatever means. Economics in only one of many possible types of control.

Quote:Bakunin didnt really write in any organized fashion at all, and he didnt say a whole lot. He was mainly just out there getting in his licks.
He wasn't primarily a writer, true.
It's kind of amazing he found time to write anything down at all.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:53 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 03:58 PM)ImFred Wrote:  The peasants had been oppressed by centuries of fuedalism. Just the idea of change was unthinkable. Mao had a great common enemy in the oppressiveness of the traditional culture. The form of oppression they were suffering under died, too. Irrigation and other essential advances were brought to many millions. Sadly, he turned out to ultimately be a horrible tyrant. If you want to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs... but he killed all the chickens too.

Yeah, that is one way to put it...

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:56 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 05:50 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 03:37 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  To the anarchists I say, "good luck" trying to take over a global industrial economy w/o some sort of state(s) for awhile(~100yrs, so sayeth Marx/Mao).
Some anarchists want to do that; I don't, nor do most social anarchists. "Taking over" implies being in charge, and most anarchists aren't interested in being in charge of anything but themselves.

Quote:That doesnt mean states necessarily should be oppressive Mao, tried his best to avoid all that. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
True. And if people are oppressed enough, they will revolt. Not always with a good long term plan of action, but sometimes circumstances are bad enough that getting from one day to the next is the best you can do at the time.

Quote:If you have guerilla insurgences trying to bring down what millions of people are working toward. I dont know why exactly he came down on anarchists, but it was prolly for the usual reasons.
Pretty much.

Quote:Also, your boys anarchists during and shortly thereafter the Bolshevik Rev kind of went around murdering as many peasant farmers as they could find both in Russia and the Ukraine, so there WAS some backlash at them from the Soviets.
Not "my boys" -- their own boys.
Traditional government has trouble seeing a bunch of people, each independently moving in more or less the same direction, as anything other than "a group". So they tend to erroneously ascribe motives and actions to others which they see as being members of "the group".

Quote:The anarchists and so-comms generally dont see eye to eye on fundamental organizational issues, so there's the rub. But ideally, anarchism and communism are pretty much the same thing, I suppose, in an idyllic sort of way.
To the extent that the goal is personal liberty, I would agree.

Quote:The anarchists should just join the communists, is my opinion.
Anarchists have, at times. But when an anarchist perceives that an organization that he has formed a contract with is no longer moving towards his goals, he leaves. Organizations tend not to like that -- even communist organizations.

Quote:Marx was light years beyond what any of the anarchist writers had to say.
He was talking on a different subject, is all. Marx was coming form an economic viewpoint. The anarchist view tends to be more fundamental -- the social system of some person asserting control over another, by whatever means. Economics in only one of many possible types of control.

Quote:Bakunin didnt really write in any organized fashion at all, and he didnt say a whole lot. He was mainly just out there getting in his licks.
He wasn't primarily a writer, true.
It's kind of amazing he found time to write anything down at all.
Well, to reiterate, the anarchists will never get organized into something resembling a unified program with a purpose, so at best will spend the rest of time hanging out on the fringes in enclaves of artists, organic gardners, punk rockers, LSD groupies, squatters, rock throwers, and various this and that's.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 05:58 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 04:08 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 03:50 PM)Dr H Wrote:  There are right-libertarians, and left-libertarians.
Yeah, left libTs in FRANCE, like 200 yrs ago. US libTs are FAR RIGHT, Ayn Rand, Mises, John Birch, League of the South, Alex Jones capitalists. Capitalism is RiGHT. So-comm is LEFT.

Nah, there are left-libertarians here right now. Chomsky's one.

Alex Jones is not a libertarian; Alex Jones is a lunatic.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 06:03 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 05:58 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 04:08 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  Yeah, left libTs in FRANCE, like 200 yrs ago. US libTs are FAR RIGHT, Ayn Rand, Mises, John Birch, League of the South, Alex Jones capitalists. Capitalism is RiGHT. So-comm is LEFT.

Nah, there are left-libertarians here right now. Chomsky's one.

Alex Jones is not a libertarian; Alex Jones is a lunatic.
Ok, Chomsky, an army of one, plus a few stragglers, none of whom do anything of import to confront the system, i.e, they are not active in revolution. They are in thought only, not action. They are sympathizers. Chomsky makes a damn nice living off thinking about it, though.
Alex Jones is a Grade A US Libertarian, you know, Ron Rand Paul supporter, John Birchers, the works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 04:16 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  It is gross reductionist thinking to just say, "Mao was a tyrant that intentionally killed X # of people", etc. It's not even accurate.
Granted it's an overly simplistic view. Mao wasn't personally responsible for every bad thing that happened in China after the revolution. But he was responsible for setting a lot of it in motion. And he did intentionally have a lot of people killed.

This is not unlike discussions I've had with people who see themselves as patriotic Americans. They chide me for bring up the seamier parts of American history, like our virtually non-stop interference in foreign governments and the many brutal dictators we've propped up -- and sometimes installed -- when it suited our idea of political expediency. They point out all the good America has done in the world -- and there is a good deal of it -- and ask me why I seldom talk about that.

The reason, is my personal sense of propriety, and wanting to see a balanced picture painted. See, throughout all my primary and secondary school history, I was pretty much taught only the good and noble parts of American history; many true, some made up. It wasn't until college that I learned that our motives weren't always pure and altruistic, and that God wasn't always on our side. An even then, I didn't learn it in conventional history classes -- I learned it on my own, reading history in the university library, while skipping boring chemistry lectures. (That's also where I learned about the extent of involvement of anarchists in the US labor movement. But I digress...)

Having learned all of this, it seemed like something of a public service to spread the information around, as most of the people I knew had had similar one-sided educations in US history. So I kinda saw it as 12+ years of positive propaganda, times each person in the US who had received at least a high school education, on the one side -- and me, with the negative information I had learned, on the other.
What did I need to talk about the good stuff for? Everyone else was already doing that, exclusively, and had been for decades, if not more. So I worked hard to bring out the other side of the picture.

People didn't like it. Some saw me as anti-American; others as a crank. A lot of them thought that I had to be making up at least some of my information, since I never had anything good to say about the US. And so, they stopped paying attention. I finally had to realize that a balanced perspective is not obtained by completely ignoring one side of the picture -- even if your message is about the other side. (Probably, I should have learned that lesson when I was studying Buddhism -- which consistently preaches "the middle way" -- but religion and I always have had a hard time seeing eye to eye.)

I present this little anecdote by way of example: if you want to try to present a balanced picture of Mao and what he meant to China, you are going to have to acknowledge that, along with his accomplishments, he also did a lot of bad shit. If you don't do that, you are going to come off looking like a sloganeering drone, and most people aren't going to take you seriously. If people are not taking you seriously, they are not paying attention to whatever message it is you think you have to share.

But hey, just my 2ยข, and I'm just an anarchist.

Your call, boss. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
20-03-2017, 06:46 PM
RE: Anarchy, Communism and Nationalism
(20-03-2017 04:28 PM)Fred Hampton Wrote:  Uh, k. Take a stroll on down to your local psych ward and see first hand just how "groovy" psych science is doing these days.

Um... that's really kind of lame.

Could just as easily say, 'take a stroll down to the terminal ward at your local hospital and see how well medical science is doing these days." Or 'take a stroll down to you local auto-wrecking yard and see how well automotive engineering is doing these days."

How about you take a look at some half-way houses and transitional housing, and see how many people with various levels of diagnosed mental illness are either living in society, or preparing to move back into society -- who 30 years ago would have either been warehoused in an institution for the rest of their lives, or dead.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: