Leaders in Anarchism - What da fuk?

[WipedOutBoy]

I'm following this on from a couple of earlier topics and would like to address it towards both the right-ist Republicans and the slightly naive leftists.

How can you have leaders in an Anarchist society? Well - essentially - how do you have leaders in most Western societies? Duh. You elect them. Leadership is, ideally, by consent of the electorate. In society now, it isn't overly cynical to suggest that many politicians who are elected 'by the will of the people' are in the pockets of those individuals and organisations who subsidise their election campaigns. It is if these organisations, which do control many facets of our lives, can be eliminated or at least politically neutered that real 'by the people, for the people' democracy can thrive.

As for Anarchism or Communism eliminating competition within society - not necessarily. People can, and should, be paid more if they work hard in society. But is it right that some in-bred Ivy League asshole should get 300K+ per year because his great, great grandfather had the foresight and vision to found a company that became successful? Well, OK, why not? But is it right that he should have more influence on politicians and people of note, that he should have his voice heard over ours, that his ideas and desires should be taken more seriously, than mine or yours or those of any other hard-working, average joe?

I could go on for ages but I'm pretty sure you're all already bored... but to sum up...

On closer examination, Anarchism has much more in common with right-wing libertarianism and self-determination than it does to left-wing statism and totalitarianism.

[Slizor]

I'm following this on from a couple of earlier topics and would like to address it towards both the right-ist Republicans and the slightly naive leftists.

Hey at least I can spell fuck

How can you have leaders in an Anarchist society?

You don't

It is if these organisations, which do control many facets of our lives, can be eliminated or at least politically neutered that real 'by the people, for the people' democracy can thrive.

Not really, a massive change in the system where people actually vote on issues, that would be democracy.

As for Anarchism or Communism eliminating competition within society - not necessarily.

Explain, and the next thing you say isn't an explanation

People can, and should, be paid more if they work hard in society.

Yes they should, if they work HARDER! but they don't, they just do jobs which require more training, or knowledge of an area, which they get by going to university, which is paid for by their parents, cos they can.

But is it right that some in-bred Ivy League asshole should get 300K+ per year because his great, great grandfather had the foresight and vision to found a company that became successful? Well, OK, why not?

Because they haven't earnt it

On closer examination, Anarchism has much more in common with right-wing libertarianism and self-determination than it does to left-wing statism and totalitarianism.

You have been talking utter bollocks, this is not realated to anarchism at all.

[WipedOutBoy]

I thought this topic would get you posting Slizor... despite our differing views, I do actually appreciate your points in debate... despite the fact that you obviously think that I'm a capitalist, running-dog class traitor (ho ho).

At 7/21/01 02:59 PM, Slizor wrote:

I'm following this on from a couple of earlier topics and would like to address it towards both the right-ist Republicans and the slightly naive leftists.

Hey at least I can spell fuck

???

How can you have leaders in an Anarchist society?

You don't

Wrong. You do and almost every disciple of anarchist thought agrees. People are needed to organise, administrate and provide tactical and strategic (I use these terms in the non-military context) overviews. Eg - you need people to pick up garbage, and you need someone to work out who picks it up where. No more or less kudos goes to the organisers, but they are essential.

It is if these organisations, which do control many facets of our lives, can be eliminated or at least politically neutered that real 'by the people, for the people' democracy can thrive.

Not really, a massive change in the system where people actually vote on issues, that would be democracy.

A nice idea but unworkable. There are quite simply too many issues for that to be tenable. Not only that, but such a system would force people into voting (is that ethical)as otherwise a small, politicised minority would be able to control policy - another elite.

People can, and should, be paid more if they work hard in society.

Yes they should, if they work HARDER! but they :don't, they just do jobs which require more

:training, or knowledge of an area, which they get by going to university, which is paid for by their parents, cos they can.

You're distracted by a different issue. University education can and should be provided by the state, I agree. But that isn't the point. Training is not a cop-out; you have to work hard. The majority of students work hard at univeristy specifically so that they can get a more challanging and better paid job. They put in the effort, they should reap the reward. by contrast I know a number of people who didn't go to university or who dropped out because they couldn't be bothered to do the work.

But is it right that some in-bred Ivy League asshole should get 300K+ per year because his great, great grandfather had the foresight and vision to found a company that became successful? Well, OK, why not?

Because they haven't earnt it

But their grandparent or whatever has. And if he wants to pass his money onto his descendants, if that is one of the main reasons that he made his money.

On closer examination, Anarchism has much more in common with right-wing libertarianism and self-determination than it does to left-wing statism and totalitarianism.

You have been talking utter bollocks, this is not realated to anarchism at all.

(Sigh) Well, puerile insults aside, my post touched on both the concept of leadership in an anarchist society and also the concept of personal freedom within society. My last remark was meant to piss people off and to invite debate - but something a little more considered than 'you have been talking utter bollocks'. I've read your other posts Slizor. I know that you can do better than that. So demolish my argument, bitch.

I'm waiting...

[Slizor]

despite the fact that you obviously think that I'm a capitalist, running-dog class traitor (ho ho).

Nope, I don't mind capitilists, My perspective is that you are niave(I enjoy this.) I must say you have an air of intelligence, which, it would seem I under-estimated at first.

???

"What da fuk?"

Wrong. You do and almost every disciple of anarchist thought agrees. People are needed to organise, administrate and provide tactical and strategic (I use these terms in the non-military context) overviews. Eg - you need people to pick up garbage, and you need someone to work out who picks it up where. No more or less kudos goes to the organisers, but they are essential.

Anarchism doesn't say we need leaders, you could easily think that, however it does expect people to organise and co-operate themselves. Although I call myself an anarchist and belive in anarchy I will never see it, my lifetime is too short(:))

A nice idea but unworkable. There are quite simply too many issues for that to be tenable. Not only that, but such a system would force people into voting (is that ethical)as otherwise a small, politicised minority would be able to control policy - another elite.

They can at least vote on the big issues. It may turn into another elite, however people would be nearer power than ever before and could chose to vote.

Training is not a cop-out; you have to work hard. The majority of students work hard at univeristy specifically so that they can get a more challanging and better paid job. They put in the effort, they should reap the reward.

I'm not saying that training isn't hard work, but those people, while the other people in their generation where at university, were working

by contrast I know a number of people who didn't go to university or who dropped out because they couldn't be bothered to do the work.

But they had the chance!

[WipedOutBoy]

At 7/21/01 03:42 PM, Slizor wrote:

Nope, I don't mind capitilists, My perspective is that you are niave(I enjoy this.) I must say you have an air of intelligence, which, it would seem I under-estimated at first.

Naive!? Cheeky bastard... :-) But I'm not going to go into one of those 'my socialist dick is bigger than yours' type of debates. Suffice to say I was passionately left-wing in my teens and got gradually disillusioned over time.

???

"What da fuk?"

'What the fuck' wouldn't fit into the topic header.

Anarchism doesn't say we need leaders, you could easily think that, however it does expect people to organise and co-operate themselves. Although I call myself an anarchist and belive in anarchy I will never see it, my lifetime is too short(:))

I do agree to an extent - maybe I was wrong to use the term 'leader'. But there is nothing against socialist, communist or anarchist thought against using a delegate or representative in a form of parliament. In fact, many workers councils communicated with the central bureaucracy in such a way (and indeed the Labour party in Britain did, when it still had vestiges of socialism in it).

They can at least vote on the big issues. It may turn into another elite, however people would be nearer power than ever before and could chose to vote.

That is debatable. It was these extremist cliques that forced the trade union movement in the UK into a confrontation with the Thatcher government, and gave them an excuse to strip away the union's power and their ability to effectively represent workers in the workplace.

I'm not saying that training isn't hard work, but those people, while the other people in their generation where at university, were working.

True. And many of them get a head start on the career ladder because of it, get more responsibility and more pay. A university education does not guarantee a good job or good pay packet straight away (as I must admit I found out myself). Indeed, I went to Uni and got a job on the strength of my work there. But I'm still paid less and have more debt than a friend of mine who went straight into employment after school.

by contrast I know a number of people who didn't go to university or who dropped out because they couldn't be bothered to do the work.

But they had the chance!

Yes, but thats a different issue and one that we both concur on! Universal access to education.

[Slizor]

Naive!? Cheeky bastard... :-) But I'm not going to go into one of those 'my socialist dick is bigger than yours' type of debates. Suffice to say I was passionately left-wing in my teens and got gradually disillusioned over time.

Ah I was vaguely right wing and capitilist in my childhood years, lets just say people normally grow smarter, although in some cases(yours for example) they don't :)

I do agree to an extent - maybe I was wrong to use the term 'leader'. But there is nothing against socialist, communist or anarchist thought against using a delegate or representative in a form of parliament.

But there is little/nothing for it

That is debatable. It was these extremist cliques that forced the trade union movement in the UK into a confrontation with the Thatcher government, and gave them an excuse to strip away the union's power and their ability to effectively represent workers in the workplace.

Yes but the Thatcher government was a very authoritarian government, unlike the governments of today.

True. And many of them get a head start on the career ladder because of it, get more responsibility and more pay. A university education does not guarantee a good job or good pay packet straight away (as I must admit I found out myself). Indeed, I went to Uni and got a job on the strength of my work there. But I'm still paid less and have more debt than a friend of mine who went straight into employment after school.

But you are only 24(?) for an average course(3 years)you will have been out of uni for 2 years, you still have 41(if you retire a 65) years left to work!

I would find it intresting to see what you would get on the political compass topic below.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

Learders in Anarchy, eh? Someone's missing the point...

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/21/01 02:29 PM, WipedOutBoy wrote: I'm following this on from a couple of earlier topics and would like to address it towards both the right-ist Republicans and the slightly naive leftists.

How can you have leaders in an Anarchist society? Well - essentially - how do you have leaders in most Western societies? Duh. You elect them. Leadership is, ideally, by consent of the electorate.

Hmm... You seem to be taking an ideal, worping it with your biased ideals and then spewing it back. Here I have compiled these defintions of anarchy.

http://www.allwords.com/

anarchy (n.) an·ar·chy
1. a state of society without government or law.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=anarchy*1+0

anarchy noun [U]
a lack of organization and control in a society or group, esp. because either there is no government or it has no power

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=anarchy

an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.

I think It's pretty simple, but your arguement is wrong. Anarchy can't have leaders. If it does, it's not anarchy, at least according to Cambridge dictionary, allwords.com and dictionary.com. I would like to remind everyone that I'm not anarchist but a liberal nationalist, and anarchypenguin is just a name, I don't support Anarchy but was just proving his arguement to be false.

[WipedOutBoy]

At 7/25/01 11:21 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:
Hmm... You seem to be taking an ideal, worping it with your biased ideals and then spewing it back. Here I have compiled these defintions of anarchy.

http://www.allwords.com/

anarchy (n.) an·ar·chy
1. a state of society without government or law.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=anarchy*1+0

anarchy noun [U]
a lack of organization and control in a society or group, esp. because either there is no government or it has no power

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=anarchy

an·ar·chy (nr-k)
n. pl. an·ar·chies
Absence of any form of political authority.

I think It's pretty simple, but your arguement is wrong. Anarchy can't have leaders. If it does, it's not anarchy, at least according to Cambridge dictionary, allwords.com and dictionary.com. I would like to remind everyone that I'm not anarchist but a liberal nationalist, and anarchypenguin is just a name, I don't support Anarchy but was just proving his arguement to be false.

Er... You might want to consult some kind of political text rather than a just a dictionary before being quite so glib, my friend. If you look at the dictionary definition of democracy and then compare it to the political reality of the process, you'll find a fair few differences.

Perhaps you should get the Newgrounds guys to set you up with a Vocabulary & Spelling BBS which you could post to, rather than the politics one...

[Timisoara]

WipedOutBoy,

I beleive we have discused this in previous posts

There are no leaders in an anarchist movement (I'm telling you this as a former anarchist).
There are occasionally teachers (I like to call them anarchist rabbi's)...you know have a question need an answer, some one to look for guidence, etc, etc.

The root of the word anarchy comes from latin
an - no, none, in absence.
archos - ruler, leader.

Thus no leaders in anarchy, none elected, appointed, or other wise put into a hierarchical power strucuture.

Those who say they're anarchists but are, or belong to groups with, leaders, are like Bush when he says he believes in "Democracy"...lying.

I will crush your other points later.

[WipedOutBoy]

At 7/26/01 07:20 PM, Skewthat wrote: WipedOutBoy,

I beleive we have discused this in previous posts

There are no leaders in an anarchist movement (I'm telling you this as a former anarchist).
There are occasionally teachers (I like to call them anarchist rabbi's)...you know have a question need an answer, some one to look for guidence, etc, etc.

The root of the word anarchy comes from latin
an - no, none, in absence.
archos - ruler, leader.

Thus no leaders in anarchy, none elected, appointed, or other wise put into a hierarchical power strucuture.

Those who say they're anarchists but are, or belong to groups with, leaders, are like Bush when he says he believes in "Democracy"...lying.

I will crush your other points later.

Hoo boy...

Well quite apart from essentially repeating a correction that I already made in my previous points (yeah, great, having my own words spewed back to me - how stimulating...), it was nice to see that, yet again, we have another bonehead who will simplify the argument to the point of inanity by quoting latin (what, you could find another English dictionary to quote to me from? Or did Anarchypenguin use them all?)

So - a former anarchist at the ripe old age of 18 years old. What... did you stencil an circle-A symbol on your schoolbag and shout 'fuck the system' whenever you didn't want to do your homework?

If I'm wrong then I'm happy to admit it. But the only person to have come up with anything intelligent to say has been Slizor (even though he is an irredeemable commie bastard - ho, ho).

If you little boys with your politcal pretentions out there really have something to say then where the hell are your sources? What about Fo & Brecht, what about Tito in Yugoslavia and the Spanish Civil War and the Russian communes and the proto-anarchists in France and the partisans in Italy? What about the post-modern anarchist thought like Debord and the situationists?

If all you can do is quote dictionary definitions of an abstract concept at me then you aren't fit to enter the debate in the first place. Leave your computer, go and read a book and then come back when you actually have something to say.

[Timisoara]

You my good sir, are an asshole,
and so very very bitter.
With that aside time for the crushing.

Hoo boy...

Well quite apart from essentially repeating a correction that I already made in my previous points (yeah, great, having my own words spewed back to me - how stimulating...), it was nice to see that, yet again, we have another bonehead who will simplify the argument to the point of inanity by quoting latin (what, you could find another English dictionary to quote to me from? Or did Anarchypenguin use them all?)

So - a former anarchist at the ripe old age of 18 years old. What... did you stencil an circle-A symbol on your schoolbag and shout 'fuck the system' whenever you didn't want to do your homework?

Now beside your ad hominem attacks (oh wait there I go again with the latin) I switched from being a Anarchist to a Communist when I compared Proudhon and Marx and found Marx's ideas more relevent and feasable.

If I'm wrong then I'm happy to admit it.

Time to be happy, lightin up a bit, you and anhnonymous *shesh

:But the only person to have come up with anything intelligent to say has been Slizor (even though he is an irredeemable commie bastard - ho, ho).

Good for Slizor, he holds his own pretty well.

If you little boys with your politcal pretentions out there really have something to say then where the hell are your sources? What about Fo & Brecht, what about Tito in Yugoslavia and the Spanish Civil War and the Russian communes and the proto-anarchists in France and the partisans in Italy? What about the post-modern anarchist thought like Debord and the situationists?

Well I beleive the first crowning moment of the anarchist movement was the Haymarket square riots. And I'm a pure Marxist because I find revisionists like Bernstein pretentious and wrong. Does that suit your need for my background in book edujmakasion.

If all you can do is quote dictionary definitions of an abstract concept at me then you aren't fit to enter the debate in the first place.

Leave your computer, go and read a book and then come back when you actually have something to say.

I'll have pleanty of time for that when I finish my sophmore year at college, but this debate wasn't about me and my beleifs, it was about yours.

Now I don't quote because I find most people don't spend time reading quotes or long arguments unless they're specifically made to them, I like my propaganda in short, neat, little soundbites, thank-you-very-much.

Now that i've introduced myself...lets play.

[WipedOutBoy]

At 7/26/01 09:56 PM, Skewthat wrote: You my good sir, are an asshole,
and so very very bitter.

Well... I don't think I can really fault your summation there.

With that aside time for the crushing.

I doubt it. :)

Now beside your ad hominem attacks (oh wait there I go again with the latin) I switched from being a Anarchist to a Communist when I compared Proudhon and Marx and found Marx's ideas more relevent and feasable.

Well I beleive the first crowning moment of the anarchist movement was the Haymarket square riots. And I'm a pure Marxist because I find revisionists like Bernstein pretentious and wrong. Does that suit your need for my background in book edujmakasion.

Hell no! Again with the theories! My gripe was, essentially, that no-one has offered any examples of how anarchist movements worked in practical terms. Typical goddamn Marxist - all theories, no practicalities. Quoting Marx, Proudhon et al. is all very well, but I'd rather see some examples of how it worked or, in the case of every form of collectivisation ever (and one of the few genuine socialist/communist policies to be embarked upon by the so-called communist states) failed.

I'll have pleanty of time for that when I finish my sophmore year at college, but this debate wasn't about me and my beleifs, it was about yours.

My political beliefs would, in a society ruled by you and your fellow travellers, get me shot and I haven't even vaguely mentioned them here. However, I do enjoy playing devil's advocate and starting arguments about politics.

Actually, now I think about it, I'd probably do rather well under such a system. You guys can bicker about theories, I'll get on with imposing my iron will on the people (ho, ho).

Now I don't quote because I find most people don't spend time reading quotes or long arguments unless they're specifically made to them, I like my propaganda in short, neat, little soundbites, thank-you-very-much.

You are amongst grown-ups now. Intelligent debate is encouraged.

So... OK... back to the debate.

How would an anarchist state make a decision without some kind of leaders. Hypothetical example - incursion by a hostile foreign power. How would an effective defence be mounted without a solid command structure?

I admit its a bit simplistic but hey, just to get the ball rolling...

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Those who say they're anarchists but are, or belong to groups with, leaders, are like Bush when he says he believes in "Democracy"...lying.

I will crush your other points later.

Hoo boy...

Well quite apart from essentially repeating a correction that I already made in my previous points (yeah, great, having my own words spewed back to me - how stimulating...), it was nice to see that, yet again, we have another bonehead who will simplify the argument to the point of inanity by quoting latin (what, you could find another English dictionary to quote to me from? Or did Anarchypenguin use them all?)

So - a former anarchist at the ripe old age of 18 years old. What... did you stencil an circle-A symbol on your schoolbag and shout 'fuck the system' whenever you didn't want to do your homework?

If I'm wrong then I'm happy to admit it. But the only person to have come up with anything intelligent to say has been Slizor (even though he is an irredeemable commie bastard - ho, ho).

If you little boys with your politcal pretentions out there really have something to say then where the hell are your sources? What about Fo & Brecht, what about Tito in Yugoslavia and the Spanish Civil War and the Russian communes and the proto-anarchists in France and the partisans in Italy? What about the post-modern anarchist thought like Debord and the situationists?

If all you can do is quote dictionary definitions of an abstract concept at me then you aren't fit to enter the debate in the first place. Leave your computer, go and read a book and then come back when you actually have something to say.

You're just taking a word and making it to suit your own views. I've provided 3 dictionary definitions ALL disproving what you say, and then you flagently fly in the face of not only the defition of the word but it's roots. The fact is, that you spoke and did not know what a word meant. You tryed to pretend like you had some sort of benevelence over the rest of the BBS, but the truth is you're posts are ignorant and obviously unfounded. If you want to make some progress, back up your statments with facts, and examples. If you want to challenge what I say, then you do it by providing plausable reasons for why what I said is false, and saying your opinion about anarchy is diffrent than the oxford dictionary of english is hardly viable. Please stop trying to pretend as though you are some "holier than thou" intillectual. You were wrong, and it's ok, but please stop digging the whole deeper. It's obvious that your new to the BBS, so things like this were bound to happen, but I'd stop before you build a bad reputation but such ignorant posts.

[WipedOutBoy]

At 7/27/01 02:19 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

You're just taking a word and making it to suit your own views. I've provided 3 dictionary definitions ALL disproving what you say, and then you flagently fly in the face of not only the defition of the word but it's roots. The fact is, that you spoke and did not know what a word meant. You tryed to pretend like you had some sort of benevelence over the rest of the BBS, but the truth is you're posts are ignorant and obviously unfounded. If you want to make some progress, back up your statments with facts, and examples. If you want to challenge what I say, then you do it by providing plausable reasons for why what I said is false, and saying your opinion about anarchy is diffrent than the oxford dictionary of english is hardly viable. Please stop trying to pretend as though you are some "holier than thou" intillectual. You were wrong, and it's ok, but please stop digging the whole deeper. It's obvious that your new to the BBS, so things like this were bound to happen, but I'd stop before you build a bad reputation but such ignorant posts.

Ha ha.... OK. I'll stop trying to be a smart-arse and explain what I mean.

An example. Anarcho-syndicalist units (OK, slighty different from purist anarchists but they'll do) in the Spanish civil war. They held the principles of anarchism as an ideal, albeit tempered by the idea of a council structure, but the more purist they became the less effective they were both in combat and in terms of applying their views to practical governance of the areas they controlled. In the end they were, unfortunately, firmly fucked by Franco's fascist junta. The ones who had a command structure of sorts, one based on legitimacy of rule THROUGH CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE AND THUS AVOIDING THE REPRESSION OF CONTROL WHILE USING THEIR ABILITY TO SEE TACTICALLY AND STRATEGICALLY TO SERVE THE GREATER GOOD YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE tended to do somewhat better. Although they did still, eventually, get fucked too.

The OED et al. might be a useful source for high school students who want to try to bluff their way through an argument - but I want to try to discuss practicality. Yes - of course there aren't meant to be any leaders in anarchism. You don't do yourself any credit to assume my ignorance of such a basic principle.

Maybe rather than jump up and down, scream that I'm wrong and quote from sources which are essentially irrelevant in terms of the argument you could calm down, try being a little less facile and engage in the debate properly. If I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I could have then I apologise to the board at large - but Slizor certainly twigged where I was coming from quite early on. If I have been unclear then say so and I will attempt to clarify my point. That way the discussion might actually be fruitful.

I mean - Christ -isn't anyone actually interested in how anarchist communes/society might ACTUALLY work? Not in some one sentence, dictionary definition but in real life terms? Is that too way out for people?

I don't consider myself an intellectual - far from it. I am both practical and a pragmatist. Hence I'm not left-wing any more... :) It would seem that those who would quote direct from philosophy texts or, even worse, dictionaries are putting their faith in intellectualism far more than myself.

I'll give Slizor credit for his posts which are not only well-researched but grounded in an observation of both theory and practise. Props to go to Skewthat for knowing his shit too (although give me some practical instances dammit!).

You, bitch, have done nothing. You've added nothing to the debate. If I'm wrong about anarchism then it would be worthy of discussion if you could show some indication of knowledge outside of an elementary, non-political reference book.

Your rather lame threat of "Be nice on the BBS, newbie, or we won't talk to you" is a shining example of someone who's had their bluff called and has nothing further to say. As I mentioned above, both Slizor and Skewthat think I'm a prick - but are willing to stomp my arguments into the ground with genuine knowledge and insight, which is why I started to post in the first place.

If you don't like me... good. Maybe it'll spur you on to make the effort to actually do some research somewhere other than your father's bookshelf and come back ready to spell out exactly where I'm going wrong.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

An example. Anarcho-syndicalist units (OK, slighty different from purist anarchists but they'll do) in the Spanish civil war. They held the principles of anarchism as an ideal, albeit tempered by the idea of a council structure, but the more purist they became the less effective they were both in combat and in terms of applying their views to practical governance of the areas they controlled. In the end they were, unfortunately, firmly fucked by Franco's fascist junta. The ones who had a command structure of sorts, one based on legitimacy of rule THROUGH CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE AND THUS AVOIDING THE REPRESSION OF CONTROL WHILE USING THEIR ABILITY TO SEE TACTICALLY AND STRATEGICALLY TO SERVE THE GREATER GOOD YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE tended to do somewhat better. Although they did still, eventually, get fucked too.

Ok, That point is Holds, but not to the argument. Your arguement was about leaders in anarchism, What you described was a devience in anarchism. It's like calling the american system capitalist, well it's not it's coperate. So although what you said is true, it has nothing to do with the topic of anarchism. It simply a diffrent form spun off from one idealisc government. If you want to Adress that topic, then say so but you didn't you adressed anarchism and then described anarcho syndacism, obviously you stated that they are diffrent things so it's not exactly relevent. I'd remind you that my part in this discusion is only that you stated that there are leaders in anarchism and I described that there arn't, Being that you never addressed anarchism but described a devience in it then my point is proven.

The OED et al. might be a useful source for high school students who want to try to bluff their way through an argument - but I want to try to discuss practicality. Yes - of course there aren't meant to be any leaders in anarchism. You don't do yourself any credit to assume my ignorance of such a basic principle.

I never assumed any ignorance on your part, I try not to make the ad hominim attacks that you have. I merely stated that your posts are ignorant. Again I'd like to show you that we are talking about the topic on anarchism and you are adressing a seperate ideal. Such as if we were to have a debate about communism and you were to bring up socialism. They are similar but diffrent.

Maybe rather than jump up and down, scream that I'm wrong and quote from sources which are essentially irrelevant in terms of the argument you could calm down, try being a little less facile and engage in the debate properly. If I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I could have then I apologise to the board at large - but Slizor certainly twigged where I was coming from quite early on. If I have been unclear then say so and I will attempt to clarify my point. That way the discussion might actually be fruitful.

this doesn't concern me but I adress it just to make sure you understand that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but just it has no bearing on me.

I mean - Christ -isn't anyone actually interested in how anarchist communes/society might ACTUALLY work? Not in some one sentence, dictionary definition but in real life terms? Is that too way out for people?

Ok, well maybe you could make a topic like that. Make sure the topic shows that is not about anarchism in it's pure form but some sort of practical rather than ideolgical idea. The topic is "Leaders in Anarchism - What da fuk? " Maybe if you wanted to adress a topic seperate than this in this topic then you would first establish that you are not talking about pure anachism, but you didn't.

I don't consider myself an intellectual - far from it. I am both practical and a pragmatist. Hence I'm not left-wing any more... :) It would seem that those who would quote direct from philosophy texts or, even worse, dictionaries are putting their faith in intellectualism far more than myself.

I quoted a dictionary becuase you used a word in a way that has a diffrent meaning than it acually has. To argue against oxford english dictionary on the meaning of a word is fruitless, if you want to describe your idea then describe it but don't take a word that has a diffrent meaning and assume that everyone will take it to be yours.

Your rather lame threat of "Be nice on the BBS, newbie, or we won't talk to you" is a shining example of someone who's had their bluff called and has nothing further to say. As I mentioned above, both Slizor and Skewthat think I'm a prick - but are willing to stomp my arguments into the ground with genuine knowledge and insight, which is why I started to post in the first place.

I didn't say be nice, I said you might want to back up what you say or you can easily make enemys, You were comming in here with some type of Wanna be tuff guy attitude that is quite common amoung newbies, but As I stated most of us don't really care about that and you mainly tried to focous on things not having to do with the arguement but instead use slander to make youself look better, most BBSer's just ignore this. I already stated I proved my point and you never did. Also the only claim I made was of the meaning of anarchism and that it has no governing body. I also did not make reference to any other type of anarchism and nor did you so it's irrelevent to describe such. If you want to disagree with me then back up your claims of how anarchy has a governing body. your example of something that is related but not anarchy does not support your argument.

If you don't like me... good. Maybe it'll spur you on to make the effort to actually do some research somewhere other than your father's bookshelf and come back ready to spell out exactly where I'm going wrong.

I never said I didn't like you. I don't really care about you or who you are. I think that goes without saying, I know you might think that your some sort of rebel or lone star on the BBS but really your just another BBSer who uses personal attack to suport their point. Also, even though it is irrelevant, I don't live with my father and Haven't seen him for a year. I generally read russian classics such as tolstoy, I don't see how this is relevant but you brought it up so acually I would be happy to discuss liturature in the general BBS where it would make more sense.

[WipedOutBoy]

How incredibly embarassing. You are, essentially, right on most points. My somewhat aggressive reactions were, perhaps, a little excessive but I was exceedingly annoyed about the whole dictionary thing - this is why:

Yes - dictionary definition of anarchism is a society without laws etc. I have no argument with this whatsoever.

However - a society without laws is not necessarily anarchist (please bare with me on this...)

Without even resorting to high-brow texts - look to the likes of the increasingly tired 'cyber-punk' movies (uh-oh... I'm losing 'em...) The idea of a society a la Mad Max where law and convention are completely lacking is an example of a society where anarchy has prevailied. However...

Anarchist thought as a political philosophy is actually utopian almost to the point of edenic - not for them the raping, murder and vicious neo-tribalism that would categorise a true breakdown of the laws of society.

So - an anarchist state is different from a state in anarchy. The ideal is to have transcended the need for leaders and a command structure - there is, however, a common moral and social outlook. A state of anarchy is merely the absence of laws. Two essentially different things, despite the fact that both can be taken back to the same dictionary definition.

My original point regarding how right-wing survivalism has more in common with a state of anarchy (in the macho, Mad Max sense) than the heavy-duty statism that so often characterises left-wing ideology.

As I conceded to Slizor - it was inaccurate of me to use the term 'leader'. 'Spokesperson', 'delegate' or 'representative' would have been more appropriate. As I also concur with Skewthat, the idea is that any form of 'guidance' (I am unwilling to use the term leadership) is made with the consent of the people and for the common good, as opposed to the edification of the self or for general personal gain. The 'Rabbi' analogy was an appropriate one.

My initial point about 'leaders in anarchism -what da fuk?' was, I believe still, well founded but poorly expressed and is actually a wide-ranging one. Are leaders and commanders necessary? - anarchism would say not but in certain practical situations, for example in a military situation, concensus tactics are an absurd. There must be an overall strategic plan and it must be carried out to the letter if its to succeed.

In an ideal anarchist society, the whole world is anarchist and so such points are moot. But for an anarchist group or individual living in a non-anarchist world (be it corporate, neo-feudal, autocratic or whatever) the areas are a little more sketchy. How do you organise overall strategy without descending into bickering over points of political theory (as I'm pretty sure that most of us with experience of left-wing groups would be all to depressingly familiar)? My original point was also playing more to some of the bone-head republicans/right-wingers who would say 'Anarchism? Nuh-uh! It'd be like Mad Max' or similar than to people with left wing interests.

Geddit?

So apologies to all for my abrasive tone. In my defence, however, I would like to say that although I concur with with AnarchyPenguins observations about me, I would also like to point out, gently and respectfully, that established BBSers (I may be new to this board but this isn't the first BBS I have participated on) do have a tendency to shut down postings from newbies in a somewhat high-handed manner... The whole 'you're wrong - end of discussion' attitude is an easy one to take with people who haven't posted before, as I admit that a large number of new posters are either trying to annoy people or are generally uninformed, without actually finding out what they're attempting to say and then debating it.

I have generally found that starting fights on a BBS is a good way of getting a discussion rolling as people are more likely to respond if their personal pride has been attacked. You may think my postings have been inaccurate and insulting - but we have at least had the beginnings of a debate. It would have been a lot less interesting if I'd just sloped off with my tail between my legs when I'd been told that I didn't understand the basic dictionary premise of anarchy. Hmm?

[Slizor]

Quite on the contary actually, I do not belive you to be an utter prick, I find you intresting and promising(for later bbsing).

Well if we were going to have to deal with an anarchist "nation" under attack then first we would have to understand how that "nation" would work.

The only way anarchism can practically work is for people to realise that they must co-operate for their own good, this would require the breakdown of social barriers(the social class's!!) Anywho now if they came nder attack(why this would happen is beyond me) they would have to form a heirarchial army to defend themselves which would then have to disband itself(I do realise that governments started as an extension of the army, but an anarchist nation is pretty much an impossiblity because of what the americans would do.