Friday, March 10, 2006
"Inviting Anarchy Into My Home "
I came across this article by way of the anarchist reading circle I’m a part of. It’s about an average fifty something year old women who, after life tossed her a few curve balls, decided to turn her home into an anarchist collective to pay the bills and share in some new experiences. I recommend that you check it out if you think you know what anarchism is about, or if you’d like to know what it’s about. It’s probably a different account of anarchism than what you’re used to, but I assure you, the issues discussed are what anarchy is all about – even if CNN tells you otherwise. And when you’re finished reading it I recommend you ask yourself: “Why did we ever stop thinking that this was what life was all about in the first place?”
// posted by Nicholas @ 7:50 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I wouldn't really call that an Anarchist household at all ..for several reasons.
I strongly believe that hierarchal orders are natural to humans. There are people who have the ability to lead, and there are people who have the ability to do ..but need to be told in order to organize themselves up.
Anarchism also doesn't entail the elimination of a system to coincide with it ..just the elimination of government.
The question then would be, what kind of a system?
One question I often pose to Anarchists (I'm a former anarchist), is what about Law and justice in society?
If we were to instigate an Anarchistic system today ..how would it work? how would it adapt?
And okay, if we're talking theorhetically..the first question sitll stands ..what about law? What about crime and punishment?
Even animals have a "governmental" sort of a system.
Hierarchy sucks, sure, but it's a basic fact of life ..and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I DO see a problem with expolitative hierarchies, and those which are gained through unjust means ..but that's another story.
The best support I've ever heard of Anarchism is from Anarcho-Capitalists ..who believe in pure Libertarianism. A completely free market, with no government at all.
I don't necessarily agree with it ..but if you're an Anarchist, I'd suggest reading up on the eco-theory, and concentrating on the issues pertaining to Anarchism.
There are too many questions Anarchism leaves hanging.
Argh.
Limited Government ..ILU.
I strongly believe that hierarchal orders are natural to humans. There are people who have the ability to lead, and there are people who have the ability to do ..but need to be told in order to organize themselves up.
Anarchism also doesn't entail the elimination of a system to coincide with it ..just the elimination of government.
The question then would be, what kind of a system?
One question I often pose to Anarchists (I'm a former anarchist), is what about Law and justice in society?
If we were to instigate an Anarchistic system today ..how would it work? how would it adapt?
And okay, if we're talking theorhetically..the first question sitll stands ..what about law? What about crime and punishment?
Even animals have a "governmental" sort of a system.
Hierarchy sucks, sure, but it's a basic fact of life ..and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I DO see a problem with expolitative hierarchies, and those which are gained through unjust means ..but that's another story.
The best support I've ever heard of Anarchism is from Anarcho-Capitalists ..who believe in pure Libertarianism. A completely free market, with no government at all.
I don't necessarily agree with it ..but if you're an Anarchist, I'd suggest reading up on the eco-theory, and concentrating on the issues pertaining to Anarchism.
There are too many questions Anarchism leaves hanging.
Argh.
Limited Government ..ILU.
apart from the fact that every one of your “questions” are deeply rooted in gross presuppositions (unfounded empirically) about the nature of man and society, and apart from the fact that every one of your questions are deeply rooted in grosss presupositions about the nature of man and society, and justice, and well that's my point so forget about the apart. read foucault and drop the anarcho-capitalist facade.justice… and well that's my point so forget about the ‘apart’. read foucault.
Finally the bitter irony of all those who critique anarchy, and anarchists is that they feel a need to categorize and objectify what anarchism “is”. It goes to show just how entrenched they are in their logocentric paradigm. Anarchy is not a movement, and it’s not a quality or an attribute – you can accuse me of not being an anarchist and I can
Finally the bitter irony of all those who critique anarchy, and anarchists is that they feel a need to categorize and objectify what anarchism “is”. It goes to show just how entrenched they are in their logocentric paradigm. Anarchy is not a movement, and it’s not a quality or an attribute – you can accuse me of not being an anarchist and I can
continued....
you can accuse me of not being an anarchist and I can’t refute it – but it might be used as a vehicle for positive reform, as a tool for new discourses, with the hope for a day when we need not sell ourselves and our friends short by making the sorts of crass assumptions you make in your above comment.
you can accuse me of not being an anarchist and I can’t refute it – but it might be used as a vehicle for positive reform, as a tool for new discourses, with the hope for a day when we need not sell ourselves and our friends short by making the sorts of crass assumptions you make in your above comment.
I think this is one of the few times I agree with chuk entirely.
Especially on the presumption of naturality.
(chuk, it must be a landmark, we should celebrate.)
Anarchy is not a system, so there is no need to sit and try to define it according to other political ideologies which work within a system, like neo-liberalism. I would suggest that instead of trying to define anarchy be reading books about anarcho-theory, focus on reading theories which deal with the “problems” of anarchy like discipline, punishment, crime and law. In otherwards, like chuk recommended, read Foucault on discipline and punishment.
-michelle.
Especially on the presumption of naturality.
(chuk, it must be a landmark, we should celebrate.)
Anarchy is not a system, so there is no need to sit and try to define it according to other political ideologies which work within a system, like neo-liberalism. I would suggest that instead of trying to define anarchy be reading books about anarcho-theory, focus on reading theories which deal with the “problems” of anarchy like discipline, punishment, crime and law. In otherwards, like chuk recommended, read Foucault on discipline and punishment.
-michelle.
# posted by 
: 2:18 PM
: 2:18 PM
whoa, i copied and pasted my above comments from word and they got all chopped up weird like -- sorry about that, i didn't mean to repeat myself -- but i geuss to some extent it ended up making sense.
anyways i think michelle articulated my point much more clearly anyways.
(yeah i geuss the fact that we agree on something mich is worth celebrating. a toast! i just took a swig of my pepsi.)
anyways i think michelle articulated my point much more clearly anyways.
(yeah i geuss the fact that we agree on something mich is worth celebrating. a toast! i just took a swig of my pepsi.)
No, you're not understanding what I'm saying.
Maybe if we started from a clean slate, sure. But I'm talking about now, what would happen if we instigated Anarchism?
My questions are not rooted deeply in "gross presuppositions" ..they're based on historical evidence. How far back do we want to go here?
And what crass assumptions? That hierarchy is a part of our nature? I wouldn't call that crass, but rather a simple observation. And maybe not our innate nature, but definitely our evolved nature.
And I've told you I don't believe in Anarcho-Capitalism one bit..but the freemarket stuff aside, it DOES support Anarchism well, and it DOES talk about human condition and nature-how to deal with crime, punishment, justice etc. It's not just all eco-theory, but also pyschological, sociological, etc theory.
Anarchism can exist, however there needs to be a system alongside it. And that doesn't contradict the "goal" of Anarchism at all.
Maybe if we started from a clean slate, sure. But I'm talking about now, what would happen if we instigated Anarchism?
My questions are not rooted deeply in "gross presuppositions" ..they're based on historical evidence. How far back do we want to go here?
And what crass assumptions? That hierarchy is a part of our nature? I wouldn't call that crass, but rather a simple observation. And maybe not our innate nature, but definitely our evolved nature.
And I've told you I don't believe in Anarcho-Capitalism one bit..but the freemarket stuff aside, it DOES support Anarchism well, and it DOES talk about human condition and nature-how to deal with crime, punishment, justice etc. It's not just all eco-theory, but also pyschological, sociological, etc theory.
Anarchism can exist, however there needs to be a system alongside it. And that doesn't contradict the "goal" of Anarchism at all.
horned creatures have horns because they have fewer teeth then most other species of animal and need some where for the extra bone matter they produce to go. loosely, this is an observational argument that was put forward by aristotle 2500 years ago. we've come a long way since then.
as for your notion of an "evolved nature", i'm afraid we can't always have our cake and eat it too. nature is an inherently conservative notion and leaves no room for useful things like evolution -- it's one of the reasons why darwin was controversial. if we evolve than we can affect change in our nature, which sort of renders claims justified by appeal to human nature redundant. i think A because it is the logical conclusion following from human nature B -- where B is constantly changing in an utterly unpredictable manner (or, if you're really confident, in any manner i wish to guide it). but we have an "evolved nature" in the present! what a shame it will be something else tomorrow, and another thing a year from now, and so on.
i think the point is that anarchy never claims that there can be no distribution of labour and goods in society. as the article illustrates, this is not what's sought; what is sought is a world/community in which every human has as much say in this process as possible, and can do so on an equal footing with all other members.
(As for libertarianism, although I know little about them, they seem to be fairly misguided in as much as they believe that if we teach everyone to kill, maim and exploit, and give them the means -- a gun -- the world would be a safer place. anarcho-capitalism, as far as I can tell, isn’t much better, though it is certainly more complex.)
Post a Comment
as for your notion of an "evolved nature", i'm afraid we can't always have our cake and eat it too. nature is an inherently conservative notion and leaves no room for useful things like evolution -- it's one of the reasons why darwin was controversial. if we evolve than we can affect change in our nature, which sort of renders claims justified by appeal to human nature redundant. i think A because it is the logical conclusion following from human nature B -- where B is constantly changing in an utterly unpredictable manner (or, if you're really confident, in any manner i wish to guide it). but we have an "evolved nature" in the present! what a shame it will be something else tomorrow, and another thing a year from now, and so on.
i think the point is that anarchy never claims that there can be no distribution of labour and goods in society. as the article illustrates, this is not what's sought; what is sought is a world/community in which every human has as much say in this process as possible, and can do so on an equal footing with all other members.
(As for libertarianism, although I know little about them, they seem to be fairly misguided in as much as they believe that if we teach everyone to kill, maim and exploit, and give them the means -- a gun -- the world would be a safer place. anarcho-capitalism, as far as I can tell, isn’t much better, though it is certainly more complex.)
<< Home
