Anarcho-Bicyclist Conference Manchester April 2011

100% agree, it was hilarious to watch the various anarchists on the recent student fees protests, a little like seeing a group of slightly confused vegans on an EDL march.

I also agree that anarchism seems to attract edgy socialists who think anarchism is just some sort of hardcore anti-authoritarian idea that might sit well with their more radical socialist mores

I would say that is exactly the aim (rather that it 'resulting' in laissez faire capitalism).

(well perhaps for anarco-primitivism, they will just end up eating each other's shit)

Exactly. It is the anti-authoritarian side that they love but they are seemingly unaware of the kind of control and power required to carry off their socialist/communist views. And yes it is the aim really. Finally someone else who actually understands the concept.

Much of what we call anarchism is based upon anarcho-communism. Anarcho communists played major roles in both the Russian Revolution and the Spanish Civil War. In both cases the Marxist Leninists sought to liquidate them as soon as their purpose was achieved.

Don't stamp anarcho communists with the failures of Marxist Leninism.

Good book on the subject is Emma Goldman's account of her two years in post revolutionary soviet union and her growing disillusionment with the sovirets. That and anything by Orwell concerning the Spanish Civil War.

Many totalitarianists use design to sell their intellectually bankrupt ideas. Much as Coca Cola and McDonalds do to sell their revolting products.

The term 'anarcho-communists' is an oxymoron. No possible form of communism could be implemented without massive state powers and wide scale supervision of citizens. How exactly does that come under any kind of anarchist ideals.

They may have wanted to destroy the state as it was at the time but they wanted to create another, even more powerful. That is not is not anarchy that is just a rebellion/rebolution for their own state control.

Oh and yeah anything by Orwell is well worth reading. But he was a socialist at heart but disillusioned. That has nothing to do with anarchy. Read his essay 'why a socialist can never be happy' or something like that, can't remember the exact title.

The term 'anarcho-communists' is an oxymoron. No possible form of communism could be implemented without massive state powers and wide scale supervision of citizens. How exactly does that come under any kind of anarchist ideals.

They may have wanted to destroy the state as it was at the time but they wanted to create another, even more powerful. That is not is not anarchy that is just a rebellion/rebolution for their own state control.

Hmmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

My reference to Orwell was more towards his writings on the destruction of the anarchists in Spain (as well as the Trotskist POUM) by the Marxist Leninists, than to his own political philosophy..

'Franco's fifth column' seems quite possible now - Blair turned out to be a British spook, no?

Many totalitarianists use design to sell their intellectually bankrupt ideas. Much as Coca Cola and McDonalds do to sell their revolting products.

Mmmmm cheeeeeseburgerrrrrrrr

Speaking of spies, you can't help wondering whether anyone on this event will turn out a bit Mark Kennedy ish... Bike all new, and trying shag everyone.

Speaking of spies, you can't help wondering whether anyone on this event will turn out a bit Mark Kennedy ish... Bike all new, and trying shag everyone.

Fresh tattoos just slightly wrong - picture of bike but with brakes...

Speaking of spies, you can't help wondering whether anyone on this event will turn out a bit Mark Kennedy ish... Bike all new, and **trying shag **everyone.

Surely any spy worth his/her salt will try shag before starting work among 'domestic extremists'.

#newspeak

Hmmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

You can state it, you can even philosophise or speculate it, but regardless of it having supporters (and literature and so on) it still may not be a viable idea, I agree with teome, the idea is seemingly oxymoronic.

Think of it like this: christianity might well have a wikipedia entry but that doesn't give any veracity to it's knowledge claims.

Follow your own wiki entry a single link deep and the idea already seems to stuggle:

Anarchist communism is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[1][2]

Common ownership - - -Socialists make the distinction between collective ownership (such as corporate/private ownership and state ownership) and common property.

Perhaps there is some interpretation of anarco-communism that gets around this, but in general the idea is seemingly inconsistent.

A wiki link was a short hand method of alerting teome to a whole body of material concerning anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communists have seen themselves as very different to Marxist-Leninists and have fought against the repressive nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarcho-communism is mainstream anarchism.

Agreed, the presence of a wikepedia entry and some people talking about is no evidence of a working, practical and implementable system. The whole idea is completely confused. Exactly how will common ownership work then, without an organisation, ie a state power, to enforce this. It's rediculous.

How do you stop people grabbing land and power when this system is set up then. Does anyone seriously believe that everone will simply live happily and stroll around the whole country. Inevitably people will have to make homes, they will then consider the land their homes are on to be theirs, otherwise anyone elso could come along and rip the house and build there, or just walk in and take it. Then, not everybody is good and practial skills such as building while others are better at theoretical or medical tasks so skills will be traded...well, lets think how this could be achieved...first trading in anything they have, chickens, hours to do the work, logs for the house...then someone will come up with the idea of money. Like I said before, grab a history book. It's pretty obvious what will happen

The only way this could be stopped is by having a powerful state, or as anarcho-communists might like to call, a community group...it's the same thing, there will have to be state power of some kind, for which there will have to be a leader, together with very restrictive monitoring of the citizens to ensure that the everything is common. That is completely contrary to anarchism. Any system to do enable some sort of common ownership is completely contrary to anarchism

I am amazed that people actually take these ideas seriously. There is either a complete lack of understanding of human nature, or no clear thought process of what the outcome would actually be.

A wiki link was a short hand method of alerting teome to a whole body of material concerning anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communists have seen themselves as very different to Marxist-Leninists and have fought against the repressive nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarcho-communism is mainstream anarchism.

Maybe, but the result of what they desire would require the kind of control and supervision which goes hand in hand with communism

Except, in reality, that is not what happened and so that the anarchists, who were probably more popular thatn the marxists were not as ruthless nor as well organised and were liquidated or forced into exile.

They didn't actually carry out any of the plans. Just have a think about how a system like anarcho-communism could actually work and you quickly find yourself back in capitalism, anarcho or not, or you would need massive organisation (state) powers and supervision. Humans will always do the best they can to make things better for themselves and their family. It makes no sense at all

A wiki link was a short hand method of alerting teome to a whole body of material concerning anarcho-communism.

Understood, I wasn't trying to accuse you of the 'it's on Wiki therefore it's true' fallacy, only that the idea is questionable.

Anarcho-communists have seen themselves as very different to Marxist-Leninists and have fought against the repressive nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarcho-communism is mainstream anarchism.

I'd say anarco-capilism is true anarchism, or at leas the conclusion of anarchism, but I's also agree that anarcho-communism is what people (certainly in the UK) understand as anarchism.

Understood, I wasn't trying to accuse you of the 'it's on Wiki therefore it's true' fallacy, only that the idea is questionable.

I'd say anarco-capilism is true anarchism, or at leas the conclusion of anarchism, but I's also agree that anarcho-communism is what people (certainly in the UK) understand as anarchism.

Yes, it is what people understand it to be, but that just shows the lack understanding of the followers. I doubt anyone who understands what anarchism actually is would follow it.

So what your saying is that human nature=capitalism, in brief?

So what your saying is that human nature=capitalism, in brief?

Property precedes government.

So what your saying is that human nature=capitalism, in brief?

Which is no more than Margaret Thatcher said.

But she was wrong. People are capable of being better than that.

Capitalism is inherently bad in your view Clive? Is this original sin creeping in then, if it is human nature?

I'm saying that human nature is governed by the genes and relationships built up over time. Parents and families will travel the earth for one another. Any system which expects people to, by their own free will, help all others equally is fundamentally flawed. You only have to look at what has happened in any country where this has been tried. Very quickly a large state becomes necessary to enforce the community working. It is completely understandable. Parents will work hard for their children and want the best for them. This fundamental fact cancels out all communist, or woolly ideas about ^people being better than that.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This means that any system has to find a way to take advantage of this human trait, not run against it. Therefore capitalism allows people to work hard and get more for their children and those around then, while at the same time, taking money from them as they do this in the form of taxes to help those who are dissadvantaged. It may not be ideal but unless there is another way of helping those who need it while not expecting people to act unnaturally, then capitalism has to be used

Which is no more than Margaret Thatcher said.

But she was wrong. People are capable of being better than that.

Better than what ? He asked human nature=capitalism ?

It's a silly question to start with, I am not sure how you can get from that to arriving at "we are better than that".

Cliveo

Yeah you were wrong. What is ironic I that most anarchist are actually so close minded to understand or confront and accept the fact that a Tory leader was trying to reduce the size if the state. Lessen state control, lessen control of powerful union organisations, free up the economy to anyone, enable competition in business and traditionally state-owned industries and increase public ownership of properties and land. This together with lower taxes to enable people to control their own lives and make their own decisions. Objectives of anyone who is a genuine anarchist, although further change would be desired.

She was elected and given power to carry these things out but it just proved how difficult it is to carry something like those off. It went too fast and many people were badly affected. The goal was certainly libertarian which, at the extreme, goes towards anarchy. I can't imagine anyone who understands what anarchy would mean to call themselves an anarchist other than to se edgy. Libertarianism is pretty much a tamed, more realistic and acheivable form of anarchy which many people would subscribe too.

It is redicilous and sad that so many anarchist are actually quite far to the left of the political view and are much closer to communists and socialists, which has well and truly been shown to be a complete disaster every time it is attempted.
Sadly people still don't get what it was about.

A libertarian? All I need now is an Ayn Rand fan and I'll I'll have won crackpot bingo, forever!

Libertarians of the early 20th century used to argue for progressive taxation, because beyond giving everyone the vote, you needed to reduce the power of the wealthy to coerce others. Libertarians now argue for 'getting the hell off my money'.

And the Tories aren't libertarian, they aren't trying to open up markets and opportunity to all. That's just an excuse for their dismantling of state limitation of corporate power.

^ Where did I say the tories are libertarian? I talked about the goals she in particular had. I don't even like the tories and I have no interest in reading Ayn Rand.

This is the 21st century what do former libertarian plans then have to do with this. What is the excuse for dismantling the state limitation of corporate power. If there was any form of anarchy there would be no corpotate power anyway since this is only possible due to the investment system and PLCs which are state backed. And I wasn't even talking about the tories as the are now or then even. This is a thread about anarchy and my points were made o show the absurdity of most of the followers who have no understanding of it. Thatcher's plans were more inline with anarchy than the vast majority of the ideals of self professed anarchists that I have read about or come into contact with.

You seem to have missed the point which is not supprising. Any form of anarchy would be rejected by those who understand it