Modern Anarchism

Torakx

With more and more propaganda in the mainstream media(MSM) against anarchism, I have noticed that there is a common view it means chaos and the destruction of the fabric of society.
The MSM's view of anarchy is some sort of holocaust or doomsday aftermath.
When the state is gone, nothing seems to be left, but dust. Life returned...
Often conveying that the state is life.

The anarchists I see on the MSM are wearing black clothes and waving black and red flags.
Everyone in their "rightful" place.


With that perspective in mind, it seems to me that in order to preserve or further anarchism, it would be best to rebrand and/or work from the main points of contact with resistance.
Those being security, food, shelter, community, trade.

Here is an interesting quote from a conversation I stumbled upon.

"An old anarchist idea is that the new world must be created within the shell of the old. This means that when civilization collapses - through its own volition, through our efforts, or a combination of the two - there will be an alternative waiting to take its place. This is really necessary as, in the absence of positive alternatives, the social disruption caused by collapse could easily create the psychological insecurity and social vacuum in which fascism and other totalitarian dictatorships could flourish."-benettfreeman
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1riflb/what_would_you_call_this_progressive_anarchism/

Are there any philosophers who write about these dynamics, between the mainstream cultural view and real anarchism.
Anyone attempting to strategically bridge the gap or pin point the fundamental principles involved?

I think that economics is one of the pivotal points.
If trade can't continue, weapons become the currency.
And so economics is one of the most state guarded systems.

From a "progressive/gradualist" anarchistic perspective, a strategic move towards a bridge to economics, is aiming for a faster progression, but without fundamental support, via security, food, community etc.
A move towards security, food shelter, community, is a strong but slow growing foundation, which possibly runs the risk of more destruction as society implodes into a fresh dictatorship.

I've found one author already as I type this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Boettke
Next trip to the book shop soon I think
I'm already excited!
In a way it is similar to the dynamics in strategy games.
This is a game worth beating.

I'd like to hear more ideas and opinions on this topic.
Spread some awareness to provoke questions.
And maybe discover a few gems along the way.

Thoughts?

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

Are there any philosophers who write about these dynamics, between the mainstream cultural view and real anarchism.
Anyone attempting to strategically bridge the gap or pin point the fundamental principles involved?

William Godwin suggested that as knowledge and understanding advances and spreads to all humanity, the need for government diminishes (An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1793). The structure and ubiquitous prevalence of government historically were seen as corrupting forces fostering ignorance and dependence upon it in self-fulfilling ways. A reliance upon government enforced rules, regulations, and laws were seen as enslavement, but would eventually become redundant and moot after a new personal morality emerged from a universal, increased knowledge and understanding of all things that affected human existence. Godwin's philosophy was anarchistic, romantic, and extraordinarily optimistic.

Torakx

I haven't had a chance to research any more on this topic or the authors mentioned so far.
I just had a few ideas and thought they tie in well to this post.

The problem I was trying to tackle at the time, was the issue of governments( really corporate whores) controlling citizens and opinion.
And recently I found "proof"(in the form of a book written by an Irish Barrister/lecturer) that the government is a juristic person, like the rest of us, it has agents who represent it.
To be clear, we are agents for our persons(corporate entity), in the eyes of the law and court.
Your signature style is like a company logo.

In order for us to interact with a state and it's proxys, we need to be a company.
The state also needs to be a company, in order to interact with other states and visiting companies(international relations of all kinds) and also to interact with us.
We are doing business with every interaction between persons.
That is how you can get a fine for breaking a law, instead of criminal charges.
One law for the person, the other for the human.

One Idea I had was to create a new company for a country and invite the citizens to join. When the citizens have majority over the current state, they in theory should be in position to be the most recognized state.
Consider that the old company would have much more attachments to previous contracts and a whole load of debts. Maybe even all debts and attachments.
Who sounds like the better company then?!

This funnel strategy(Fraud? Laundering? LOL) could be a way to progress more towards individual rule in a very modern and practical way.
Educating all new "citizens" to become company directors/CEO's.
De-centralizing power over time.

Possibly even leading to a new form of modern anarchism.
One formed internationally and incorporated.
It could be a dream for the New World Order to hijack as well

Again, I'm hoping someone can spot any major flaws, or refer me to some new philosophies or authors who might have covered this already.
There is already one obvious issue.
A new currency would need to be created or adopted as councils couldn't continue with framework maintenance(currently being privatised worldwide) without funding.
To cover that issue, the new company would have to start planning for currency change/creation as numbers build.
Bitcoin came to mind haha!

A critical point would be when the new company members outnumber those in the old.
And also when a new currency and business plan is ready to be made active.

More ideas..
Kickstarter for the new company
A major donation could be rewarded with citizenship. Hmm is that an ethical issue? Not to capitalism it isn't..

Black Swan

I wonder to what extent this chart is misleading or over-simplifies anarchism?

Torakx

That's a pretty good chart.
So far it seems accurate overall.
And I appreciate the return to topic!

My last post was full of aspirations ready to be dashed.
A venture into the law forums helped the process along some.
I learned that the system is very much adapting( and growing stronger), as it is attacked from the outside.
And those attacks are categorized and put into a box for future reference.
Any new attack(at least perceived ) on the intellectual or ethical validity of the system, is put into a new box, unless disregarded via an old one.

What was once known as commercial law, is now known as private law.
What was once known as criminal/common law, was changed to public law. IIRC!
So I was not taken seriously when I used the wrong wording or certain phrases.
The reaction to my posts were enlightening in many ways.
Those things could have been pointed out to me instantly, but were not.
I found those answers in a book.
And this is just the foundational frameworks..
This machine is a tricky one to pin down, it is constantly moving the goal posts.

I'd like to dig deeper into varying forms of modern anarchism still though.
I'll try to focus the legal stuff in the other forum, when I catch up with their goal posts.

On studying that chart, I have noticed visually, that anarchism is the direct opposite of our(average people) worst nightmare.

When considering what I have been trying to do with anarchism, it seems the chart is too limited.
For example a group of anarchists starting a corporation, all as equal members and beneficiaries, might fall between capitalism and anarchism(or possibly capitalist individualism, crossed with some collectivism...).
Has an anarchist ever suggested such a thing in this age of corporate power mongering?

A lot of people see anarchism as having no rules.
Where really I am lead to believe it is all about discarding hierarchies and privileges that are encroaching on our individual "rights" and ethics.
I am unsure if that excludes capitalism.
But I am reminded that with all these moving goal posts to keep control, my looking to secure anarchism under a capitalist banner, may lead to a way to getting through some cracks in the system.
Similar to converting a diesel engine to use water as fuel instead
A straight run for the complete opposite of the current direction, would be too jarring a turn to make.
But a diversion to anarchism might be made possible, using capitalism as a vehicle.

whippet

Torakx wrote: »

To be clear, we are agents for our persons(corporate entity), in the eyes of the law and court.
Your signature style is like a company logo.

can you qualify this statement.

This assumption forms the basis of your post and the underlying theory; have you any presentable evidence to support this statement?

Torakx

whippet wrote: »

can you qualify this statement.

This assumption forms the basis of your post and the underlying theory; have you any presentable evidence to support this statement?

I have nothing that would satisfy you I am sure, since we covered this topic on another forum, I will ask all to consider that statement redacted now though.
It's just an opinion(based on my reading of law so far) for now and you are correct in pointing out this issue. It is not believed to be fact by the courts.
While the state is a person and therefore a person is(in one form at least) a fictional entity, I have not researched enough to find out what the courts see a human person as.
While it appears this is the case(regarding state as a person), I have not gathered enough information to explain the rest.
I will return to that topic much later in another forum(legal).
This thread is predominantly about modern anarchism and various ways in which it could be utilized today.
The theory you refer to, is just one of many ways and not an underpinning of the whole.
I thought I might drag a few visitors this way from legal
Nice to see you take part in the philosophy forums.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

That's a pretty good chart.
So far it seems accurate overall.

There are several types of anarchism evidencing its complexity, and each should be discussed in depth before we can approach some understanding of its diverse nature. For example, there appears to be two major categories collectivist and individualist, and two subcategories anti-capitalist and capitalist, and several sub-subcategories that fall under the above to some extent:

• Socialism: collectivist anarchism (Mikhail Bakunin); Communist anarchism (Peter Kropotkin); Anarcho-syndicalism (Rudolf Rocker).
• Mutualism: Individual sovereignty (Josiah Warren); Property is theft (Pierre Proudhon); Individualist anarchism (Lysander Spooner).
• Georgism: Geoararchism (Albert Nock).
• Capitalism: Laissez faire (Gustave de Molinari); Anarcho-capitalism (David Friedman).

Torakx

Thanks!
I find myself tackling so many different topics, I would not have found this information easily.
It's clear that really I do need to go back to basics at least in between phases of problem solving.
But where to find the time to upload all of this into my brain!
I might only have a few decades left to change the world for the better(and probably destroy it in the process).
If you happen to spot a book that might cover all of these together, I would certainly go out and buy it, to study it carefully.

I remember Chomsky doing a lecture on anarchism. Maybe he has written a more indepth analysis on paper.
Honestly, my research in general is pretty sparce or spread about.
Most of my knowledge is gained from learning how to problem solve and figure things out by looking at them.
Gaming ^^(A thread for another day maybe)

Torakx

I wanted to post this in the "Dissonance in the Super Ego" thread. But it probably belongs here due to the overall nature of the lecture.
There were some good points that could relate to comments in the other thread. But too much dotted about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCePcSouBOc

The anxious expectation that nothing will happen, that capitalism will go on indefinitely, the desperate demand to do something, to revolutionize capitalism, is a fake. The will to revolutionary change emerges as an urge, as an “I cannot do it otherwise,” or it is worthless. With regard to Bernard Williams’s distinction between Ought and Must, an authentic revolution is by definition performed as a Must – it is not something we “ought to do” as an ideal we are striving for, but something we cannot but to, since we cannot do it otherwise. Which is why today’s worry of the Leftists that revolution will not occur, that global capitalism will just go on indefinitely, is false insofar as it turns revolution into a moral obligation, into something we ought to do while we fight the inertia of the capitalist present.

I think this lecture is important in this topic, as Anarchism is in many ways an opposition to capitalism.
In this lecture there are questions posed about whether it is better to consolidate capitalism or avoid it completely.

Actually at 1:08:30 or after, he says with regards to immigration and integration, that we should not say " oh we are all human" and therefore isolate their differences, while on the surface pretending to accept them. But instead, accept them for their differences. The former he states is a distorted ideology that separates and I would agree.
For me this is a nice argument for anarchism!
To respect the individual differences, not respect how we can all need food water air etc, then punish those who are different.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

...as Anarchism is in many ways an opposition to capitalism.

All "anarchism" was not in "opposition to capitalism." For example, David Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism was a leading proponent of anarcho-capitalism. He was a strong advocate of capitalism, while at the same time an anarchist. He suggested that the state was an unnecessary evil that should be greatly reduced, and in some cases eliminated through privatization, especially government monopolies such as the costly US Postal Service and public school systems.

Laissez faire capitalism, as advocated by Gustave de Molinari in The Production of Security strongly endorses capitalism, and was anarchistic by advocating that freedom of labor and trade from government regulation was in the best interests of the consumer, and will result in the lowest prices through government-free competition.

Black Swan

Torakx wrote: »

To respect the individual differences, not respect how we can all need food water air etc, then punish those who are different.

One major branch of anarchism is very individualistic; i.e., the rights of the individual should not be impaired by the collective, or worse, a government. Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, per se, rather a fictional book author with a philosophical message, and in her novella Anthem (1938) she evidenced Individualist Anarchism (compare with Lysander Spooner's No Treason), where she challenged a world of "we" with her version of a radical "I" world in subtle parody. She also wrote more lengthy works Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that appeared to combine Anarcho Capitalism with Laissez Faire Capitalism, both very individualistic.