Do Anarchists hope more than strive? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14536404
By the question I mean, do Anarchists really believe that Anarchism can actually be implemented in the present day across the globe? Because that seems completely impossible to me. But as a totally abstract sort of "way out there" type just pure theory, it sounds like Utopia. So I would be among those people "hoping for" Anarchism but not "striving for" it.
#14536454
Getting two anarchist to agree a response to this may be an impossibility, my view is that successful anarchists adopt a dual strategy,

Firstly they act in concert with other socialists to advance the cause of the proletariat through strikes, popular movements etc.

Secondly they work to create anarchist spaces, such as mutual aid and voluntary associations, the RNLI being an example,
#14536736
They mostly like throwing bombs at people. Anarchism is like radical Islam but without the excuse of the religious brainwashing. If you want to effect any actual change you need to look at socialism.
#14536754
I think we all have unrealistic ideals which we hope for, and perhaps even strive for, though perhaps in smaller proportion than our anarchist fellows.

I do not think that many anarchists above the age of sixteen or so have any illusions about the continued existence of our current liberal-capitalist/neo-liberal imperialist society.

Personally, I do not think of some things as impossible, just far less likely in the current day and age. And I tend to focus my energies on things that can make a difference today. So, while I have the goal of indigenous sovereignty as part of my policies, I am realistic that I will probably not see it in my lifetime, however, at the same time, I can continue my work to make indigenous communities less dependent on the gov't, and thereby make my "unrealistic" idea of sovereignty more realistic.

While I would not presume to talk for anarchists, I suspect they do something similar.
#14537271
Decky wrote:Anarchism is like radical Islam but without the excuse of the religious brainwashing.

Then we might as well say Communism is nothing but totalitarianism of the power elite with the ideology of "workers state." The major history of anarchist revolutionary action has been protest and direct action. Some have reverted to violence like throwing bombs--which most anarchists reject. If we look at communist states...well, we see a history of coercion, mass incarceration, and brutal killings of millions. This does not mean there are no positives to such states (Russian industrial advances and China which established national healthcare). At any rate, I think you would agree it is not entirely fair to judge a movement solely by its failings.

Decky wrote:If you want to effect any actual change you need to look at socialism.


Many would argue--and I think correctly--that Anarchism is socialism

Errico Malatesta wrote:Anarchy is synonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of exploitations and of the domination of man over man, whether maintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the means of life. Anarchy, like Socialism, has for its basis and necessary point of departure equality of conditions. Its aim is solidarity, and its method is liberty


Pants of a Dog wrote:I do not think that many anarchists above the age of sixteen or so have any illusions about the continued existence of our current liberal-capitalist/neo-liberal imperialist society.

Personally, I do not think of some things as impossible, just far less likely in the current day and age. And I tend to focus my energies on things that can make a difference today. So, while I have the goal of indigenous sovereignty as part of my policies, I am realistic that I will probably not see it in my lifetime, however, at the same time, I can continue my work to make indigenous communities less dependent on the gov't, and thereby make my "unrealistic" idea of sovereignty more realistic.


I think this is fairly accurate. For instance, somebody like Noam Chomsky, an ardent anarchist. He nevertheless has spent much time invested in social change within current society. Anarchism is the long term aim, but not always realizable in immediate social contexts. There can be anarchist type movements and political agendas that align with anarchist ideas that are worth fighting for even if the immediate end result is not anarchism.
#14613496
Striving and struggling always and forever, yes, but isn't that fascinating? A worldwide revolution is not likely, and everyone knows that who calls himself an anarchist I think. But (forgive my sentimentalism) it is our duty to strive and try to achieve the establishment of an anarchist society even if the chance of success is scarce. Think of the pessimism of the strong. I think if we set seemingly impossible goals for ourselves, we still must cling to them and carry their burden. After all, this is what gives life a meaning; striving for our ideals and the visions we have while knowing we have little to no chance to actually achieve them.
#14613572
Pants-of-dog wrote: And I tend to focus my energies on things that can make a difference today.


On the surface this is an eminently reasonable strategy for an individual, or even a single interest advocacy group. It is also true, that people in power are able to exploit this tendency to their advantage by isolating and playing interest groups one against another, whilst simultaneously consolidating their hold over economic power (which over time becomes political power). Sanders blindsided by BLM is one particularly egregious example. In the absence of any commitment to a particular overarching political principle, the operative principle is 'every man for himself.'

This is the tragedy of the Left.
#14631378
UnusuallyUsual wrote:By the question I mean, do Anarchists really believe that Anarchism can actually be implemented in the present day across the globe? Because that seems completely impossible to me. But as a totally abstract sort of "way out there" type just pure theory, it sounds like Utopia. So I would be among those people "hoping for" Anarchism but not "striving for" it.


Well, these people in Exarchia seem to be striving for something:

[youtube]7tvwSwp1TmU[/youtube]

As for globally, supposedly the Rojava region has been organized along democratic confederal lines. Also what is your take on Zomia, which anthropologist James Scott covered in his controversial book The Art of not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia where he describes a large area populated by close to one hundred million people living beyond the nation state?

[youtube]aVwrUsib4vU[/youtube]
#14662045
It is very complex as to whether anarchist hope or strive. Anarchism is much like a simplistic religion in that it can be practiced in one's own home. Anarchism is as much as a spirit as it is a political model. Anarchism is a practice before it becomes a model unlike Communism. This is why you have so many anarchist or communist with anarchist/communist/socialist sentiments.
I would say flat out centralized socialism is a more practical means to achieve anarchy first. Destroying the conception that the state should allow access to centralized pools of wealth and control is very important to achieve anarchy.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]