Anarchy?

[enlightenment]

I mean, really know..?

Here's a start...

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIW65cdsbiI&mode=related&search=

[Pathless]

I've an intuitve feeling that I've the creative heart of an anarchist, but would like to do some reading before I open my keyboard on the topic. I have a great anthology with the title of Anarchy! which is a compilation Emma Goldman's Mother Earth magazine from the early 20th century, but have never gotten around to digging into it. Maybe this thread is the stimulus I needed. I will make a point to indulge my anarchist's heart.

As we start, maybe we can continue to throw out bits of anarchist thought. Deoxy is a great site that has over a dozen links to articles on different aspects of anarchy. I pulled the following chunk from an essay entitled Toward a Cultural Ecology of Anarchy:

CONTROL FIGURES arise when anarchic communities, immersed in beatific dreams, visions and vocations, inadvertently delegate too much authority to an individual who is temporarily assigned the task of maintaining the (to them) subsidiary and trivial apparatus which sustains material life. The distracted community does not realize until too late that the strong individual gradually accumulates power through continuously performing the disparaged maintenance duties. The individual constructs a hierarchy to facilitate his responsibilities, and this hierarchical institution is eventually employed to enslave the free community. As the institution expands and becomes more impersonal, it gains a momentum of its own and becomes unmanageable, even by its ostensible rulers. Hence, its deistic, absolute powers, which are then projected or displaced onto the cosmos itself.

This argument seems to present governments of any kind, and the religious institutions that seem to shadow them doggedly, as pathologies. This is built on the assumption that the normal social state of humanity is one of benevolent cooperation and benefit, which I find entirely plausible, though many people are inclined to pooh-pooh this ideal as communist utopian hippy dippy unrealistic BS. Well, those control freaks are entitled to their opinions, too.

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Pathless

This argument seems to present governments of any kind, and the religious institutions that seem to shadow them doggedly, as pathologies. This is built on the assumption that the normal social state of humanity is one of benevolent cooperation and benefit, which I find entirely plausible, though many people are inclined to pooh-pooh this ideal as communist utopian hippy dippy unrealistic BS. Well, those control freaks are entitled to their opinions, too.

I agree with what you write.

If you use the term to most, they will likely look at you like you are some sort of not who wants to go around killing, at will!

Anarchy actually relies on a 'system' of no Government.

I do not think any nation in history has lived under a true anarchy, certainly not one were a system of power hasnt eventually taken grip...

In a true anarchy there would be no lawyers.

No laws!

There would be no military.

No nations!

There would be no wages, and no work, as we know it.

Thing, of course, would still get done, that is the biggest error me make, thinking that no one would do anything, and it would all be a mess.

We would do what needed to be done.

Why else would we not..?

Anything else would be silly, see.

I think true anarchy could work, but perhaps we as people are not mentally ready for all that it would entail..?

Perhaps some are, and they could be let to live under it, on a neutral piece of land.

Who knows, if it works out for them, others might look and feel that it is for them too..?

[Pathless]

Partly to bump this thread, but also because I believe this article relates to a practical sort of anarchy (can you wrap your head around that one: practical anarchy?), I am posting a link to a very cool article about the global organic phenomenon of non-profit activism groups. These groups may work for any number of things related to social justice, the enviornment, (fill in the blanks), and they do so in a small-scale, grassroots sort of way. The localized, bottom-up activity of grassroots movements is a key in the soup which I believe forms the permeable and malleable foundation of functioning, self-sufficient communities. The interlocking and interdependent nature of many of these self-sufficient (to an extent) communites is what forms the basis of a cohesive, sustainable, organic social network of the planet. This hearkens back to the way that we as humanity lived in the past, in a time perhaps currently forgotten by our obsessively historical and efficiency-obsessed society--a way of living that is natural, within the rhythms of nature and our own biological being, in tune with each other and our shared world.

For those of us with ADHD, an excerpt of the article follows. A distillation, if you will:

This movement is relentless and unafraid. It cannot be mollified, pacified, or suppressed. There can be no Berlin Wall moment, no treaty-signing, no morning to awaken when the superpowers agree to stand down. The movement will continue to take myriad forms. It will not rest. There will be no Marx, Alexander, or Kennedy. No book can explain it, no person can represent it, no words can encompass it, because the movement is the breathing, sentient testament of the living world.

And I believe it will prevail. I don't mean defeat, conquer, or cause harm to someone else. And I don't tender the claim in an oracular sense. I mean the thinking that informs the movement's goal -- to create a just society conducive to life on Earth -- will reign. It will soon suffuse and permeate most institutions. But before then, it will change a sufficient number of people so as to begin the reversal of centuries of frenzied self-destruction.

Inspiration is not garnered from litanies of what is flawed; it resides in humanity's willingness to restore, redress, reform, recover, reimagine, and reconsider. Healing the wounds of the Earth and its people does not require saintliness or a political party. It is not a liberal or conservative activity. It is a sacred act.

[Pathless]

Currently I am reading a very thought-provoking book on a fictional anarchy, The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin. The author juxtaposes a bare-bones, survival-oriented anarchist society next to an opulent, luxurious capitalist world. She creates an intersting story that highlights problems in both systems. The protagonist, Shevek, comes from the anarchist society to the capitalist one, attempting to create a bridge between and a synthesis of the two cultures. A good read.

Peace,
Pathless

[Sunny C.]

Interesting links, thanks!

If I were an idealogue, which I'm not, I would be inclined toward anarchism. While I don't believe that anarchism is a practical, or at least pragmaticially viable political ideology, I do think that the real measure of personal and creative freedom in an enlightened democracy is directly proportional to the amount of anarchy which can be allowed and safely managed by the state. I mean that in a wholly libertarian sense.

But beyond that I think that a person, however grudgingly, comes to accept the status quo political order. I pragmatically accept the two party system here in the States. I'm a Democrat only because I like the alternative less, not because I believe in the party. I'm not going to vote third party no matter how ideologicalyy appealing it may be. So I'm practical, but I still need to be able to think outside the political box so that I'm using the process more than it's using me. Thinking in anarchic terms leads one inexorably toward the most discomforting ethical and moral truths. It forces one to own their complicity with a power structure that harms many to benefit some.

Read Noam Chomsky sometime. He's a linguist, but he's also an intellectual anarchist.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Currently I am reading a very thought-provoking book on a fictional anarchy, The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin. Peace,
Pathless

Oh heck, there's a blast from the past. I read this about a squillion years ago! (er, like when it was her latest book...) How can that be, in one so young I hear you all shout in amazement...

As an aside, do you know she's published a "liberal" poetic translation of the Tao Te Ching?

s.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Interesting links, thanks!

If I were an idealogue, which I'm not, I would be inclined toward anarchism. While I don't believe that anarchism is a practical, or at least pragmaticially viable political ideology, I do think that the real measure of personal and creative freedom in an enlightened democracy is directly proportional to the amount of anarchy which can be allowed and safely managed by the state. I mean that in a wholly libertarian sense.

But beyond that I think that a person, however grudgingly, comes to accept the status quo political order. I pragmatically accept the two party system here in the States. I'm a Democrat only because I like the alternative less, not because I believe in the party. I'm not going to vote third party no matter how ideologicalyy appealing it may be. So I'm practical, but I still need to be able to think outside the political box so that I'm using the process more than it's using me. Thinking in anarchic terms leads one inexorably toward the most discomforting ethical and moral truths. It forces one to own their complicity with a power structure that harms many to benefit some.

Read Noam Chomsky sometime. He's a linguist, but he's also an intellectual anarchist.

Hmmmm... well... I agree with what you say... kind of... in a wishy-washy, non-commital, begrudging sort of way.

The rebel in me shouts:

PRACTICAL, SCHMACTICAL!!! Democons and Republicats!! Blaaaaaahhhh!! PUke!! They're all schemers and wankers!! (feeling a little British this morning, I am).

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all."

--Mario Savio

On a related note, Chomsky is a good man, a smart guy.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Hmmmm... well... I agree with what you say... kind of... in a wishy-washy, non-commital, begrudging sort of way.

The rebel in me shouts:

PRACTICAL, SCHMACTICAL!!! Democons and Republicats!! Blaaaaaahhhh!! PUke!! They're all schemers and wankers!! (feeling a little British this morning, I am).

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all."

--Mario Savio

On a related note, Chomsky is a good man, a smart guy.

That's an excellent quote from Savio! He's completely right.

I've thought for a while that there really is, if only theoretically, an intellectual zone of moral certitude where everything actually is black and white ethically and morally. The House of Truth, or whatever. And the only way into that zone would be through absolute intellectual anarchy. What I mean by that is that no pragmatic or practically based excuses, like "we have to kill them or they'll kill us," have any currency.

I don't think anyone can stand to live in the light of moral certainty. We can opt in or out in degrees, though. I think it's good to own the dark little things we do for practicality's sake. Anything we do with good intention should come from a base of honesty to really be effective. That's why I ventured that we should own our complicity with the power structure. Like Mario says:

...you've got to put your bodies upon the gears, upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all.

Anything we're not willing to actually wager our lives on is padding for the nest of complacency and jaded ambivelence. Or something like that.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I've thought for a while that there really is, if only theoretically, an intellectual zone of moral certitude where everything actually is black and white ethically and morally. The House of Truth, or whatever. And the only way into that zone would be through absolute intellectual anarchy. What I mean by that is that no pragmatic or practically based excuses, like "we have to kill them or they'll kill us," have any currency.

I don't think anyone can stand to live in the light of moral certainty. We can opt in or out in degrees, though. I think it's good to own the dark little things we do for practicality's sake. Anything we do with good intention should come from a base of honesty to really be effective. That's why I ventured that we should own our complicity with the power structure.

Nothing in nature is ever "perfect." Nothing ever completely fits within a given set of expectations. There is enough chaos in nature that if you try to neatly put everything into a black basket or a white basket, you yourself will be propagating this natural chaos by imposing a false paradigm. (I guess that is another way of expressing our complicity with the slightly chaotic structure.)

[Sunny C.]

I guess that is another way of expressing our complicity with the slightly chaotic structure.

Yes, we must embrace the wobble. Have you hugged your wobble today?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

Yes, we must embrace the wobble. Have you hugged your wobble today?

It reminds me about the Tao Te Ching Chapter 1, where "the mystery is the Gate to all that is subtle and wonderful."

Actually, Taoism resembles Anarchy in many ways.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It reminds me about the Tao Te Ching Chapter 1, where "the mystery is the Gate to all that is subtle and wonderful."

Actually, Taoism resembles Anarchy in many ways.

I wanted to savor and think about that.

Yeah. Anarchy is really just a realm where nothing is typed. Everything is "subtle." But I was thinking about, wondering about the balance of order against the background of subtle chaos. Hmmm...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I wanted to savor and think about that.

Yeah. Anarchy is really just a realm where nothing is typed. Everything is "subtle." But I was thinking about, wondering about the balance of order against the background of subtle chaos. Hmmm...

You have to look deeply in order to see the subtle order. Not everyone has the patience to look deeply, and you have to take off your blinders to see clearly.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I wanted to savor and think about that.

Yeah. Anarchy is really just a realm where nothing is typed. Everything is "subtle." But I was thinking about, wondering about the balance of order against the background of subtle chaos. Hmmm...

I'm sorry, I should have kept the order and used a Taoist quote regarding the optimal balance of order and chaos:

Therefore it is said, 'In representing the Dao of Heaven one uses the terms Yin and Yang, and in representing the Dao of Earth one uses the terms Soft and Hard, while in representing the Dao of Man, one uses the terms Love and Righteousness'.
--Zhou Dunyi