ANARCHISM AND ATHEISM

[Johnboy74]

Are you sure BGW- you haven't met us- We could be nasty,nasty, serial killers!!! Tracking your IP to come and axe you to death !!!!

What happened to our pact mate? your not supposed to be telling everybody our plans! geez! you can't keep a secret! that's it i'm kicking you from the "Vegan Serial Killer Club"

[Influencer]

Are you sure BGW- you haven't met us- We could be nasty,nasty, serial killers!!! Tracking your IP to come and axe you to death !!!!

What happened to our pact mate? your not supposed to be telling everybody our plans! geez! you can't keep a secret! that's it i'm kicking you from the "Vegan Cereals Killer Club"

Does that mean I can no longer eat Weetabix and Shredded Wheat every day, now!!!

[Johnboy74]

I'm tracking your IP now mate, get eating your last bowl of weetabix

[Influencer]

Before Johnboy seizes the contents of me larder

Back on track Question for those who class themselves as 'anarchists' and have a job How can this be? How can you pay taxes to the government ?
Is there a need to class yourself as an anarchist? Why a label? Is that itself not a contradiction of being a anarchist?
Was John Lydon not more accurate(back in 77 before he sold out and sold butter etc) When he said that it was more credible to be anarchy than have some pseudo interlectualising about being an anarchist?- As it wasn't really possible ,anyway?

Love to know from those who feel they are 'anarchists'.

[Jon]

Question for those who class themselves as 'anarchists' and have a job How can this be? How can you pay taxes to the government ?

There is nothing contradictory about anarchists having a job. In fact, as I suggested in a previous post, it would be contradictory for anarchists to refuse to work and therefore to live by the labour of others. Some anarchists may try to find a more socially useful and ethically palatable job, but its still a job. We pay taxes to the government with everything we buy, its unavoidable unless you were to go live out a hunter-gatherer existence in a forest somewhere, but we are talking about anarchism here, not primitivism. As most anarchists choose to live in society (after all we are social creatures) they need to work in order to satisfy their needs and inclinations, and this means being taxed - whether we would want to pay taxes or not. Besides that, taxes are sometimes used for socially necessary things (like public hospitals in some places). I think most anarchists would - under the present setup - want taxes to be used in more participatory, transparent and democratic ways i.e. the people who pay the taxes have more of a say over how they are spent.

Is there a need to class yourself as an anarchist? Why a label? Is that itself not a contradiction of being a anarchist?

No. I suspect you may have anarchism confused with some sort of post-modernist autonomism.

[xChittyx]

I would class my self as an anarchist.
But I'm beginning to look at it much like veganism. We can't be 100 % all the time. I need a job so that I can get through my studies. I pay taxes/will pay off my uni debt and I vote (usually for the greens or socialist party (contradiction - maybe, its illegal to not vote here and I can't afford to be fined for not doing so). I also realise I am lucky where I live. I don't live in an authoritarian regime, we have a certain level of freedoms other countries may not.
Capitalism sucks. Authority sucks. Slavery sucks.
Its not all about revolution, destroying builidings, assassinations and the like. Its about changing patterns of thought, systems of control. Making people realise they don't have to accept what they were raised in. I believe every man, women and being to be free. Its a state were born in. We wrap ourselves in those chains. Liberation will only come through education.

[Jon]

The way I see it anarchism is about trying to change the world, to make it a better, more just, egalitarian and sustainable place.

I agree with xChittyx that we can't be 100% revolutionary all the time (or I would devote all my time to anarchist activities - but unfortunately those don't feed me or pay the bills). So I have to compromise and try to live my life according to anarchist ethics and principles - within a system that is fundamentally at odds with these.

But anarchism is more than just activism, it is about reconsidering and redefining our relationship to one another, internalised beliefs and everything we've come to accept as a normal. I think this is what xrodulfox means by anarchist parenting - he is redefining the patriarchal and authoritarian relationships of a traditional nuclear family - although I stand to be corrected.

So, in that sense, it is possible to (at least strive to) be 100% anarchist all the time - even if we are not out smashing the state, it comes through in our attitudes and relationships to one another and towards authority.

xChittyx, I totally agree that it is about "changing patterns of thought, systems of control. Making people realise they don't have to accept what they were raised in". But I disagree that every person is born free (as I understood you), and that we wrap ourselves in chains. To a certain extent its true that the more we buy into what we were raised in the more we wrap ourselves in chains. But we are born into these chains in the first place, and continue to wrap ourselves in them. I think society is structured in such a way that people are born into different levels of freedom or potential freedom depending on the variables:

A white male born into a wealthy family who, because of this, is able to get a good education and then a good job is far more free to travel the world, meet people, learn about cultures and make the most of life than is a poor man born into poverty, who never has the opportunity to become educated nor to travel, simply having to work to support his family from an early age.

Similarly, a women born into a poor family who, on top of having to get a job to support her family, also has to do the child rearing and house work, is even less free.

And so it goes, from the rich, white, able-bodies heterosexual male to the poor, black, disabled lesbian. Because we are not all born equal (in the eyes of a racist, patriarchal system), we are not all born free. Anarchism seeks to establish a society in which all people are seen as equal and being able to contribute, in one way or another, to that society. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom, freedom being the prerequisite for equality. Both are inextricably tied to the other.

[xChittyx]

But I disagree that every person is born free (as I understood you), and that we wrap ourselves in chains. To a certain extent its true that the more we buy into what we were raised in the more we wrap ourselves in chains. But we are born into these chains in the first place, and continue to wrap ourselves in them. I think society is structured in such a way that people are born into different levels of freedom or potential freedom depending on the variables:

A white male born into a wealthy family who, because of this, is able to get a good education and then a good job is far more free to travel the world, meet people, learn about cultures and make the most of life than is a poor man born into poverty, who never has the opportunity to become educated nor to travel, simply having to work to support his family from an early age.

Similarly, a women born into a poor family who, on top of having to get a job to support her family, also has to do the child rearing and house work, is even less free.

And so it goes, from the rich, white, able-bodies heterosexual male to the poor, black, disabled lesbian. Because we are not all born equal (in the eyes of a racist, patriarchal system), we are not all born free. Anarchism seeks to establish a society in which all people are seen as equal and being able to contribute, in one way or another, to that society. Equality is a prerequisite for freedom, freedom being the prerequisite for equality. Both are inextricably tied to the other.

Yeah I actually realised that it was probably my white, male and middle class background bringing that idea out. I guess what I meant to say is that we are free (in an existential sense at least), and for some of us, we are wrapped in chains because of anothers choices, but we also choose to stay in certain chains that are unnecesary. I find that some times when I engage in discussions with certain people, that they take some aspects of life as a given, and to question them is just a waste of time. The government, capitalism, eating meat, race, sex, etc etc. These 'chains' are just accepted. I believe to an extent, that one only has an oppurtunity to be free once they see/understand those chains, and work towards throwing them off. But then again, its far more easier for me to make these claims living in a relatively comfortable level of society, where I can question these ideas and the only thing to punish me is derision and scorn from certain areas of any community I communicate with.


"Our survival on this planet is not only threatened by the environmental damage, but by a degeneration in the fabric of social solidarity and in the modes of physical life, which must literally be re-invented. The refoundation of politics will have to pass through the aesthetic and analytical dimensions implied in the three ecologies - the environment, the socious and the psyche." - On the Production of Subjectivity - Felix Guattari

[xzebrasx]

I like how Chomsky defines anarchism as a tendency (rather than a fixed ideology) in human evolution to seek out and destroy unjustifiable authoritarian institutions and practices, and replace them with more egalitarian, democratic ones.

I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else. Naturally this means a challenge to the huge institutions of coercion and control: the state, the unaccountable private tyrannies that control most of the domestic and international economy, and so on. But not only these. That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Sometimes the burden can be met. If I'm taking a walk with my grandchildren and they dart out into a busy street, I will use not only authority but also physical coercion to stop them. The act should be challenged, but I think it can readily meet the challenge. And there are other cases; life is a complex affair, we understand very little about humans and society, and grand pronouncements are generally more a source of harm than of benefit. But the perspective is a valid one, I think, and can lead us quite a long way.

Source: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

[puppydog]

And so it goes, from the rich, white, able-bodies heterosexual male to the poor, black, disabled lesbian. ...

So then if there's one thing I've learned from this thread is that I should work to keep things to stay the way they are.

Juuuust kidding. I've learned more about what anarchism really is from you (and rodolfo) than I have in books or at demonstrations, etc. Thanks.

GOing back to what BGW was saying, I think his point is that in a system without rules, there are bad people out there that would go pillage and plunder. I think this is a misconception of anarchism, that it means people can just go do whatever they want without consequence, as opposed to meaning people can get along with people telling them what to do.

But... at the same time in an anarchist system how does a person deal with the following situations:

-i'm being robbed in my home
-somebody stole my car and i don't know who

basically the question is "are there police and if so isn't this a contradiction of anarchism"

[Jon]

GOing back to what BGW was saying, I think his point is that in a system without rules, there are bad people out there that would go pillage and plunder. I think this is a misconception of anarchism, that it means people can just go do whatever they want without consequence, as opposed to meaning people can get along with people telling them what to do.

Firstly, I think its wrong to say that there would not be rules in an anarchist society. I'm sure there would be, but I would prefer to look at them as a set of ethical guidelines. I think that, in order to be able to reach an anarchist society, there would need to be a heightened level of ethics and consciousness. This - amongst other things - is the education xChittyx was referring to I think. Besides that, different communities would put rules/ laws/ guidelines in place to ensure their safety and to defend their new-found freedom. In an anarchist system different communities could decide on what rules or laws they want to implement, if any, and how to enforce them. A community that knows first hand the types of anti-social problems it faces is best qualified to decide on the means to prevent this from happening, or on how to deal with it if it does - as opposed to a centralised state, far removed from the peculiarities of different communities.

But... at the same time in an anarchist system how does a person deal with the following situations:

-i'm being robbed in my home
-somebody stole my car and i don't know who

basically the question is "are there police and if so isn't this a contradiction of anarchism"

Presently, most crimes (with the possible exception of those crimes committed by the state but permitted under law) are committed against property, and are largely the result of an uneven distribution of wealth and resources. Therefore anarchists argue that, under a system where private ownership of property has been abolished, and wealth and resources are fairly distributed according to the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need" the large majority of crime would soon disappear.

If everyone had access to all the goods and resources they required to meet their needs (which an anarchist society would strive to guarantee), there would be no reason really for anyone to want to rob you in your home.

As for the robbing of your car, I hate those things and in an anarchist society would work for safe and reliable public transport. Some people would still need cars, but not everyone. And those that did would not have to steal them.

I have to go out now.. you'll probably find better answers to these questions here:

http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_FAQ_on_Crime,_the_Police_and_Prisons
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci58

[xrodolfox]

^ That's a really good response.

I came to anarchism reluctantly. I DIDN'T want to believe that this was a viable solution, but by process of elimination, anarchism (not dogmatically, mind you) is what I believe.

Again, I'm not dogmatic, so for me, anarchism is more of a description rather than me "toeing" an anarchist philosophy and making otherwise reasonable solutions fit into some ideal.

+++++++++++++++

This is in regard to "what if someone were stealing my car?"

However, Crime and Punishment are particular ways that I entered into anarchist though. I am a prison abolitionist NOT because of idealism, but because of having worked for many years volunteering in prisons, working with CO's, wardens, and prisoners... and even at the legislative level with elected officials. I WISH that we had a system that worked in 1) keeping people safe, 2) making society better, and a system that was 3) viable.

Unfortunately the current system doesn't work at all. I can go into great detail about how 1) society is less safe with prisons (to paraphrase a current mainstream criminology textbook), 2) prisons destroy communities, 3) prisons remove responsibility from actions, and 4) prisons are not viable long term as noted by their exploding populations.

How to deal with crime, that ideally would be lowered in an anarchist society is still a problem. How to deal with the TINY percentage of people that are sociopaths still is relevant.

The one great thing about anarchism as I understand it, is that a big problem like destructive behavior isn't solved by a one-size-fits-all solution of police and prisons. In a caring community, the "crime" isn't against the state, but against a community. Thus, something like "restorative justice" might be one such solution. www.restorativejustice.com

Another way to solve the problem would be to build stronger community bonds that make it so that folks feel the direct consequences of their actions all the time. Currently, since communities are so atomized and globalized without a feedback of information, most of our actions are taken out of the moral context. What we buy or steal only seems to affect the store. When someone uses violent language in public, the offender often never gets to see the damage done. There is a disconnect due to the size of our communities, and the connections that've been lost with societal capitalist industrialization.

Creating connected communities through regular sharing of meals, resources, and creating economic networks where consumers are directly linked to producers would help enforce the bonds that connect people and thus lessen the responsibility we all share in the outcomes of one another. That alone would lessen the prevalence of sociopathy; where people don't understand that others feel pain and thus act extremely selfishly in a manner that doesn't allow them to function with others. Connecting communities directly addresses sociopathy.

I personally am not against people protecting themselves and organizing themselves. Thus, in a way, I'm not against policing. However, I am against the state, or my neighbors, deciding the rules to enforce. So if there was a non-authoritarian community force that could be called upon, that would be ideal. Thus, if someone was forcing your car open, then your community could come to your aid. It would be solidarity in action.

ps. this last part is still a work in progress. what i know most is that there should be a diversity of methods to deal with crime, and some of those solutions won't appear until experimented with. What I do know is that the current system is more flawed than having nothing at all, so a community making decisions and organizing a system that respected individuals, the community, and most of all enshrined responsibility, the solutions can only be better.

[JamesAIGI]

Re your reply on days of war nights of love: Interesting comment, but I am wondering if your statement :"the petty lifestyle they advocate" may be a conformist sort of reaction. When you get to a certain age it is socially normal to have a job and be responsible and not commit "crime" as dictated by the state, therefore anything else would be seen as immature, socially unacceptable or threatening. Also, even if dropping out of the system is not going to change the system or stop it from destroying the planet, is it not the next best thing? If you don't agree with the system, why be made to suffer under it? Why not drop out of the system and then try and fight the system from outside rather than from within? If there are less numbers in the system doing less damage, surely the system will be weaker...? Logically, I do not see how this can be argued against... I will read the link you sent (the reaction to days of war nights of love)

No, I don't think it is a conformist reaction. I live in South Africa; there are many many people here who are forced to squat, live on the streets and/or eat out of dumpsters as a matter of survival. The way CrimethInc glorifies poverty is disgusting and an insult to people who are forced into poverty by the system, and it clearly demonstrates that most of the so-called radicals who advocate this kind of lifestyle actually have no idea of what grinding poverty is. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if many of them return to their homes in the suburbs when the weather gets colder or the lifestyle loses its novelty.

Yes, it is seen as socially normal to have a job, but it is also socially necessary (or at least work is, but could no doubt be better organised). Everything we use for our day to day survival needs to be produced somewhere, by someone (including our vegan, no-sweat, fair trade, ethical goods). If you think its revolutionary to drop out of the production-consumption cycle then fine, but bear in mind that you will be living like a parasite on the labour of those who do not have this luxury: they and/ or their families would quite simply starve - while pseudo-radicals run around glorifying poverty and homelessness. Have you ever stopped to consider why CrimethInc is much more prevalent/ popular in the so-called First World?

The tactics and lifestyle CrimethInc advocates (in Days of War) is dependent on the capitalist system, and the people who practice such a lifestyle because of their abhorrence to work or being 'normal' have a vested interest in capitalism's perpetuation - lest they be forced to work for their keep like everyone else.

Dropping out of the system won't change it. Do you think that - with the millions of poor people who have already been pushed to the margins of society by the system - a couple (hundred) more crusty punks is going to make any fucking difference?

It is my opinion, and that of most other serious anarchists (with the exception of the insurrectionists - who are no doubt serious), that capitalism can only be overthrown by a mass movement of the popular classes (something which I do not believe can be built by living and working 'outside' the system) and anyone smart enough to see that they're on a sinking ship. The lifestyle CrimethInc advocates as a means to change is incapable of achieving such a movement.

Also, I do not believe there is something as a "next best thing" to changing the system or stopping it from destroying the planet. If we do not change the system it will destroy the planet, so any attempt to live solely outside the system as it slowly collapses around us - taking the planet with it - is an utterly individualist act and thus entirely inconsistent with anarchism (in my view at least - there are lots of others).

Edit - forgot to add that I am really not interested in nor do I have the time to get drawn into a back-and-forth debate about CrimethInc. I think it represents a wholly flawed ideology and is not significant enough to warrant anarchists taking too much time out to debate. There is plenty of material on the web to debunk it.

Another edit - just want to be clear that I fully support the right of people to drop out of the system, live in its margins or on capitalism's excess if they so desire. I just do not think it is anarchism, nor that it will change anything.

Thanks for your reply, but I have to say I disagree with SOME of your points!
Firstly, I do not think what crimethink is saying is an insult to people who are forced to steal food etc, nor do i think they are really "glorifying" poverty. (Before I go on, this reference that many people are making on this discussion to stealing food and living rough etc is only a fraction of what crimethink say. I myself have no intention of doing this...
Anyway, i see no logical reason to think they are insulting people living in poverty. They have come to a conclusion based on their own education, on the consequences of excessive consumerism, capitalism and other ills of modern life. I believe they are totally aware of the nature of grinding poverty and this is one of the reasons why they are anarchists.

Next, why are crimethink more popular in the first world? Have you considered that this may be very simple? Maybe it becuase the books are written by anonymous authors (in some cases), they are not well known and are really part of a sub-culture. Non-english speaking countries (90% of the african continent, most of asia and central/latin america, which are the most povery stricken places) naturally will not be exposed to such literature.

You also make some assumptions. It is not socially necessary to have a job. I won't go into every example but really, if you think about it, it is not necessary at all in some people's cases. "Things we need, need to be produced by someone, somewhere" is true. But this is only true due to the system being like it is, that in itself is not a good enough reason to remain in the system (just because it exists). If a large enough number of people (like you said), a mass movement of the popular classes worked together, then of course capitalism could be overthrown. I think this could only be achieved by working outside the system, in order to disrupt, damage and destroy the system, not by aiding it's already obvious lethal effect on the world's population. Remaining within the system can not be a good thing at all....

I also do not believe an individualist act is at odds with anarchism. It might be at odds with socialism but not anarchism.
Dropping out the system would damage the system if enough people were engaged in doing so....

[JamesAIGI]

^ Wow.
That is so right on.


I am an anarchist and an athiest.
I haven't read "The God Delusion", but I have read "Day and Nights of Love and War" by Eduardo Galeano (whose book inspired the title) and I've also read "Days of War Nights of Love" by Crimethinc as well as the later follow-up books by Crimethinc.

I've enjoyed all of them.

However, I do find the fetishishization of a crusty punk culture as a form of rebellion rather obnoxious. I think it is great that kids dumpster, that folks find alternatives to participating in dominant consumer culture, and that people find that liberating.

However, I think that to only highlight those actions (the ENTIRE BOOK!!!) is to really miss out on the vast variety of radical actions that ACTUALLY and directly threatens Capital. If a kid has the "freedom" to be able to jump frieght cars from city to city looking for food in dumpsters (which would be rather difficult when trying to build a local community around parents and children), that ability of the unattached person should also be used to take over the means of production directly, as syndicalists have done in S. America and elsewhere.

I don't begrudge folks who have the "anarchist" lifestyle down. That's needed... but I do think that it is ridiculous to have anarchism only reside in this culture rather than in actual challanges to dominant systems. (Just as anarchism shouldn't be ONLY about some academics, or only online, or only in bookstores or infoshops.) Anarchism should be for everyone in a multiplicity of activities.

I am currently most concerned with active anarchism in child-parent relationships and communities. Getting dumpstered bread really isn't as revolutionary as the nature of the relationship I have with my children right now.

Thanks for your comments.
I agree mostly..

I assure you, I am not missing out on any of the radical actions necessary ( as you put it ) !

My cousin is moving to Michigin by the way...to go to university (Michigan state). He is originally from Liverpool, England like myself...

[xrodolfox]

You also make some assumptions. It is not socially necessary to have a job. I won't go into every example but really, if you think about it, it is not necessary at all in some people's cases. "Things we need, need to be produced by someone, somewhere" is true. But this is only true due to the system being like it is, that in itself is not a good enough reason to remain in the system (just because it exists). If a large enough number of people (like you said), a mass movement of the popular classes worked together, then of course capitalism could be overthrown. I think this could only be achieved by working outside the system, in order to disrupt, damage and destroy the system, not by aiding it's already obvious lethal effect on the world's population. Remaining within the system can not be a good thing at all....

I also do not believe an individualist act is at odds with anarchism. It might be at odds with socialism but not anarchism.
Dropping out the system would damage the system if enough people were engaged in doing so....

I think that this discussion is conflating two separate issues into one.

Production and consumption IS NOT THE SAME AS capitalism.

For humans to survive, heck, for any thing to survive, calories, shelter, etc needs to be produced, and then consumed. This arrangement can be fully free, as gatherers probabaly did in the Pliocene, or it can be authoritarian, like slavery, and many shades in between. Capitalism is one method of organizing production and consumption.

The reality is that people who "drop out" still need to consume. Their rebellion is great, but it isn't directly challanging Capitalism either. It sidesteps direct confrontation or attacking the system. It is similar to taking a job in many ways and working to end capitalism part time.

I do not begrudge the will of those who resonate with dropping out. I think that we need more folks doing that. However, to present it as a romantic alternative that is pure revolution in itself seems to inflate the "anarchist" lifestyle with unearned power and unreal expectations.

If anything, syndicalism, the actual taking over of the means of production by workers, like the workers who took over a tile factory in Argentina a few years ago, is the most direct form of challange to Capitalism. Taking over entire areas, like in Chiapas, is closer to a real challange to Capitalism.

I think it is great that folks squat, and that folks dumpster food. However, to point to that as a *more legitimate* form of attack on Capitalism thatn the myriad other activities is just poor judgement. That's what I often see from the lifestyle anarchists in practice.

Instead of just sticking to one tactic, to succeed we'll need a myriad of tactics. Accountants that are anarchists that've honed their skills through years of working in Capital's heart. Doctors who know allopathic as well as natural medicine. Folks who know how to live in the margins, and folks who've managed to keep their souls while living at the heart of the beast.

That's my only real problem with CrimethInc. It's a one size fits all narrative.

Having been to several anarchist conferences, I've noticed that this "drop out" narrative most appeals to those anarchists who are from privaledge. I think that is a valuable observation, and it is not full of judgement.

I think that in the current system, it is BOTH the oppressor AND the oppressed who are trapped. In a prison, a CO cannot more end the prison than the prisoner. In fact, a warden can no more end the prison than the CO or the prisoner.

In that way, I think that dropping out has a value that isn't even explored in CrimethInc's books: the value of freeing yourself from she soft fetters of power. Most folks who are born into priviledge always have the option of coming back home. They can shed the garb of difference, and if they get back on track by the time they are out of college, they're welcome back to the country club.

I think that the whole "dropping out experience" really can affect a person profoundly for the whole of their life, the same as being a worker and participating in a successful strike, or a successful certificaiton campaign, or being in AR and freeing animals with action. There is a value to direct experience.

Dropping out, at worst, allows a person to experience that there is a world outside of capitalism. It allows a person to know that there is prodound richness, and profound poverty in the world.

That's a profound and very useful experience especially for anarchists who have unearned privaledge. It opens up the possiblity of a better world.

If a person decides to drop out indefinately, we also have the benefit of people practicing anarchism directly; hashing out challanges, and experimenting with solutions. That's useful to all anarchists. So those who stay outside of dominant culture are a boon to us all. I applaud them.

However, like I said before, to think that dropping out is the whole Revolution, then the Revolution will never show up.

If there is to be a Revolution, it need to be done by workers taking the means of production back, by families operating with respect and freedom, by folks who've dropped out and found ways to make anarchism work, and by folks who've had practice counting beans to make sure that what is produced (by what ever means) still gets to those who need it.