Anarchy - A Way of Living

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

This thread is for the purpose of removing a discussion from another thread as it was off topic and continuing the discussion here as I feel a discussion would have value for some of our members.

 

 

The conversation is as follows:

 

 

Marblehead said:

Yep. When a society cannot police itself it needs police. Anarchy is lost too.

 

 

　

　

Manitou said:

The only difference I can see between anarchy and the loss of the Dao, is that loss of the Dao would be the loss of the original manifestation of man, where man would inherently know to love his brother as himself. There would be no reason for rules, people would take the interests of others as seriously as they take their own.

Anarchy seems to have an undertone of anger and rebellion, as though stemming from a previous system that had broken down. Ultimately there would have to be another system put in place, or society in general would be destroyed. It's almost like looking at the glass of water as either half empty or half full.

 

　

　

Marblehead said:

Hehehe. Yeah, my post was easier to deal with, wasn't it?

 

I would disagree with your suggestion of Anarchy having undertones of anger and rebellion. though. Sure, this is true in many cases, but not inall cases. There are peaceful Anarchists. A Taoist would pick up the glass of water and have a drink. For him/her there is nothing to argue about. An Anarchist would do the same but would first ask permission from the person who claims ownership.

 

 

Brian said:

I think the challenge for anarchism is that it tends to attract destructionists and myopic antiestablishmentarians whereas the self-respecting anarchist understands that self-respect requires the respect of others, too. Anarchism is the pinnacle of the internal-governance political path (reminds me that I need to finish that thought, MH!) and is inherently instable because of the reliance on respect & self-control, which in turn rely on self-awareness and reflection. That's not to say "unworkable" in principle but very fragile in practice because of a tendency to collapse into a disrespecting chaos from which a dictatorship is likely to arise.

[Marblehead]

Hi Brian,

 

Your first sentence is my understanding as well.

 

Second sentence: Yes, that is the problem. All those things must be present in the individual in order to have, or live, a successful Anarchist life. I sometimes fail but I really do try to not do so. (Bad self-control.)

 

Lao Tzu spoke to such a society in Chapter 80. He thought it was doable. Chuang Tzu also thought it was doable. I believe it is doable.

 

And true, if we do not practice it honestly there will be some other form of control to replace our failure at self-control.

[zerostao]

cool, another anarchy thread i am as peaceful as they come (with cooperation from others)

i think the pure anarchist understands that pure anarchists are misunderstood, probably due to propaganda from the 'authorities'

who dont care much for the anarchy concept and will try to villify it by telling lies etc

here is an anarchist from the past that i resonate with

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236959/William-Godwin

[Marblehead]

Yes, Godwin proposed the same thing Lao Tzu did in Chapter 80.

 

 

"i think the pure anarchist understands that pure anarchists are misunderstood, probably due to propaganda from the 'authorities'

who dont care much for the anarchy concept and will try to villify it by telling lies etc"

 

 

Agree. If Anarchy were to work within societies it would put all government employees out of a job. Can't be having that. We need to have some way to waste our money (tax dollars) and we need to have someont to tell us what to do and what not to do because we are too ignorant to govern ourself.

[zerostao]

as i mentioned, i am a peaceful anarchist, and here i present the original peaceful anarchist, or even the original anarchist if you will, as he coined the term anarchist. altho the idea of rejecting authority probably occurred the moment someone mentioned anything about authority hehehe and apparently as soon as the word anarchy was uttered negative conotations were attached to it !

 

" In 1840, in his controversial "What Is Property", French political writer and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon became the first person to call himself an Anarchist.  In this book, Proudhon stated that the real laws of society have nothing to do with authority, but stem instead from the nature of society itself.  He also predicted the eventual dissolve of authority and the appearence of a natural social order.  "As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks justice in anarchy.  Anarchy - the absence of a sovereign - such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating."  He was a 'peaceful anarchist'; he believed that within existing society, the organizations could be created that would eventually replace it. Proudhon was born in 1809, originally a peasant, the son of a brewer. His "What Is Property"and "System of Economic Contradictions" established him in the socialist community.  Later he went on to write "The Federal Principle" and "The Political Capability of the Working Class".        Although he declared in "What Is Property" that "property is theft", he did not support communism, and regarded the right of workers to control the means of production as an important part of freedom.  He never considered himself the originator of a movement, but he did propose a federal system of autonomous communes.  He had many followers, but they preferred the title 'Mutualists' to 'Anarchists'; Anarchism still bore a negative connotation.  Proudhon and the Mutualists, along with British tradeunionists and socialists, formed the First International Workingmen's Association."

[Stosh]

I'm not familiar with the guy, so I am going by what you mentioned.. even if he did not support communism , is it not the case that several of these ideas were embraced by the marxist leninists ..and given an opportunity to be tested in the field.

With hindsight it appears that the needs of individuals , as they see them, are of more importance than the needs of the abstraction of the group.

Society might benefit from an undertaker , but I sure as heck need external motivation to take the job.

I am not dismissing the compassion or the egalitarian ethics that could lead to this Utopia. But I think it innate that folks have more concern for themselves and their subgroups, than for even more remote groupings.

If the river has salmon , and there is a free for all, the salmon are doomed. If someone suggest that eberyone controls themselves it is inevitable that some will take more than others.. a sense of justice and trust will be found breeched.. and the lofty principles will crumble from that very same sense of trust and desire for justice.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay. So I see here hints of "Social Anarchism". There is still a ruling "order" of some type.

 

The "property is theft" just causes me to shiver. Unless it is speaking to only "landed" property; the property attained by the powerful through theft, by whatever means.

 

Surely, an Anarchist is allowed to be compensated for his/her labor. With that compensation one acquires "property". I see nothing wrong with that.

 

Yes, during his time there were many who possessed granted property which they gained by the unfair use of others' labor. In this case I would agree.

 

I'm not suggesting that all governments should be overthrown. It goes without saying that societies need governments and policing. This is bacause not everyone is willing to follow the requirements of Anarchism. Yes, freedom has a price - it isn't free.

 

Yes, governments would fear the thought of Anarchy. But it is, in the most part, a false fear. Especially in larger communities. If I recall correctly from something I heard the other night, Tokyo now has a population of 65 million people. Imagine the chaos if there were no central authority (elected by the people).

[Marblehead]

If someone suggest that eberyone controls themselves it is inevitable that some will take more than others.. a sense of justice and trust will be found breeched.. and the lofty principles will crumble from that very same sense of trust and desire for justice.

True. And this is why I believe that "social anarchism" will never work. But individual Anarchy is doable. Likely one would have to wear a sign whenever they went out into society: "Do tread on me."

[zerostao]

hahaha i am just presenting some historical references. and time and place needs to be considered for context.

 

http://zenstoic.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/gradual-anarchism/

 

and were the stoics anarchists?

can any ideal ever be fully realized?

[Marblehead]

Nice article.

 

Hehehe. No, I am not a Stoic.

 

Can idealism ever be realized? On an individual level, yes. On a societal level, I doubt it.

[Marblehead]

Anyhow, it is time for me to get ready for the Hallow Weeniers. Talk with Y'all tomorrow.

[thelerner]

 

and were the stoics anarchists?

can any ideal ever be fully realized?

I hit Burning Man this year. Its a good anarchistic setting, but also short term and propped up by the other 358 days of hum drum making a living. Plus because of a law suits with Land Management there were sting operations going on at an unprecedented rate. Still, it was time of wild dress, drinking & sharing of artistic visions and passions, largely unconstrained by outside governance beyond the 10 Principles.

 

Ten Principles of Burning Man

 

 

Burning Man Founder Larry Harvey wrote the Ten Principles in 2004 as guidelines for the newly-formed Regionals Network. They were crafted not as a dictate of how people should be and act, but as a reflection of the community's ethos and culture as it had organically developed since the event's inception.

Radical Inclusion

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

Gifting

Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. The value of a gift is unconditional. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an exchange for something of equal value.

Decommodification

In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

Radical Self-reliance

Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.

Radical Self-expression

Radical self-expression arises from the unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a collaborating group can determine its content. It is offered as a gift to others. In this spirit, the giver should respect the rights and liberties of the recipient.

Communal Effort

Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication that support such interaction.

Civic Responsibility

We value civil society. Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

Leaving No Trace

Our community respects the environment. We are committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them.

Participation

Our community is committed to a radically participatory ethic. We believe that transformative change, whether in the individual or in society, can occur only through the medium of deeply personal participation. We achieve being through doing. Everyone is invited to work. Everyone is invited to play. We make the world real through actions that open the heart.

Immediacy

Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute for this experience.

[Stosh]

Individual anarchy? I don't know what that would be..I'm operating under the assumption tht the anarchist defies the need for external authority control.

I read that the Stoic voluntarism was a situation where everyone was so enlightened to the needs of the group that they willingly set aside their own desires for the intellectually defined good.

We may all agree here, that the feasibility depends on two things , the attitudes and numbers of those involved. Which could be said for litterally any social situation or individual behavior.

To wear the do not tread on me shirt one has decided to internalize their defense force and the reins of leadership which is the job of the superego anyway...either way I see no direction pointed to which isn't already tested and has been found inferior to some level of externally mediated authority to promote the welfare of the group first, and the individual second by extension.

BTW I notice the burning men also have rules and I would bet that they would have some means of enforcement.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Stosh

[zerostao]

http://transcendentalism-legacy.tamu.edu/authors/thoreau/civiltext.html

 

of course Thoreau was greatly influenced by Emerson and many consider Emerson to be anarchist, i consider Emerson Occultist, but i will place that idea in apech's sub forum. before Emerson and Thoreau there was Rousseau

 

i am very much inline with the thoughts of Rousseau, Emerson, and Thoreau on the environment on on the view of governement

 

 

was Aristotle an anarchist?

[zerostao]

stosh here is a quote from proudhon, reflecting the absolutisme government of his time and that had been going on for centuries.

""To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,

law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at,
controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to
do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction
noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered,
assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden,
reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility,
and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under
contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from,
squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first
word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted
down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged,
condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown
all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

anything ring familiar?

[Stosh]

Aristotle is said to have loathed democracy for its failure to function in some wars and the verdict of death for socrates, he felt anarchy was the degenerate form of democracy.. that being said he considered monarchy aristocracy and democracy the three elements of a lasting govt if combined.

One might describe our american govt to represent such a fusion of elements embodied in the three branches.

[Stosh]

stosh here is a quote from proudhon, reflecting the absolutisme government of his time and that had been going on for centuries. ""To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at,controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, bycreatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue todo so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transactionnoted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered,assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden,reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility,and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] undercontribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from,squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the firstword of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunteddown, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged,condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crownall, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That isgovernment; that is its justice; that is its morality." anything ring familiar?

No nothing familiar ,did Aristotle say something like it?

No , wait! It is familiar ! It sounds like the short sighted rant from woodstock.

[zerostao]

wish i lived in your universe sometimes.

Aristotle said "law is mind without reason" and he said some other stuff, as did plato, socrates. i admit i find socrates rather annoying at times, but he has his points, so does plato. even alexander and so forth

 

http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/18/rp_18_13.pdf

 

 

only becoz you mentioned woodstock,,,,,,

all leave traces of athens.....

[Stosh]

I assume my 'universe' means you think I am wrong ?

Look I answered yours so here's one for you.

Name a successful anarchistic society. (There is at least one that could be considerd close ) in this universe.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Stosh

[zerostao]

i didnt assume anything. and i am not saying that you are wrong about anything.

i would like to live where my govt did not harass, spy,fleeced, expoited,hoaxed, robbed, put in serious harms way for nothing,,etc

i am just suggesting that the american experience is very different where you and i live.

and from my pov you are fortunate not to have these feelings towards the govt.

it isnt anything negative towards your view.

[Stosh]

You're right if you are identifying our attitudes as defining what our experience is in large part despite what situation it is we find ourself in.

How is it that one man laughs off misfortune while the other wallows in it, drags all the worlds burdens onto his merely human shoulders?

What is one supposed to do about it?

You put your finger directly on the essential message of both tao and buddhism.

Imo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zerostao]

i consider godwin, rousseau, emerson, thoreau, myself as upbeat cheerful types. (even optimists) we just aint too much on waving the flag and bowing down to centrailized tightly held corrupt power. and when someone like me does wave the flag then red flags go up excitedly thinking danger danger revolution anarchy,,,i cannot speak to buddhist thought, seems it requires alot of intellectualizing.

plato considered anarchy to be the higher form of democracy. he and aristotle did not see eye to eye often......

anarchy is obviously the opposite of criminality. that is my position.

from the wise mick jagger " anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope"

[Stosh]

You said you felt I was fortunate not to have the feelings you were expressing. Did you not ? You said you wished you lived in my universe sometimes.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Stosh

[9th]

Anarchy is the same as Utopia. It is a society of people who are naturally predisposed to doing the best thing possible for everyone else, without the need for enforced laws and the rulers (archons) which make them. Rather than an enforced system of laws controlling the actions of society, it is a natural, intuitive "lawfulness" on the part of every person. (you could say that such a group of people follow the "dharma" or the "tao" perfectly, without interruption) These would be people who live by internal conscience rather than external morality. Is this kind of situation viable for everyone? No - otherwise it would already be happening right now. The current evolutionary state of humanity as a species prevents the realization of a total collective utopia. Of course that is the ultimate goal of the species, but the question of whether it will happen or not is practically impossible to predict. What can be roughly predicted is the amount of resources that will be available in the future, and this is the most dire prospect that we know of at the moment.

 

It appears that humanity cannot sustain the kind of industrialized world that we live in even for another hundred years. This could change with the advent of new technologies, but the race between natural consequences and technological adaptation is something that could be co-opted at any time by any number of cross-currents - so speculation is pointless. What we can say with certainty is that utopia is not currently a physical reality for everyone on this planet.

 

 

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

Yeshua said "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

 

- Gospel of Thomas

 

[zerostao]

yes stosh, i consider you a fortunate person living in a fortunate universe. and seeing from another's perspective sometimes is useful for sure. and becoz i am upbeat and cheerful does not mean that i do not see horrific crimes and the effects of those crimes committed by our govt towards its own citizens. using all types of hideous tactics. when one lives in a geographical location that contains alot of mineral wealth, it can be a very bad situation. i can understand how 3rd world countries with resources must feel at times....they probably feel like some young fair beautiful maiden who has been found by a horde of ravaging drunken rapists that will have their way regardless. to be beautiful and unspoiled in this world can be a curse.

 

please excuse me as i take leave for now to go celebrate halloween with fellow students.

i hope it has some flavor of anarchy

stosh, 9th, thelerner, marbles, it is always a pleasure and an honor to share ideas with ya'll