UCD Public Meeting on Anarchism (1 Viewer)

[Gambra]

I'd like to think they could, as long as it was self-enclosed and not pandering to "convert" anyone I'd have no problem with it. But the hardliners would prob say no.

 

[the strange guy]

Well, let's say they were just as vocal about their politics as other political groups are now.

 

[Jerry Twig]

What the UCD anarchist position on cutting student grants?

 

[Gambra]

Well, let's say they were just as vocal about their politics as other political groups are now.

Most likely would be tolerated? I don't know to be honest. I wouldn't give a shit unless they were arming up to start a coup.

 

[the strange guy]

I wouldn't give a shit unless they were arming up to start a coup.

That's the danger of political freedom alright.
Wankers fighting for what they believe in!
They could be rounded up by a few anarchist volunteers and offered classes in Bakunin.

 

[CITY BABY]

You can live in a self-enclosed anarchist community under a capitalist democracy,
but can you live in a self-enclosed religious, capitalistic and democratic community
in an anarchist state without being lynched for being anti-revolutionary?

Serious question, like.

edit: Ok, maybe not lynched, but yknow what I mean.

They'd probably be too busy murdering priests and nuns to notice

 

[the strange guy]

You can live in a self-enclosed anarchist community under a capitalist democracy,
but can you live in a self-enclosed religious, capitalistic and democratic community
in an anarchist state without being lynched for being anti-revolutionary?

Serious question, like.

edit: Ok, maybe not lynched, but yknow what I mean.

Are there no other anarchists that might have an interesting
answer to this (without simply recommending an
author/book/article)? It's been nearly a week!

I consider myself, for lack of a better term, a lifestyle
anarchist in that I live my life to my own expectations and
not by anyone else's.

I don't align myself politically with anarchists because not
everyone thinks like me or wants the same things as me,
things that seem to be a prerequisite for a healthy anarchist
state. With that in mind, democracy makes a lot of sense to me.
The PDs coming to power may ruin your day if you're a free
loving hippy, but the beauty of living in the EU is that you can
just pick a city, learn a language and then live in a place that's
more your style. Good luck trying to leave an anarchist island
when there's no boats running because Stenaline don't accept
buttercups and daisies in exchange for tickets.

As far as I can see, a hive mind is necessary for an
anarchist state to work which, ironically, seems to be a
typical anarchist's criticism for the general populace who
care about things like soap operas and new shoes. The
term 'hive mind' can be argued, but essentially if
everybody stops working for the good of their immediate
community and only works for their own needs then the
whole thing falls on its ear. Anyway, that's not really the
point I want to make.

What I'm trying to get at is if the type of democratic society
that we live in, despite its flaws, allows people to choose
whatever lifestyle they want then surely that 'system' allows
more freedom than an anarchist society which has cut itself
off from the rest of the world.

Right now, under the tyrannical Fianna Fáil government
there can exist an anarchist living off their own vegetable
patch in a commune, a waitress who saves up to go
travelling in Asia, a taxi driver who is passionate about
economics, a kid who wants to design space ships when
they grow up, a cancer survivor who speaks to others of
their experiences online... whereas after the revolution
there can only exist anarchists who live in an anarchist
state and who dream of an even more improved anarchist
state.

No state means no passport means no travel.
The destruction of the markets and lack of a recognised
currency means no importing anything, no computers, no
cars, no bikes, no steel, no rubber, no plastics, no oil.
No steel and no plastics means no microchips, no
computers, no internet, no technology.
No technology and no money means no medicine and
definitely no medical advances.

Seriously lads, fuck that.
The fact that you're using the internet to communicate
with each other when it'll go offline within hours of a total
collapse of the state is pretty ironic.
Don't depend on it too much, because if you have your
way it won't be around!

 

[maims bond]

Might have been posted before, but too good an opportunity to pass up:

Why do anarchists drink shit tea? Because proper tea is theft.

 

[Gambra]

Are there no other anarchists that might have an interesting
answer to this (without simply recommending an
author/book/article)? It's been nearly a week!

I consider myself, for lack of a better term, a lifestyle
anarchist in that I live my life to my own expectations and
not by anyone else's.

If you'd left your first paragraph the way it was the point I'm going to make is more relevant but you'll get it anyway. I know you say "for want of a better term" but a lot of the anarchist intellectuals (well that I've read anyway) call lifestyle/individualist anarchism the worst thing to happen to anarchism in a long while.

The basis of my own philosophy on things is basically the same as your own, each to his own as long as he's not bothering me. I myself don't like some of the preachiness that comes along with some traits of anarchism. Though that's getting into a base debate over sheep mentality..

I had way more planned to write but this is about all that's relevant really.

 

[the strange guy]

If you'd left your first paragraph the way it was the point I'm going to make is more relevant but you'll get it anyway. I know you say "for want of a better term" but a lot of the anarchist intellectuals (well that I've read anyway) call lifestyle/individualist anarchism the worst thing to happen to anarchism in a long while.

Yeh, people doing whatever they want can really fuck
things up. Anarchy can't work unless these people listen
to the intellectuals in a non-subordinate fashion.
They are simply doing it wrong.

If there are people here who agree that individualist
anarchism is a bad thing I've one thing to say to them:
"YOU'RE NOT DOING IT WRONG IF YOU'RE HAPPY SO
FUCK OFF"

 

[Gambra]

What's the WSM stance on the individualist idea?

 

[Shorty]

You can live in a self-enclosed anarchist community under a capitalist democracy,
but can you live in a self-enclosed religious, capitalistic and democratic community
in an anarchist state without being lynched for being anti-revolutionary?

Serious question, like.

To answer your question, though I think Gambra already has.

I take it you mean self sustaining hippie commune as the current example. As far as I can tell most anarchists don´t see this or a drop out lifestyle as an effective strategy for social change or revolution so I don´t see how in an anarchist society this would be an effective counter revolutionary strategy. So in all likelihood it would be left the fuck alone. Also, it would pretty much have to be self sustaining in order to survive in that in seperating yourself away from that society you would forego the benefits of it acrued through contributing to it. The anarchist discussions of crime, punishment etc. touch on this as well as all those boring after the revolution theoretical wanky conversations.

 

[broken arm]

No state means no passport means no travel.
The destruction of the markets and lack of a recognised
currency means no importing anything, no computers, no
cars, no bikes, no steel, no rubber, no plastics, no oil.
No steel and no plastics means no microchips, no
computers, no internet, no technology.
No technology and no money means no medicine and
definitely no medical advances.

not sure if this is a tangent but...

It looks like peak oil will make this happen anyway, regardless of politics.

When it does, who will be better equipped to survive the transition, anarchists or soap watching individualists?

p.s. the majority of people care about more than soaps. they are just too tired working their asses off to do anything other than flake out in front of the box and to say otherwise is just offensive

 

[Shorty]

I would consider my influences to be individualist, very influenced by Nietzsche, I just see an anarchist communist society as the one that best enables and maximises my individual freedom. not a member of the WSM though.
Krossie who posts on thumped has written stuff on Max Stirner (author of the ego and its own THE book on individualism, sorry oly but this is relevant) for the wsm.

 

[damien]

do you argue this shit on libcom, o-dog?

 

[the strange guy]

Gambra: Who the fuck cares about the WSM's stance? I'm such a wild
individualist that the idea of an anarchist towing the party line on an
idea makes my teeth hurt. Being told by a group that what you're
doing is right or wrong, whether it's your peers, politicians, or just a
bunch of folks you respect in some way, and then adjusting your
behaviour to fit in with this group surely apes the whole idea of an
authority, ie you're down there listening to the people up there who
you should agree with.

Broken Arm: Assuming the global financial system doesn't completely
melt down I'm pretty confident that the closer we get to peak oil
then the closer we'll get to a viable alternative energy source.
There's simply too much money to be made for the first company
to reach that milestone. Peak oil is only a doomsday event if nobody
does anything about it, which clearly isn't what's happening.

Shorty: Being part of an anarchist community can only maximise your
freedom if you want to be an anarchist in an anarchist community. If
you don't then your perceived freedoms and actual options will be cut
drastically short compared to our current society.

Damo: Yeh, Libcom, real open minded heads there! I got
banned for 'flaming' ages ago (ie arguing against anarchism)
and I never went back. At least here I won't get banned
for arguing about stuff I dislike.
RIGHT?

 

[taubstumm]

why would anarchists would have a 'party line' on these sorts of questions, oly?

as for the original question about a self-enclosed 'capitalist community' in some imagined anarcho-society - they'd probably have no problems with it, but it's really more of a thought experiment than a real question, right?

though... i realise you're probably going to answer by saying that it's actually much more a real question than a thought experiment.

 

[the strange guy]

Also, it would pretty much have to be self sustaining in order to survive in that in seperating yourself away from that society you would forego the benefits of it acrued through contributing to it.

This is another problem I have with anarchy. If you don't
stay in line (ie STAY ANARCHIST OR ELSE), that's it -
you're one sorry bunch of hungry troublemakers.

Imagine if you put yourself down on the census as an
anarchist. Would it be fair if the government took away
your access to social services and your right to vote? How
about access to subsidised services like the bus, or even
being allowed to walk or cycle on a road if you haven't
paid road tax?

If seperating yourself from and not contributing to this
society, which a lot of people have done, would mean that
you must forego the benefits of it, then there'd be a lot of
hungry UCD anarchists who aren't allowed back on campus.

Let's say some hypothetical person went nutso barney
and went on a hypothetical killing spree. Adults, kids,
cats, some sound person you know, Kevin Myers, all
dead. In this society she'd still be entitled to a roof over
her head, three square meals a day and access to
education. Yeh, she'll be locked up but her survival is
ensured by and entrusted to the state.

Of course, this is impossible in an anarchist state. In fact,
there's nothing stopping her from being murdered in
retaliation seeing as there's no 24 hour armed police
protection.

But what about lesser crimes? What about someone who
blew up an anarchist library, or a bunch of rebellious kids
spreading democratic propaganda, or a congregation
caught praying to Jesus. Does that mean they don't get
fed? Does that mean they are now shunned from the
community and must now fend for themselves Robinson
Crusoe style? Why does an anarchist utopia have such a
strict set of morals which must be obeyed while this 'one
way system' we live in now is a lot more forgiving?

Basically, no anarchist community can give me and
everyone else the freedom to do whatever the fuck we want
quite like the democratic community I live in right now.

 

[the strange guy]

why would anarchists would have a 'party line' on these sorts of questions, oly?

Well, you can't be a member of WSM or a supporter of 'anarchist theory' if you disagree with most of their 'stances', can you?
If your ideas differ or if you think they're talking shit then what WSM or 'the theory' says is irrelevant.
But what the WSM says holds a lot of sway with Irish anarchists, hence 'party line'.
THIS IS OUR IDEA OF ANARCHISM - STAY ANARCHIST OR ELSE YOU'RE OUT, that's pretty much what I mean by party line.

though... i realise you're probably going to answer by saying that it's actually much more a real question than a thought experiment.

Afraid so. If anarchism isn't treated as a thought experiment then its consequences need to be taken just as seriously.

 

[broken arm]

Broken Arm: Assuming the global financial system doesn't completely
melt down I'm pretty confident that the closer we get to peak oil
then the closer we'll get to a viable alternative energy source.
There's simply too much money to be made for the first company
to reach that milestone. Peak oil is only a doomsday event if nobody
does anything about it, which clearly isn't what's happening.

most of the current concern isn't really the generation of new energy it is the transitioning from the socio-technical systems are build upon current energy....

We have been working with a comany developing an advance "low-carbon" technology. They have already had over £60 million of private investment. The renewable sector is seen as a safe investment.