UCD Public Meeting on Anarchism (1 Viewer)

[egg_]

It's not like I was around at the time, but I'd bet tribal chiefs and regular warfare were pretty common in these societies which goes against the anarchy ethos.

Tribal chiefs seem to have been (and be - there's still hunter-gatherers around, y'know) just well-respected people, they couldn't actually tell anyone what to do.

Warfare - yes, and loads of it. Casualties were/are extremely low by today's standards though, on account of unsophisticated weaponry and a complete lack of any kind of sustained organisation (because no-one could tell anyone else what to do)

Dunno why you have it in for anarchists, dude. Being massively impractical is a fairly minor sin

 

[Shorty]

Oly I really have to commend you on some of the great laughs you've provided me with during the course of the thread with your numerous straw man arguments against anarchism. I particularly enjoyed the no money stenaline not working one, historically none of this makes sense, how for example do you think the trams worked in Barcelona in 1936? Apart from that, there’s the idea that a revolution will only take place in one country, why do you think that? Especially living in such a globalised world as we do today.
Anyway, I'd like to respond to the quotes below. I'll leave answering the numerous theoretical after the revolution questions to someone else.
You do know there’s an online anarchist FAQ that may help with some of your questions, that’s if you’re genuinely interested in it.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/

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.

If you have not yet met an anarchist who truly believes in

their ability to free humankind from their shackles with
their own personal brand of politics after the revolution,
you have not lived.
So yeh, I'm pretty sure that the UCD Anarchists are
read up on post-revolution anarchy and would probably
have the intention to begin a revolution given the
opportunity, but of course I'm basing this on total
guesswork as you could probably imagine, I don't
hang out with them!

Anarchism is not a programme one puts into practice or makes others put into practice, but a social movement. It is a historical tendency within struggles. An anarchist revolution, like any other revolution, is the product of real needs and living conditions. The problem here is shedding light on an existing historical movement but also the difficulty of this in a time of low social struggle (both here and elsewhere) and in a country with a tiny anarchist movement and no tradition of anarchism, meaning that so much of this becomes almost academic and quite boring.

But the point is that anarchism is not academic. It is not a debate about what will be done tomorrow. It is an integral part of a whole series of immediate and distant tasks, admittedly among which discussion is one aspect, an attempt to achieve theoretical understanding. Inversely, the tasks can be carried out more easily and efficiently if one can answer the question where are we going? But, anarchism is not an ideal to be realised: it already exists, not as a society, but as an effort. It is the movement to abolish conditions of life determined by the state and capitalism.

The point is that these ideas would not have come about if they had not already been observed and theorized, showing the new society taking form in the shell of the old, from the contradictions and the practical social struggles which tear (and have torn) society apart forcing people to be conscious of it. Obviously this comes out in struggle more so, but can be seen in the everyday dealings of people where mutual aid, solidarity, co-operation and self activity take precedent over competition and profit. These currents of mutual aid can be found throughout society. In tiny everyday examples such as people collectively organising a dinner party, or helping a stranger carry a pram down a flight of stairs. They can also manifest themselves in more visible ways, such as one group of workers having a solidarity strike in support of other workers. They can also explode and become a predominant force in society such as in the events across Argentina in 2001 (there was a piece in Totally Dublin only a few months ago mentioning this), and in Chiapas, Mexico today, in Kwanju, South Korea in 1980, Portugal 1974, Hungary '56, Spain 1936 … All of this points towards the fact that anarchism is the political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity in human societies. It isprimarily an approach to struggle and is pre-figurative of any future society in its approach but does not seek for the most part to set out what it will be and then work towards it.

Both through human co-operation in everyday life and in the large scale directly democratic ways of organising society developed by average people we see the seeds of a new kind of society. Any anarchist revolution will be one in which anarchist ideas are at the forefront of struggle but no revolution will be brought about by simply convincing x or x+1 amount of people to become “anarchists”. There’s no such thing.

Further, I no more need to identify as an anarchist to live in an anarchist society or under anarchist social relations than I need to identify as a capitalist to live in a capitalist society/under capitalist social relations.

A society based not on exploitation, domination and drudgery but on free, voluntary co-operation, freedom and creativity. Fuck it, I’m going to say it but anarchism is a social system where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (and within this there are huge points of difference, see the faq or here ) and humanity is emancipated from all systems of economic and political authority (your problems with anti authoritarianism were explained to you previously here despite your insistence otherwise to several anarchists as to what they actually believe ). Where humans organise themselves from the bottom-up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism. None of this has come into any of your posts but wild figments of your own imagination (and some other ideas most likely informed from political conversations predominantly with punks) that as oh shit has pointed out have more in common with Stalinism than anarchism.


P.S. For others on the thread interested in anarchism and technology, there’s a thread here that could be quite interesting and you’ll be able to contribute to/take part in.

 

[Froog]

Oly I really have to commend you on some of the great laughs you've provided me with during the course of the thread with your numerous straw man arguments against anarchism. I particularly enjoyed the no money stenaline not working one, historically none of this makes sense, how for example do you think the trams worked in Barcelona in 1936? Apart from that, there’s the idea that a revolution will only take place in one country, why do you think that? Especially living in such a globalised world as we do today.
Anyway, I'd like to respond to the quotes below. I'll leave answering the numerous theoretical after the revolution questions to someone else.
You do know there’s an online anarchist FAQ that may help with some of your questions, that’s if you’re genuinely interested in it.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/








Anarchism is not a programme one puts into practice or makes others put into practice, but a social movement. It is a historical tendency within struggles. An anarchist revolution, like any other revolution, is the product of real needs and living conditions. The problem here is shedding light on an existing historical movement but also the difficulty of this in a time of low social struggle (both here and elsewhere) and in a country with a tiny anarchist movement and no tradition of anarchism, meaning that so much of this becomes almost academic and quite boring.

But the point is that anarchism is not academic. It is not a debate about what will be done tomorrow. It is an integral part of a whole series of immediate and distant tasks, admittedly among which discussion is one aspect, an attempt to achieve theoretical understanding. Inversely, the tasks can be carried out more easily and efficiently if one can answer the question where are we going? But, anarchism is not an ideal to be realised: it already exists, not as a society, but as an effort. It is the movement to abolish conditions of life determined by the state and capitalism.

The point is that these ideas would not have come about if they had not already been observed and theorized, showing the new society taking form in the shell of the old, from the contradictions and the practical social struggles which tear (and have torn) society apart forcing people to be conscious of it. Obviously this comes out in struggle more so, but can be seen in the everyday dealings of people where mutual aid, solidarity, co-operation and self activity take precedent over competition and profit. These currents of mutual aid can be found throughout society. In tiny everyday examples such as people collectively organising a dinner party, or helping a stranger carry a pram down a flight of stairs. They can also manifest themselves in more visible ways, such as one group of workers having a solidarity strike in support of other workers. They can also explode and become a predominant force in society such as in the events across Argentina in 2001 (there was a piece in Totally Dublin only a few months ago mentioning this), and in Chiapas, Mexico today, in Kwanju, South Korea in 1980, Portugal 1974, Hungary '56, Spain 1936 … All of this points towards the fact that anarchism is the political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity in human societies. It isprimarily an approach to struggle and is pre-figurative of any future society in its approach but does not seek for the most part to set out what it will be and then work towards it.

Both through human co-operation in everyday life and in the large scale directly democratic ways of organising society developed by average people we see the seeds of a new kind of society. Any anarchist revolution will be one in which anarchist ideas are at the forefront of struggle but no revolution will be brought about by simply convincing x or x+1 amount of people to become “anarchists”. There’s no such thing.

Further, I no more need to identify as an anarchist to live in an anarchist society or under anarchist social relations than I need to identify as a capitalist to live in a capitalist society/under capitalist social relations.

A society based not on exploitation, domination and drudgery but on free, voluntary co-operation, freedom and creativity. Fuck it, I’m going to say it but anarchism is a social system where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" (and within this there are huge points of difference, see the faq or here ) and humanity is emancipated from all systems of economic and political authority (your problems with anti authoritarianism were explained to you previously here despite your insistence otherwise to several anarchists as to what they actually believe ). Where humans organise themselves from the bottom-up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism. None of this has come into any of your posts but wild figments of your own imagination (and some other ideas most likely informed from political conversations predominantly with punks) that as oh shit has pointed out have more in common with Stalinism than anarchism.


P.S. For others on the thread interested in anarchism and technology, there’s a thread here that could be quite interesting and you’ll be able to contribute to/take part in.

my question is this: could this anarchist society invent and produce a large amount of hula hoop ridges and distribute them to the population? i think not. Q.E.D.

 

[broken arm]

But the point is that anarchism is not academic.......

for a lot of people it will always be academic until there is some tangibility to the principles of anarchism. What might seem intuitive to you can and probably is far from it for others.

I see a possible conflict in the rhetoric of struggle and the principles of emergence through social change. I see "struggle" as a defined and co-ordinated intervention and i see mass social change as a complex and relatively uncontrollable phenomenon. That is why I am interested in socio-technical transitions and all that shite – it seems to better deal with how emergence occurs.

See, it’s got to the point where we can’t discuss anarchism without getting academic.

 

[Shorty]

for a lot of people it will always be academic until there is some tangibility to the principles of anarchism. What might seem intuitive to you can and probably is far from it for others.

Agree with you 110% there. That "tangibility" is a long way off, so got to plug away at the smaller struggles and day to day struggles in the mean time and gradually link them up.

I see a possible conflict in the rhetoric of struggle and the principles of emergence through social change. I see "struggle" as a defined and co-ordinated intervention and i see mass social change as a complex and relatively uncontrollable phenomenon. That is why I am interested in socio-technical transitions and all that shite – it seems to better deal with how emergence occurs.

Okay, kindof see what you're getting at. I agree with what you're saying and with mass social change being a complex and relatively uncontrollable phenomenon. But these ruptures and insurrections previously have been as the result of very long processes, involving various grassroots organisations, self education and the increase in peoples own self activity. When they happen they do quite often throw up organs and groups which are based around many of the ideals mentioned above.

I think you've said elsewhere on a different thread on a different topic about innovation not necessarily being helped by competition and hierarchy but more so by co operation, sharing, etc.

See, it’s got to the point where we can’t discuss anarchism without getting academic.

I know. LOL !ironyyy

 

[the strange guy]

I particularly enjoyed the no money stenaline not working one, historically none of this makes sense, how for example do you think the trams worked in Barcelona in 1936? Apart from that, there’s the idea that a revolution will only take place in one country, why do you think that? Especially living in such a globalised world as we do today.

It makes total sense, to me at least. The Stenaline
example fit better than a Dublin Bus one, in which case
you'd be right. Stenaline are Swedish, as far as I know.
If Ireland undergoes an anarchist revolution then how can
we avail of Swedish goods and services without a
currency that holds value in Sweden? This is assuming the
ferries aren't 'taken' for community purposes. If Irish
ferries were available then how would this anarchist ferry
collective pay for docking fees in Holyhead or Fishguard
without currency? I feel the assumption that an
anarchist revolution would take hold on a slow nation by
nation basis and not the whole of Europe in a small amount
of time - were it to occur at all - is a fair one to make.
The point I was making was that in an anarchist revolution
the goods and services we have taken for granted simply
evaporate, that people's freedom of movement is
restricted and our passports declared void by other
nations.
No strawmen there.

I read and appreciate everything that you wrote, Shorty.
My criticisms aren't the theory of anarchy which I already
stated that I try to apply to my own life. Co-operation,
solidarity, struggle, independence, freedom, creativity - I
understand and try to abide by these principles. My
criticisms are the practical applications of anarchy as a
nationwide social effort and also of inherent double
standards in the anarchist ethos when it requires everyone
to live by it. This is the reality of an anarchist Ireland.

The old thread you referred to where I criticised the WSM
for their views on freedom of speech and freedom of
congregation for the far-right is an example of double
standards. I believe people should always be allowed to
say what they want and get together and talk about
whatever they want, even if I am vehemently opposed to
and even a target of their ideology (which I am, being half
Chinese)- the anti-authoritarian WSM do not and are willing
to use force. For me, force and authority are two sides of
the same coin, hence the double standard. But I think this
is a topic for either the old thread or a new one, just not this one!

Dragging anarchism out of the textbooks and coffee shops
and manifesting it requires a lot of effort. Criticising
practical social anarchy does not. This is because
academia is an abstraction of real life. It requires a huge
set of static assumptions before something can be
declared true. A book written in 2008 which refers and
expands on ideas from 1888 can be declared a step
forward for an academic community. Real life does not
work like that. And it's real life anarchy that I'm criticising.

I still feel that the examples I made are fair, that
maintaining a social revolution will always require a
curtailment of the freedoms we enjoy right now and also
require force or at least a forceful presence. I used the
term anarcho-cheka with my tongue planted so firmly in
my cheek that I looked like Christy Browne while typing it,
but to imagine it any other way is just make-believe. Just
because you are opposed to it does not mean it is
unnecessary. The point about the cheka was and is 'How
can an anarchist social revolution be maintained when a
sizeable and organised opposition is mounted without
using force; can this force be fundamentally different
from a proto-army?". Jumping up and down and telling me
I'm describing Stalinism is a fair point (or nil points), but
I'm simply asking how anarchy would not turn into this sort
of Stalinism in practical, real terms. Pointing to academic
resources while saying anarchy is more than academic
doesn't make much sense to me. It's a politician's answer!

 

[taubstumm]

in fairness kthozoid, the somalia telecoms "point" is the stupidest fucking thing i've heard in ages. no wonder people wouldn't let it go.

bullshit

i'm with zoid on this one

apart from that, carry on

 

[broken arm]

But these ruptures and insurrections previously have been as the result of very long processes, involving various grassroots organisations, self education and the increase in peoples own self activity.

I agree my interest in innovation theories may provide a vocabulary to describe this social change. I'm not an expert in systems thinking but I like the general principle of not really being able to intervene in complex systems (social/technical) with a particular outcome in mind.

Most of these transition discussions now take a network/systems approach but it may be useful to go back to theories like "long wave theory" and see does this have any lessons for the discussions on social change.

ALSO - there are lots of debates on "radical innovation" for sustainability and there are similarities to your debates on revolution/struggle etc.

I think you've said elsewhere on a different thread on a different topic about innovation not necessarily being helped by competition and hierarchy but more so by co operation, sharing, etc.

I wouldn't state that isn't helped by competition because in many cases it is. The discussion changes when you start asking what type of innovation you want, what is the intent and what outcomes do you expect.

Even within capitalist competitive systems there is a move towards what is being called "open innovation" - not exactly the same as open source. These discussions share common themes with "social innovation" etc.

I quite like writers like charles leadbeater (although he may not be your thing) because of his discussions on open innovation, collaboration and mass innovation. This is an animation about his book "we think". He is speaking about online mass innovation but I reckon you'll find some of the principles intuitive.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cormcolash]

What's the deal? I thought when the Free State took over in 1922 we've automatically been living in an Anarchist State ever since? At least they got rid of the Brits though!

 

[Doctor Muscles]

Apart from that, there’s the idea that a revolution will only take place in one country, why do you think that?

Try no countries!



BA DUM TISH!

 

[Shorty]

I agree my interest in innovation theories may provide a vocabulary to describe this social change. I'm not an expert in systems thinking but I like the general principle of not really being able to intervene in complex systems (social/technical) with a particular outcome in mind.

Most of these transition discussions now take a network/systems approach but it may be useful to go back to theories like "long wave theory" and see does this have any lessons for the discussions on social change.

There's the beginnings of a discussion on complex systems theory and anarchism starting about five posts down here. Says its supposed to be up on indymedia but I can't find it.

 

[Shorty]

Fuck it.

 

[ann post]

(event notices ok here? move if neccesary)


Talk and Slideshow on the history and current state of the anarchist movement in Ireland.

Anarchism and Ireland: An Introduction

1pm
Thursday, 2nd October 2008
Room G102
Arts Block
UCD

more info - [email protected]

trying to completley avoid this discussion, but i'd say if you were into anarchy, you'd really need to be a muppet to attend that meeting. marked for life.

 

[Froog]

onarchy in the orts block.

 

[wageslave]

trying to completley avoid this discussion, but i'd say if you were into anarchy, you'd really need to be a muppet to attend that meeting. marked for life.

why would you be marked for life? Do you really think the cops or whoever take details of people who attend meetings like this and put them on file 'for life'. More importantly whats the point of being 'into anarchy' if you can't work with other people to do something about it?

 

[ann post]

why would you be marked for life? Do you really think the cops or whoever take details of people who attend meetings like this and put them on file 'for life'. More importantly whats the point of being 'into anarchy' if you can't work with other people to do something about it?

no i was being way more obtuse and sarcastic at that. i wouldnt say cops, i would say lecturers, rugby club types and whoever, if you was regular going to anarchy pagent then people would notice, just like if you were regular going to rugby pagent. in any event i'd imagine its just a good sit down talking session rather then the dawn of the sunset, you have to realise that to some people the words 'ucd anarchy club' in themselves are just funny, really really funny. it sounds like a practical joke to me. i find it hard to associate somone who goes to ucd with somone who is adept in the ways of anarchy. did anyone actually go to this?? wheres the minutes??

 

[the strange guy]

Anarchists protesting against third-level and medical fees for rich folk.
Now that's comedy gold.

 

[Froog]

yes, it really is fucking pathetic.

 

[the strange guy]

It helps that most of the Anarchists in UCD come from well-off families.
No wonder they're indignant that the focking government are taking away what they're focking owed.

 

[Shorty]

It helps that most of the Anarchists in UCD come from well-off families.
No wonder they're indignant that the focking government are taking away what they're focking owed.

Okay, here's a test; name one person in UCD anarchist society?
Here's a tip, I'm not one of them.
In fact half are over 30, so I think their parental background has fuck all to do with it. Not to mention the redundancy of this "middle class" as a critique (this is not to say that UCD isn't middle class as fuck, but rather this argument is bollocks). You're actually talking shite.

Arts degrees funded by the state and part time work at the age of 18 - BAD
Arts degrees funded by the state via BTEA at the age of 23 - GOOD