Philosphical Anarchism?

Philosphically speaking, I suppose most anarchists are not philosophical anarchists in the strictest sense. The main assumption of phil. an. is that to be free, one must be free of other people and be allowed to own oneself. This, then, creates a contradiction in that a modern industrial society, well pretty much any society, would end up having some final allowed authority to stop people co-operating too much. A final allowed quasi-religous "supernatualist abortion of society" would therefore have to be justified to take over the vital functions and administrations of society, over and above every autonomous individual.

This is, in effect, the liberal justification for the state,and as a justification its a pretty lame one! The pseudo-worship of the individual is soon negated by a Hobbesian insistence on obeying laws whether they make sense or not! It never occurs to liberals that there might be some debate or consensus on when certain rules at certain times apply or not.

This, in turn, effectively defines the Right, although by defining too much, conservatism can suddenly become a left-wing ideology. With their insistence on rules to protect their non-existent individuality, the right have always rallied behind conservative and reactionary parties and governments, just so long as no-one forces them to co-operate (or think for themselves!)

A distinction of the Left is that, generally, they can think for themsleves and see events through different points of view (some of the time). This is why, despite a belief in commonality and solidarity, there is so much sectarianism in the Left historically.

I shouldn't bad mouth liberalism per se. I would consider my own beliefs to be a synthesis of positive and negative freedoms, so it would be fair to say I am a philosophical liberal. Whether other liberals are is hard to say.

It should also be said that many who consider themsleves anarchists are, both strictly and philosophically speaking, communists or capitalists. Employing an anarchic critique of the state does not make you an anarchist, libertarians (to use the American usage) make similar claims but in the framework of minimal government.

The term "free communism" is a term I have come across recently which may be applicable to communist anarchism as it assumes communism in roughly Marxist terms can spontaneously emerge in a mass society with the absence of the state, ditto "free capitalism" (although capitalsim as we know it would disintegrate without the state). So-called "anarcho-communism" I would myself use Marxist terminology and situate it as part of a, much admired on my part regardless of my comments, "Utopian Socialist" tradition stretching back to Gerald Wistanley and even to the early Christians.

For my own position, I can only say that a "free market" can only come through co-operation and a degrre of collectivism, but by free market I basically mean free movement of goods and people. My economic sympathies lie somewhere amoung collectivism, syndicalism and mutualism but I would also add that in a democracy the people would be free to choose whatever economic situation best suits everyone.

Bit of a personal one today.

Handed in my Descartes essay this week and attended some NVDA training today. Still a bit critical about the essay, but probably being too hard on myself: after my last experience of education I expect everything to be ridiculously hard so why can't things be easy and go my way for once?

Seem to invarably stink of: a wet dog, my friend Vicky and gin, or at least some smells keep following me around. Better not ask! Stoke generally still smells like a fart but maybe not as much as it used to ditto Cobridge and rotten vegatables. Thank goodness for winter coming.

Clocks go back tomorrow, which I have to say is a good thing as it'd be too dark for me ever to have a decent chance of an early morning!

An important part of Neo-Conservatism and Christian Fundamentalism is Creationism. For these people it is important to insist on the relatively young age of the Earth, compared to, for example, the length given by Science for the time Man has lived on Earth.

Why is this so?

Since the 1970’s there has been a greater awareness in the general consciousness of the population of environmental issues, alternative religions and non-hierarchical organisation. Obviously, those in the Establishment are aware of this and are aware that the general message of equality and respect for life contradicts their own sense of Justice. (i.e Their position in power)

Many in the Deep Ecology movement see much of human progress as a denial of Universal human and natural values that have only been retained by hunter-gatherer peoples. For many Primitivists, it all started to go wrong for Mankind in the Neolithic period. For Creationists, it was around this period that Man was still happily in the Garden of Eden and was on personal terms with God.

The suggestion that Shamanistic and Animistic cultures were in existence much earlier would be considered by modern Conservatives to be a great blow to society that would overturn all its values of property ownership, Patriarchy, Capitalism and the Modern Nation State.

Anthrpologists and archaeologists would tell us, shock horror, that Man has mostly existed without a State or Monotheism. Creationists would have us assume that primitive cultures, and polytheistic cultures in general have no real legitimate basis for, according to a strict biblical interpretation, at some point their ancestors rejected God and therefore rejected the central authority "natural" to mankind.

Primitivism has, in turn, been used as a stick by the Right to beat environmentalists
and the Left in general with: You don't like cars, nuclear power etc therefore you hate civilisation. Religon connects again with this as millions of Americans are now waiting in breathless anticipaton for "the rapture". If the End is coming anyway, amnd it's basicaly God's will, why protect the environment?

Why Class-Struggle Ecologism?

First off, why ecologism? As living beings we are dependant on a stable, natural
environment for material sustenance. By destroying the environment, we are
destroying ourselves and our future.

Logically, it is in the interests of all human beings to protect and respect the
environment. This assumes a single humanity, as opposed to "a humanity of classes". Heads of government and industry etc would still be in control of the means of sustenance in the event of environmental collapse.

This leads on to class-struggle. It can quite easily be shown that abolishing classes in the conventional sense should prevent enivironmental collapse. However, pressures on the environment are also caused simply by human population growth. Patriarchy, regardless of the existence or otherwise of capitalist relations, is a form of class oppression, especially when it comes to women having control over reproduction. The fact that women, both in the third world and in capitalist societies, are often forced into having more children than are necessary for the general continuation of human society will ultimately have a negative effect on humanity as population growth creates intolerable stresses on the environment.

Would simply overthrowing capitalism make a difference? Intitally, as stated: yes. But we have to define what capitalism is. In terms of "private capitalism" this is superceded by corporate interests which are over and above the interests of private capitalists. Simply nationalising aspects of the economy or creating a "command economy" does not eliminate the corporate aspect. In fact, it further legitimises the economy being run by a corporate entity, thus legitmising "anti-capitalist" sentiments amoung private capitalists! State Capitalism does not solve the question of how corporations can be expected to respect the enviroment.

The idea has to be perpetuated of a trans-nationally organised, but collectively run at the local level, modern industrial economy. We also have to get beyond a scarcity mentality: we can easily produce enough goods to satisfy everyone's needs. Any beurocracy set up in order to satisfy needs would end up denying them for if goods were to be supplied there would be no need for the beurocracy to exist! There is no need for rapid industrialisation, but there is still a place for industry.

Since when was calling for the destruction of a state equated with genocide?
Granted, Ahmedinejad is not a nice guy, I don't like nukes or civilian casualties, but is there a moral difference between directly interfering with a sovereign state's affairs through terrorist activity (i.e the U.S with regards to Cuba and Iran) and the head of one sovereign state calling for the desruction of another?

Wot no kcsj? Boards still going? Can't find them at da mo.

Anyhoo, anyone up for sewing Jack Straw's mouth shut?

Nearly finished "Statism and Anarchy". Pretty damn good, none of that
wanking over militas;to get rid of the state you have to get rid of the state.

Could someone please abolish the 20th century?
Thank God-Man-Stirner-an ameoba that one's over!

Save the Ents, no to M6 expansion!

Possible T-shirt quotes/slogans:

"Thank God I'm an Animist"

"FAI nun****er"

"Feed the Poor:Eat the Rich"

"Do I look like I'd sign your petition?"

"In Bob we don't trust"

"Kill Bono"

"Don't vote, do something political instead"

"WMD: my arse"

"It's a State. It doesn't matter if it's Jewish or Jigglypuff"