probably – first intro to term – that resonated – 2008-9 ish via Steven.
[as anarchism is perhaps another word – or are all words this way – that is most often more associated with negative treks the perhaps original definition/intent had]
re-intro throughout the last few years.
David: – living as if already free
Kevin: – anarchist w/o adjectives thing:
infrastructure could be handled under any number of possible arrangement.. getting back to that..
peaceful co existence with local experimentation
moxie on democracy – yay
some resonating phrases about it of recent via David:
Russell Brand And David Graeber Talk ‘Mafia Capitalism’ And Cancelling Debt
19 min – wow.. 1 out of 7 have bailiff order on them?..
drone – debt resistors operational manual
20 min – holding the system up is scare propaganda..
23 min – has to be international.. don’t think it can happen through election – david
30 min – grassroots – but aren’t we on a bit of a time clock? via russell
terrified of people coming together and realizing their neighbors aren’t crazy, no longer needing politicians.. – david
32 min – let’s start experimenting with like – debt cancelation.. money is just a promise – david
ha. furious – that’s the logic of debt
this are things we made up – we can make them up different – david
debt cancellation, basic income, (the rolling jubilee – reset button)
i’m an anarchist – so i believe in solutions that involve the govt doing less – david
46 min – key is to help people realize they are capable.. the moment you realize things aren’t impossible – changes entire coneption – everything else falls into place – david
perhaps prison as service – norden.. ness – 51 min ish
55 min – the word anarchy frightens people in power so they make sure everyone else is frightened too
59 min – talking what kinds of debts to wipe out
1:01 – talking pluralistic ignorance – once we bold up – govt already has a way to cancel all debts et al..
1:04 – we just need to open it up – we don’t have to have it all figured out – then it wouldn’t be democratic – inventors never know what they’re going to invent.. – david
1:12 – banks have to loan – that’s how they get their money
if everybody stopped paying debts tomorrow – that would mean we’re all already connected enough – to have made that happen – the moment we get together and coordinate – games over.. that’s why it’s so important for there to be means to keep us apart
1:14 – a debt – a promise that’s been perverted (because non-changeable) .. society is just a bunch of promises.. so there can be good debt
1:16 – why people don’t care – because this isn’t really a democratic system
Charlie Rose – A Conversation With Anarchist David Graeber
protesting – asking for the powers that be to change
6 min – anarchism – acting as if you are already free, ..
..democracy w/o the govt. longer version: commitment to the idea that it would be possible to have a society based on principle: self-organization, voluntary association and mutual aide.
8 min – process is a good word for anarchism.. doing it in other ways shows what’s possible.. opposed to international borders
15 min – why it’s so important to put anarchy on our radar – because it means to re imagine the way we do things.. – when asked to speculate – d says – i think we have no idea. we can’t guess. but we can try to create positive examples of alternatives..
New Adam Curtis visual essay on Kurdistan, anarchism, PKK, Murray Bookchin, Lewis Mumford, and more http://t.co/94lmCEREdz
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/astradisastra/status/527976778112172032
A true artist takes no notice whatever of the public.
[in regard to doing their art]
Oscar Wilde, witty and wise as ever, on art:
People sometimes inquire what form of government is most suitable for an artist to live under. To this question there is only one answer. The form of government that is most suitable to the artist is no government at all. Authority over him and his art is ridiculous.
no govt and/or all as govt
And so Individualism exercises no compulsion over man. On the contrary, it says to man that he should suffer no compulsion to be exercised over him. It does not try to force people to be good. It knows that people are good when they are let alone.
enlightened anarchy ness
feb 2015 – via Kevin Carson
we need to spend less time like Thomas More drafting out all the details of a future libertarian utopia, right down to the food and architecture, and spend more time talking to our neighbors and figuring out ways of cooperating and getting along without the state telling us what to do.
Social anarchism calls for a system with common ownership of means of production and democratic control of all organisations, without any government authority or coercion. It is the largest school of thought in anarchism. Social anarchism rejects private property, seeing it as a source of social inequality (while retaining respect for personal property), and emphasises cooperation and mutual aid.
For English anarchist William Godwin education was “the main means by which change would be achieved.” Godwin saw that the main goal of education should be the promotion of happiness. For Godwin education had to have “A respect for the child’s autonomy which precluded any form of coercion,” “A pedagogy that respected this and sought to build on the child’s own motivation and initiatives,” and “A concern about the child’s capacity to resist an ideology transmitted through the school.” In his Political Justice he criticises state sponsored schooling “on account of its obvious alliance with national government”. Early American anarchist Josiah Warren advanced alternative education experiences in the libertarian communities he established. Max Stirner wrote in 1842 a long essay on education called The False Principle of our Education. In it Stirner names his educational principle “personalist,” explaining that self-understanding consists in hourly self-creation. Education for him is to create “free men, sovereign characters,” by which he means “eternal characters … who are therefore eternal because they form themselves each moment”.
Tolstoy established a conceptual difference between education and culture. He thought that “Education is the tendency of one man to make another just like himself … Education is culture under restraint, culture is free. [Education is] when the teaching is forced upon the pupil, and when then instruction is exclusive, that is when only those subjects are taught which the educator regards as necessary“. For him “without compulsion, education was transformed into culture”
A more recent libertarian tradition on education is that of unschooling and the free school in which child-led activity replaces pedagogic approaches. Experiments in Germany led to A. S. Neill founding what became Summerhill School in 1921. Summerhill is often cited as an example of anarchism in practice. However, although Summerhill and other free schools are radically libertarian, they differ in principle from those of Ferrer by not advocating an overtly political class struggle-approach. In addition to organising schools according to libertarian principles, anarchists have also questioned the concept of schooling per se. The term deschooling was popularised by Ivan Illich, who argued that the school as an institution is dysfunctional for self-determined learning and serves the creation of a consumer society instead.
Criticisms of anarchism include moral criticisms and pragmatic criticisms. Anarchism is often evaluated as unfeasible or utopian by its critics. European history professor Carl Landauer, in his book European Socialism argued that social anarchism is unrealistic and that government is a “lesser evil” than a society without “repressive force.” He also argued that “ill intentions will cease if repressive force disappears” is an “absurdity.
– – –
via Hannah Arendt‘s – the promise of politics..
what the modern era expected of its state, and what this state indeed achieved to a large extent, was the release of men to develop their socially productive energies, to produce in common the good they required for a ‘happy ” life.
so fitting.. as politics as a means to free us to our energy/art.. has now stifled us.. evidence for a shrewd/systemic pruning.. no? since we now can organize for ongoing self-organizing.. ie: everyone has something else to do – spontaneously and synchronously…
Anarchy refers to a society without a publicly enforced government. Since its inception in the originalancient Greek, anarchy has been used in the negative sense to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In 1840, however, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy, anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations.
The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀν (an), “not, without” and ἀρχός (arkhos), “ruler, leader.” Thus, the term refers to a person or society “without rulers” or “without leaders.”
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant treated anarchy in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View as consisting of “Law and Freedom without Force”. Thus, for Kant, anarchy falls short of being a true civil state because the law is only an “empty recommendation” if force is not included to make this law efficacious. For there to be such a state, force must be included while law and freedom are maintained, a state which Kant calls republic.
As summary Kant named four kinds of government:
- Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
- Law and force without freedom (despotism).
- Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
- Force with freedom and law (republic).
june 2016 – got into egalitarianism.. from.. (can’t remember just now).. so adding more to anarch\ism page from that rabit hole
…equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity… Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp.
True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity.
It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact… Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality… Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse.
The cultural theory of risk holds egalitarianism as defined by (1) a negative attitude towards rules and principles, and (2) a positive attitude towards group decision-making, with fatalism termed as its opposite.
The Cultural Theory of Risk distinguishes between hierarchists, who are positive towards both rules and groups, and egalitarianists, who are positive towards groups but negative towards rules. This is by definition a form of “anarchist equality” as referred to by Berkman. The fabric of an “egalitarianist society” is thus held together by cooperation and implicit peer pressure rather than by explicit rules and punishment. However, Thompson et al. theorise that any society consisting of only one perspective, be it egalitarianist, hierarchist, individualist, fatalist or autonomist, will be inherently unstable: the claim is that an interplay between all these perspectives are required if each perspective is to be fulfilling. For instance, although an individualist according to Cultural Theory is aversive towards both principles and groups, individualism is not fulfilling if individual brilliance cannot be recognised by groups, or if individual brilliance cannot be made permanent in the form of principles. Accordingly, egalitarianists have no power except through their presence, unless they (by definition, reluctantly) embrace principles which enable them to cooperate with fatalists and hierarchists. They will also have no individual sense of direction in the absence of a group. This could be mitigated by following individuals outside their group: autonomists or individualists.
now this probably repeat from top of page.. but taking it in anew via rabbit whole of egalitarianism
so… taking in origins section… get total feel
that babel ness is happening… can no longer say word and assume its understood…
perhaps need focus on silent/listening era..
girl looking at eyes as they groped her.. all she needed
most vulnerable.. and she reports no negs to date
something else from here I can’t remember…
has to be all languages/modes/mediums/et al…. from get go…
so… begs mech simple enough
from Rebecca Solnit‘s hope in the dark
jim dodge claims anarchy as an essential element of bioregionalism, ‘ the conviction that we as a community, or a tight, small-scale federation of communities, can mind our own business, and can make decisions regarding our individual/communal lives and gladly accept responsibilities/consequences of those decision.’.. this brings us back to he activism of the past 20 yrs.. or more, since contemporary anarchist organizing draws upon the decentralized models of the anarchists of the spanish civil war for its affinity groups, the more or less autonomous associations of five to fifteen people that constitute the basic unit of direct action
in other words, they were, or rather we are, anarchists, and this mode of organizing comes most directly out of the antinuclear movement of the 1980s, where direct democracy was established through affinity groups and spokescouncils using consensus decision-making processes (a spokescouncil is a meeting to which member affinity groups have each sent a spokesperson
yet.. again.. even deeper.. now have means to disengage from (or at least go ginorm small.. approach limit of zero/infinity).. consensus
Sheldon Richman – anarchism..would be assuming that no one has that privilege.. with respect of being able to initiate force against people who themselves have not used force.. like we let govt do
via Kevin Carson
This is my chapter for the Brill Companion to Anarchism https://t.co/p2Qm1GLJq5
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/KevinCarson1/status/949435548040617984
Reciprocity (or mutuality, or commutative justice) was central to Proudhon’s economic thought. In a passage in Volume II of System of Economical Contradictions, Proudhon writes: The theory of mutuality…, that is to say exchange in kind, …is the synthesis of the notions of private property and collective ownership. This synthesis is as old as its constituent parts since it merely means that society is returning… to its primitive practices as a result of a six-thousand-year-long meditation on the fundamental proposition that A=A.
The mutualist principle of “service for service, product for product, loan for loan, insurance for insurance, credit for credit, security for security, guarantee for guarantee” is an application of the legal principle of reciprocity to “the tasks of labor and to the good offices of free fraternity… On it depend all the mutualist
institutions: mutual insurance, mutual credit, mutual aid, mutual education…, etc.”
The perfect expression of mutuality for Proudhon was the contract between equals, both “synallagmatic” (bilateral) and “commutative” (based on an exchange of equal values). Unequal exchange, on the other hand,
was the defining characteristic of exploitation:
i think this is our problem.. i think unequal exchange is irrelevant.. none of this should be measured.. let alone compared..
Reciprocity is built into the normal functioning of a free market. When exchange is free and uncoerced, it is impossible for one party to benefit at the other’s expense.
? – not sure i buy/get that
The ratio at which goods and services are exchanged will move toward a value that reflects the respective costs of the parties, including the disutility of their labor. So the normal pattern of free exchange is cost for cost, effort for effort, disutility for disutility, so that things equal out through the “higgling of the market.” Or as Proudhon described it: Whoever says commerce says exchange of equal values, for if the values are not equal and the injured party perceives it, he will not consent to the exchange, and there will be no commerce.
….What characterizes the contract is the agreement for equal exchange; and it is by virtue of this agreement that liberty and well-being increase; while by the establishment of authority, both of these necessarily diminish….
….For no one has a right to impose his own merchandise upon another: the sole judge of utility, or in other words the want, is the buyer…. Take away reciprocal liberty, and exchange is no longer the expression of industrial solidarity: it is robbery.
comte: It is industrial organization that we will put in place of government….
In place of laws, we will put contracts.—No more laws voted by a majority, or even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws. In place of political powers, we will put economic forces..
Warren shared with Owen and Proudhon the belief that the lack of an equitable medium of exchange was central to the problem of poverty among the producing classes. If the producer could immediately convert the labor embodied in her product into a medium of exchange, without depending on
vested interests to provide currency and credit at a monopoly price, her standard of living would be limited only by her willingness to work. He favored a system based on “the cost principle,” i.e., based on labor time, rather than a “value” based on supply and demand: …if [one] could always get [goods] for that amount of his own labor which they cost an expert workman, he could have no motive to do without them….
Now, if it were not a part of the present system to get a price according to the degree of want or suffering of the community, there would long since have been some arrangement made to ADAPT THE SUPPLY TO THE DEMAND….
does anarchism (in your mind Kevin) assume money.. measuring transactions..? putting value on people/labour/things..?
can we not believe trust have/need ness
I consider “anarcho-capitalism” as such to be entirely separate from the historic lineage of
i hope that answers my above question with a no..
(I, for example, have never identified as an an-cap and consider myself a socialist).
Real Media (@RealMediaGB) tweeted at 5:29 AM – 17 Feb 2018 :
WATCH @davidgraeber on Rojava, Syria, Anarchism https://t.co/9wuRFTXcR9 #DefendAfrin #Rojava (http://twitter.com/RealMediaGB/status/964839185592078336?s=17)2 min – rojava: n syria along turkish border.. 2 mn people there engaged in what i consider to be one of the greatest historical experimentsgrowing up w my background (father in barcelona at time anarchy ruled) .. understood anarchism was possible .. (ie: wouldn’t end up just killing each other) .. but hadn’t been an experiment at that scale.. like what happened in spain since.. because everybody is so terrified as people running things.. being told not necessary..5 min – dual power situation where same guy set up both sides6 min – saying.. can’t get rid of capitalism w/o getting rid of state.. and can’t get rid of state w/o getting rid of patriarchy.. how do you get rid of patriarchy..? make sure all have weapons.. then anyone w gun has power of top down.. overall mech – all women police force9 min – leader (who’s in jail for rest of life.. and only one they show a pic of that’s not dead.. because if show one person who’d alive pic.. not democratic).. says.. think for yourself10 min – army – people’s defense units.. basis is defense.. they always win..
12 min – anarchism isn’t against organization.. it means people aren’t compelled to organize themselves.. they believe in organization more than anyone else
if you have a system where anybody can say whatever they want.. and nobody can be compelled to do something that’s obviously stupid .. you’re going to have to make it common sensical..
ie: consensus system.. no one should have to do something they violently object to
public consensus always oppresses someone(s)
13 min – all i believe in.. is taking that basic principle.. that if you can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do or they think is absolutely wrong or idiotic.. then you’re going to have to develop a structure of hearing people out.. that’s the only thing i wouldn’t compromise on.. everything else is like.. what’s the most effective way to do that..
14 min – what they did.. if technical – majority vote.. if moral.. then consensus..
16 min – bureaucracy always creeps in.. ie: language.. language always changes.. no language that is same as it was 1600 yrs ago.. why is that..? people like to play around.. but on other hand.. if you tell people they’re doing it wrong they’ll believe you.. this is the fundamental dilemma that makes bureaucracy possible..
18 min – i feel very strongly that compulsory participation in direct democracy is just as wrong as not allowing people to participate
is anarchism crazy – david 13 min talk sept 2017
it’s almost inevitable if you grow up in a household where anarchism is considered a reasonable political philosophy that you will become an anarchist .. the way i think of it is.. most people don’t think anarchism is a bad idea.. they think it’s insane.. so if you know that it’s not crazy.. that it’s actually been done.. why not be one.. not any good reason other than implausibility..t
in my early experience though..i kept running into anarchist groups where people were jerks
3 min – so decided to be an anthropologist instead.. and ended up in madagascar in a place where state had disappeared.. fascinating thing.. it took me a while to figure it out
10 min – makes you think (seeing people living w/o state/police/et-al).. what is it about living under a state.. under someone’s else’s authority.. under the constant threat of violence if you break the rules that actually causes behavior that makes it seem self evident that people would be that violent if there wasn’t such structures.. t .. because if there aren’t such structures.. that’s not how they act
David Graeber (@davidgraeber) tweeted at 11:04 AM on Fri, Jul 17, 2020:
Best formulation that came out of the very pleasant Idler conversation last night: anarchy doesn’t reject organization. It stands for GOOD organization. If you have to threaten to beat people up in order to get people to go along with your plan you’re not very good at organizing
imagine if we org’d around the itch-in-8b-souls..
from moxie on democracy:
Anarchists distinguish themselves by asserting a direct and unobstructed link between thought and action, between desires and their free fulfillment.
…and no civilized person — apart from the late anthropologist David Graeber — can seriously defend the idea of anarchy.
(that is our only hope, according to the author Peter Isacksonof the article -Peter Isackson).
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/nikadubrovsky/status/1383356851425710087