Submitted by BulletDog15 in AskRaddle (edited )

Hey, I'm new to Raddle and I've been scrolling around and I've seen a lot of things on anarchy and that sort of stuff. I obviously know what anarchy is and I've formed my opinions on it, however, it seems that this community has a different definition than what the media portrays. So if I could get a 2-3 sentence definition on what you guys think it is, I'd be happy to share my thoughts.

(Edit: Added everything below) Also, I should say something. I consider myself a Libertarian. I believe that the government, especially our current US one, needs to be limited and heavily regulated. I believe that all laws should reflect the three basic human rights: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and Property.

This does not mean I am an anarchist. I do not believe that society and morals should be torn down. I do believe that a well regulated government is to exist for the benefit of the governed. I believe that the federal government should only exist to protect the nation with the military, and to build roads, and to assist state and local government when needed. All other responsibilities should be passed on to the state and local governments.

Anyway, that's a pretty simplified way of putting it I guess, but that's me. Feel free to change my mind and I'll be happy to reply. And hey, even if you don't succeed in changing my mind, just know that I'm just as happy that I walked away with some new insight, or maybe we reached some common ground

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lettuceLeafer wrote

When I become ungovernable. That would be anarchy

7

BulletDog15 OP wrote (edited )

What do you mean by "ungovernable"? Are you saying that you intend on following rules that only you come up with? If so (I'm not sure if you are an anarchist btw, I'm just assuming), anarchy is a pretty illogical ideology. One can come on this site and claim to be an anarchist but this site still has rules and guidelines that all members must abide by, that's pretty anti-anarchist if you ask me, and that's just one example.

−3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Ungovernable is different than rules. Like if I want to paint my house blue while snorting ketamine and no one is stopping me from doing that if no one is stopping me from painting my house blue or alternatively I have a literal army so big that if the government tries to stop me snorting ketamine and painting my house blue they are physically unable to stop me.

Raddle is different. Raddle is kinda ziqs property tbh, they are responsible for the content hosted on it, they will suffer the punishment if illegal content is hosted they pay for it. Ziq can set rules for who they allow in their space and what would cause them to leave. Ziq isn't governing me they are telling me under what conditions I can use their property.

If ziq was unable to have control over his property I.e. I forced them to let me alter his property against their wishes I would be governming them.

4

RatifyGuy1776 wrote

I would say that anarchy is when communities get to make their own decisions about what's okay there, without some massive federal or corporate body using violence and mammon to make people defect to a global monoculture.

6

BulletDog15 OP wrote

So, it's bassically what the Founding Fathers intended with the founding of the US?

0

ziq wrote

what did the founding fathers intend with the founding of the US?

6

BulletDog15 OP wrote

They intended to break from a tyranny that they felt was treating them unjustly.

−4

ziq wrote

They were filthy rich white male slave owners who owned huge plantations and formed a state to rule people i.e. they were a massive federal and corporate body using a monopoly on violence to uphold slavery, white supremacy and patriarchy.

6

BulletDog15 OP wrote (edited )

Your statement doesn't hold very much juice. I've heard many people make this argument about the Founding Fathers and it gets disproved every time. Now, idk if you'll even read this but, it needs to be said on a site like this:

The Founding Fathers did not create a state specifically to rule people. As a matter of fact, they never intended to create their own nation. People were actually living normal lives as colonists. What lead to the founding was unfair taxation. The UK had these colonies as a source of income. It was more people to collect tax from. The unfair and unregulated taxation is what made people mad. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? The American Revolution wasn't necessarily to create a new nation, it was to stand up to the unfair rule of the British (I'm surprised you guys aren't more on board with the American Revolution). So the argument that they "formed a state to rule people" (I'm quoting you) holds no real value.

To address your "uphold slavery" and "white supremacy" statements: I'm not so sure about white supremacy. In fact, many of the founding fathers, including the ones who owned slaves, struggled with the idea of slavery. The idea of slavery was never really a race issue until much later because people of all races at the time enslaved other people of all races, Americans used blacks as the slave trade between Europe and Africa existed.

Most of the founders wished to grant slaves freedom and citizenship, while some did not, those who did not didn't view slaves as a full person. So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person. Many founding fathers freed their slaves upon their deaths, like George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, while being a slave owner, believed the US could be torn apart by slavery. So the Founding was never a "white supremacy" issue, it was a slavery issue. An issue that they let the future solve

Now to address the "patriarchy": Yes, the US was technically founded on a patriarchy where only men held rights. Now, that did not mean the Founders forgot about women. There is not a single line in the Constitution that says that women cannot have rights. Yes, it does say "men", but the Constitution was written in a way that the definition of "men" could be adjusted. When the Constitution says "man", they mean all of mankind. Mankind includes women, this new definition of "man" was then extended to blacks and any non-white person.

If you actually pay attention to the documents that founded the US you'll actually be surprised. Yes, the founding fathers lived in a extremely conservative and, at times, regressive, they did think of the future. If they were truly racist, sexist, tyrants, they would have reflected as such in the Constitution and the US would not be the power it is today. The Founding Fathers were not stupid.

Besides, your argument takes the superficial details of the Founders and capitalizes on it to push an idea that you want to spread (that's very capitalist of you), and completely ignores everything else. Yes these details existed, but everyone seems to forget that the Founding Fathers did not forget to address their own flaws. Like I said, the Founding Fathers, as flawed and imperfect as they were (I'm sorry people aren't perfect btw), were not stupid.

−4

CaptainACAB wrote

Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? The American Revolution wasn't necessarily to create a new nation, it was to stand up to the unfair rule of the British (I'm surprised you guys aren't more on board with the American Revolution)

Beating back one nation to become a new nation doesn't win support here. Otherwise, we'd be praising a number of Communist nations such as Cuba (which we don't).

To address your "uphold slavery" and "white supremacy" statements: I'm not so sure about white supremacy. In fact, many of the founding fathers, including the ones who owned slaves, struggled with the idea of slavery. The idea of slavery was never really a race issue until much later because people of all races at the time enslaved other people of all races, Americans used blacks as the slave trade between Europe and Africa existed.

What race did slave owners in the US during the time of the founding fathers identify as? You know, the slave owners that are actually relevant to topic.

Most of the founders wished to grant slaves freedom and citizenship, while some did not, those who did not didn't view slaves as a full person. So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person. Many founding fathers freed their slaves upon their deaths, like George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, while being a slave owner, believed the US could be torn apart by slavery. So the Founding was never a "white supremacy" issue, it was a slavery issue. An issue that they let the future solve

Yeah, they released their slaves once they literally could not use them anymore. Didn't stop them form literally owning people during their lives; the only time where they had actual agency. What a garbage talking point.

Yes, it does say "men", but the Constitution was written in a way that the definition of "men" could be adjusted. When the Constitution says "man", they mean all of mankind.

The fact that you outright admit that the definition of "man" changed over time actually undermines your argument. They either meant it that way to begin with or it changed.

Mankind includes women, this new definition of "man" was then extended to blacks and any non-white person.

Except back then social convention dictated that non-whites were sub-human and were happy in slavery (which is exactly why several slaves tried to escape slavery through running away or armed rebellion). "Man" had specific criteria back then that went through shifts to become what it is now; applying this "progressive" mindset to historical figures that were also influenced by these social conventions is the definition of ahistorical.

Are you even aware of the difference between stated values and actual values?

6

lettuceLeafer wrote

So there was the 3/5 Compromise which made each slave 3/5 of a person

That's not what the 3 fifths compromise was. It comes from an argument over if slaves should be determined as people for population counts to determine how many representatives sent to the house for each state. Slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as people why people who lived in states with few slaves wanted slaves to be considered not as people.

I'm not going to refute anything else you say bc you're not trying to argue froma place of truth. You idolize the founding fathers so it's impossible for you to view evidence of them being anything less than perfect. You really should learn how to respect things figured have done but not idolize them so you don't have to defend the fucked up shit they have done. It's both possible and good to aknowlege good things people do but not defend the anti freedom things they have done.

4

RatifyGuy1776 wrote (edited )

Very few of the Founding Fathers intended any such thing. To begin with, they weren't of one mind, not nearly. A number of them were religious zealots of a sort that most modern Christians would consider nearly insane; they more or less believed that monarchy is the only form of government and that the only way to get right with God after our treason against the English crown was to make a new monarchy here. Many more of them were ready to get rid of monarchy, but believed that a very strong federal government was necessary. They won that fight; the Articles of Confederation were much closer to the kind of loose union I'd like to see, and it failed due to 18th century networking technology not being up to the task of facilitating defensive cooperation and trade between states that couldn't be bossed around.

The US Constitution is all about federalism, which would be much better than what we have if we were allowed to actually do it, but it's still not good. Federal governments are already empires pretty much by their definition. The better networking technology gets, the more it acts like one. If we are to escape from the cycle of perpetual warmongering until the nuclear one, we have to use that same technology to dismantle the federal government and replace it with something that takes a drastically lighter touch. The only way to avoid eventually scouring the planet in nuclear war is to make sure there are no targets big enough that you need nukes to fight them. The end of nations, returning the power of self-determination to individual city-states, is in my view essential to our long-term survival.

5

BulletDog15 OP wrote

I see your point, how ever, these smaller nation-states are what lead to these large warmongering empires that exist today. You see, small nation-states, often made of one large city and huge amounts of farmland, would still declare and wage war on one another. These wars were far more brutal than the wars we see today. A war then was about attacking a nation-state that threatened your nation-state, for example it could be because the location blocks a trade route from another nation-state. The one that feels threatened would attack, destroying the city, killing all the men and raping the women, then stealing the supplies and claiming the city as their own. Now we've gone back to traditional imperialism that we read about in the history books.

Here's the upside to that traditional imperialism: You remember the Roman Empire. The Romans conquered nearly al land around the Mediterranean Ocean, they united all nations in that area, then there was peace in those areas. They were unified under one banner.

Eventually all empires fall, usually due to the fact of over extension (expanding too far) and spreading their military too thin. Now instead of that traditional imperialism we read about, its more of an economic imperialism.

1

RatifyGuy1776 wrote (edited )

The wars are not any less brutal. They are arguably more brutal. The difference is that the brutality happens far from American eyes, so the voice that wants it to stop can be made quiet.

More to the point, I don't actually care how brutal they are. It's war. It's like that. People are like that. They're also better. The cycle of boom and bust, of war and peace, is natural and likely immutable. What I care about is that war is now waged by belligerents who each have the power to unilaterally scour the biosphere, and we only continue to live for as long as all of them remain devoted to this inherently unstable and thoroughly disgusting practice of extracting the wealth from their own people by waging no-win proxy wars.

One day, a "world leader" will get struck by the good idea fairy, and life on earth will be reduced, at best, to something like tardigrades for at least several millennia. I'd rather have the smaller conflicts. Nations have to go.

1

_caspar_ wrote

this question was proposed awhile back where my two cents are found. Im still fine with my shorthand answer: "If anarchism is a set of practices in tension against both ruling and being ruled, then anarchy is the motivating force behind these practices."

if that sounds vague, its due to my understanding of anarchy being irreducible to programmatic one-size-fits-all thinking: the underlying motivations for practice informed by the particularities of the tension you find yourself in are going to (and can only be) yours.

"So we continually need to maintain a relationship between this tension towards something absolutely other, the unthinkable, the unsayable, a dimension we must realise without very well knowing how to, and the daily experience of the things we can and do, do. A precise relationship of change, of transformation."

-Alfredo Bonanno, The Anarchist Tension

5

Gwen_Isilith wrote

MSM potrays it pretty accurately, anarchy is no rules and anarchists are terrorists.

4

BulletDog15 OP wrote

I have to agree with you to an extent. I took a look at /w/anarchy and it seems that a common goal of anarchists is to break free from societal structure and morality. Both of which you need to have a functioning society. I know someone is going to argue with me, but let me get my words in. Let us, hypothetically, toss out the rule book and all societal standards and lets get rid of morals. Now we have absolute chaos. On /w/anarchy, they claim anarchy is living in a small society free from standards and morality, well, how is it a society then? For example, let's put ourselves in one of these anarchistic "societies", if you say something I don't like I'll just kill you and your whole family and I can go unpunished because there are no rules to live by. And if you say there is a "social contract" we must abide by, you are mentioning morality and a social structure that you say you're against. I dunno, maybe I'm not seeing something that this community sees. But again, the idea of anarchy, like all ideas and political ideologies, are imperfect, but anarchy seems more illogical than most other forms of society.

−3

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I agree up to the point you say living without a society is more illogical then living in society.

I do agree anarchy is illogical, since it is anti-rational (and anti-modern) but what you seem to imply in this statement is that the moral standing of society lessens chaos in any way. The state, and thus society, does not prevent crime, or chaos, it can only declare war upon and in so doing attempt to destroy those who it deems criminal or chaotic.

But this designation can only occur after the fact (after the act of criminality or chaos) and the morality of the state (and thus society) is only a justification for the use of violence/control/force etc. On these bodies deemed criminal/chaotic and all other identities construed outside the normality of society. And so to the black body for example is a criminal body and a chaotic body in that the state (and society) wages war against it until either it is destroyed (which while it may be possible to destroy genetically blackness, it is impossible to destroy criminality) or until it can be subsumed into normalcy.

And so to me while I do see the logic behind this society (hese are rationalist conclusions especially in relation to Francis Bacon), I do not see in what way this war, which does not prevent these elements but instead justifies the propagation (and systemetizing) of violence, is preferable to the de-systemitozing of violence.

To restate what I said in the form of a question:

In what way is systemic violence, which makes its enemy not only non-systemic violence but all else which it may identify as an enemy since its use of systemic violence presupposes this ability to identify enemies, preferably to the absence of systemic violence?

To reduce furher:

In what way is war preferable to chaos?

6

BulletDog15 OP wrote

Okay, hopefully I'm understanding you correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong: you're saying war is a person or group of people fighting against what they believe to be wrong while upholding what they believe to be right. And chaos is just that, no right or wrong just a world of subjectivity.

In that case war is preferable to chaos because it is human nature. We tend to naturally group ourselves and rules and law come out of that. Even if absolute anarchy happened right now, order and laws would be established eventually as people grouped up with like-minded individuals. Now the world makes sense. Subjectivity goes away and defined objectives are formed. Like I said, laws and morals.

This way of thinking about is has brought me to a conclusion that anarchy doesn't actually exist. There are just periods of chaos that soon come to order. Even here on Raddle, where everyone is a self-proclaimed anarchist, they still developed rules and an order to things for the community to follow. There's a community guideline on every damn forum on this site for shit's sake! lol

So to conclude, war isn't just preferable, its natural, at least to human psychology.

−4

Gwen_Isilith wrote

I am not going to just take your word that war is natural, what do you base this on? War is certainly not my nature as someone who wants the destruction of these systems. In the text "Murder of The Civilized" it would even appear that chaos, particularly chaotic violence, seems to be a common (though I do not want to appeal to naturality as you have) response to being civilized both among humans and non-humans (and this is to my knowledge an extrapolation of Kazynski's work on civilization's affect on one's psyche).

Thinking further upon it, it would seem to me Kazynski's psychological work could directly contridict your claim since this conception of war typically entails the mediation of one's goals through the system- justice is given by the system not taken by oneself, profit is dualed out by the system, etc- which for Kazynski entails deep dissatisfaction which we currently see manifested in the growth of "mental illness" (which is simply the pathologization of dissatisfaction/disfunction in the system).

6

BulletDog15 OP wrote (edited )

I'm basing it on things I'm seeing. You, yes you, are participating in a war. It's not a physical war. You said that you are "someone who wants the destruction of these systems", you and everyone else on this site. You have found allies with a common cause and you all are willing to fight for what yo believe in. That is a war. Although each individual anarchist has a different vision, you all have a similar goal.

Now, if we had chaos here, you people wouldn't just be attacking government policies and the such, you would be at each other's throats as well. I've seen some forums here and some people on these forums admit to being egotistical and the such. If this site was truly about anarchy, everyone would be fighting for the gain of himself, even if it means bulldozing their own mother, not supporting each other on forums.

You see, you unknowingly are fighting a war. Like I said, a war is a person, more like a group of people, fighting for a common cause against an antagonist that threatens that way of life.

−2

black_fox wrote

lol why did you ask what anarchy was then just end up telling people what (you think) anarchy is?

5

BulletDog15 OP wrote (edited )

Because only one side of the ideology is presented in the media, me coming to this site showed me that there's obviously more than that and I want to get input from people that I know "live the lifestyle" (if that's how one could put it), then maybe I can present you guys my opinion/conclusion on the topic that you can either say you agree or disagree with it and/or further my understanding of what it is you truly believe.

−2

RadicalConstructivist wrote (edited )

What about anarchy means you can't care about other people? I think you might be thinking what most people coming from a moralistic framework think, which is the idea that being "amoral" means "never doing anything that my moral framework considers 'good'", which is not necessarily the case. You also seem to be coming from a very pejorative view of "chaos".

What makes you think that people's own interests are always fundamentally opposed to that of others? I gain a lot more by working with others than against them. This type of rugged individualist, war of all against all mindset goes directly against my interests as it creates some pretty unpleasant conditions that I then have to try and exist in.

4

BulletDog15 OP wrote

You see, then some things need clarity. You say you work better in groups than by yourself, that's not anarchism at all. When you align yourself with like-minded people to accomplish a task, that means that there has to be an order, a structure of some kind, which is something that anarchists don't want, right? I guess what I'm saying is, what am I missing to understand this ideology? I'm seeing contradiction, but again, I'm probably missing something.

I know that "amoral" means "without morals." Meaning, neither good nor bad, just a person working to benefit himself. This isn't something that a society can thrive on though. There needs to be a moral code, you can't just do anything you want because it is convenient to you. There has to be a line in the sand we must draw. A moral code is not just for the benefit of just one person, it is also the benefit of all who live in the society.

I saw someone say "if I don't kill you, you don't kill me." Which is, admittedly, good evidence for being amoral and yet not living in complete chaos. However, where I find the issue is when people say "killing is wrong," when you say that, you are alluding to morality, not amorality.

So, I don't know if any of that made any sense, so I'm probably confused still.

0

mofongo wrote

You're missing a keyword: hierarchy.

You can have cooperation without hierarchy.

You can have companionship without hierarchy.

You can have societies without hierarchy.

What anarchists want? No hierarchy.

6

kokoaitu wrote

I've seen some forums here and some people on these forums admit to being egotistical and the such. If this site was truly about anarchy, everyone would be fighting for the gain of himself

Why would we fight each other?
Cooperation achieves way more for everyone involved.
We are conscious in our Egoism, we understand that the only action a person can ever take is for their own interest. People help others not because helping others is good, but because it feels good to help others. As such people help others out of their own self interest.
Being aware of the inherent selfishness in all action ensures there is no misunderstandings about expected returns.
I help you, you help me, together we get more.
I attack you, we fight, we both lose.

Fighting the state is just self defence from aggressors, maybe not specifically aggressors against me, but still perpetuating violence throughout the world.

3

BulletDog15 OP wrote

But in addressing your own selfishness, you realize you gain allies. You are no longer in chaos. People realize that in sticking together they can accomplish more, that's why government exists.

1

kokoaitu wrote

No, Organisation doesn't equal government. Governments exist because certain people seek to subvert this cooperative spirit for personal gain.

As such, you've been "educated" from a young age to believe that authority is needed, when in reality, the authority is just looking out for itself. Eg. Police looking to defend property over people. Armies overthrowing governments so corporations can profit.

3

mofongo wrote

That's a lot of bullocks to unravel. Not worth the effort.

3

inthedustofthisplanet wrote

Good luck living a short brutish life just to die alone. Not even being rude, this is just the direct result of your ideas.

3

BulletDog15 OP wrote

Yeah, you insult me and you don't get banned. I state my "ideas" and I do because I don't share the collective opinion. I come to gain insight, I point out my opinion and call-out some contradictions that I see/don't understand and now I'm a bad guy for explaining my side. Real Anti-facist guys, doing great! lmao

1

inthedustofthisplanet wrote (edited )

Yeah, you insult me and you don't get banned.

Where did I insult you?

Good luck living a short brutish life just to die alone. Not even being rude, this is just the direct result of your ideas.

Right, I see how things are going to be. Have a great day!

3