Bravo comrades excellent
[Emanuel Goldstein] - 07 05 08 - 14:51

the nice thing about communitarian anarchism is that if you don’t agree to the values set by your community you are free to join another one (hopefully).

I hope that when it is realized there will be a place for everybody
[Ole Kristian] - 07 05 08 - 17:58

I have to say, I like what I’m hearing there. Question:

“it’s a methodological anarchy”

In that methodological anarchy, would methodological individualism be a respected TRUTH by ALL peoples in all communities (or encouraged to be)?
BulimicMind - 08 05 08 - 03:54

I can’t believe people eat this up as if it were gospel…
Observer - 08 05 08 - 18:55

I don’t know.. this way, in some comunities it might become legal, for example, for a man to beat his wife, and noone could protest because it would be considered a breach of regulations. (in such a society, one community would be forbidden to interfere with another, or else the whole arrangement would become quite pointless.)

What’s more, the obvious consequence of such a great separation of ideals would be war between the communities. Noone would sit back and accept the others’ beliefs, culture, civilisation. It’s just not what people do. What they do is start war, using their faith, or their way of life that they consider superior, as an excuse to conquer and subdue.

Creating communities of people with, essentialy, the same view on things, may seem like an ideal worth fighting for. Still, in the end one must admit that, feeling so intimately linked to everyone in their community, and inevitably viewing their way of life as the best, these people will end up waging war against other communities with, also inevitably, completely different beliefs.

Just imagine: alliances between communities in order to wipe out some “offenders”, like gays or jews or maybe fascists, communists… It could be anything. It could start small, like concern for children of other communities (it would be all too easy to judge peope if you already knew they were grouped by beliefs, that they were, in this respect, “all the same”).

Plus, people would never allow their children to move to another community, and anyways, kids would grow up in an airtight environment, without acces to other ideas but the ones supported by their parents.

Ok, i could go on forever with the flaws in this plan. In truth, i’m an Anarchist at heart but i’m realistic enough to know that society will never permit for this to happen. People just won’t let other people be that happy, they don’t want other people to be free.
Coco (URL) - 09 05 08 - 12:01

I believe that there is an extremely small chance that there will ever be an anarchist society. People love power too much. If one nation became anarchist, another nation would see it as opportunity to attack it. If we did ever obtain an anarchist world, it would not remain that way for long, because one community would attack another community, conquer it, and appoint a leader of some sort, thus, ending the anarchy. I believe that if people were all naturally good and did not have the survival instincts that we do, anarchy would be the perfect idea, but humans do what is best for them, not what is right. I believe that the fight for anarchy is more important than actually obtaining it. The journey is always more fullfilling than the destination
Garret - 09 05 08 - 14:26

What we DON’T need is complete lawlessness (which doesn’t work, and seems to lack general direction) or one lifestyle/government/system of values forced on all people. That’s slavery and it goes under the name of globalization and communism/capitalism.
Man made laws are unesecary unless everyone can benefit from them. (Like the dog. It wouldn’t be a written law but the dog would be protected through a unspoken law. Because killng the dog wouldn’t benefit everyone it would be a “Law” to not kill it.)
Natures laws are the only laws we need to follow. But even then we need to use what we have of judgement to gauge the situation and create the unspoken “Laws”
Dakota - 11 05 08 - 15:10

"What we DON’T need is complete lawlessness (which doesn’t work, and seems to lack general direction)"
Answer my question already. Will INDIVIDUALS (children, even, or most importantly) be able to choose their own laws?
And will each be able to live their own lives free of anyone else’s edicts?
As far as you support the freedom of association/disassociation, I agree with you.
As far as you idolize pruvlic allocation and excuse coercive intervention in the name of subjective morality, I disagree.
BulimicMind - 11 05 08 - 18:11

"And will each be able to live their own lives free of anyone else’s edicts?"
As it says in the article, the communities set up will have their own set of rules and restrictions, which if one does not like they could just move to another community with a local set of laws and morals that the individual would find more accommodating. So the answer to your question is no; children will not be running around in the street with the ability to kill another significant living being without consequence, the laws present in the community are what the local populace would have to follow and these laws are most likely to include vague, sensible ideas such as a no tolerance policies on murder, rape, and stealing. However, besides these laws, any other restrictions on the limits of what a human could do would be derived from each individual’s personal morals and beliefs. Also, know that most anarchist models assume that their population consists of very logical, intelligent and eloquent people (because an anarchist city wouldn’t work any other way), so the so-called "coercive intervention" that we may or may not commit in the name of an individual’s "subjective morality" is assumed to be the most logical and beneficial form of intervention to both parties with the least possible amount of problems.
SeriouslyNeedSleep - 12 05 08 - 19:35

Killing is an edict. But what if I can’t find a community that I like? Am I shit out of luck?
"However, besides these laws, any other restrictions on the limits of what a human could do would be derived from each individual’s personal morals and beliefs."

That’s where you lose me. People believe too much stupid shit to excuse the natural curse of democracy (your most beneficial form of intervention). To deliberately make anything certain for another is to commit evil. Whether this evil is committed by a rampaging child or the consent of subjective community matters not.
BulimicMind - 12 05 08 - 20:18

OBSERVER! This isn’t my gospel, but if it was, what’s wrong with that? If this is the gospel, you show up at every sermon.
Kaleb () - 13 05 08 - 06:53

Coco, what you say is true. People do consider their way of life superior to others. And they do use it as an excuse to take over other peoples lives. It happens now, where Anarchy doesn’t reign. So why not go with Anarchy? At least you’ll be happy in your society. What I’m saying is that your “war” point against Commutarian Anarchism isn’t a flaw only limited to C.A. it applies to all governments.
As far as parents controlling their children, this also exists today. What stops the child from moving away when they reach an age where they can take care of themselves? To a place where they can practice their beliefs.
As far as a “Non-intervention” community. Why would women even go to a place where they can be beaten without justice. If they do go there, then they’ve waved their right to self-preservation.
Kaleb () - 13 05 08 - 07:04

Kaleb, I agree with you, I was just pointing out that these problems we have would not dissapear one communitarian anarchism would be installed.

Still, the idea of moving out of a community you don’t approve of doesn’t sound realistic. First, you have to wait till you’re 18, and that means spending your formative years in a certain community. For the first generation of anarchists, it would be easy to pick one community, or to move to another, but children born within this sistem would find it quite difficult, i believe, to move from the society they grew up in to another, completely strange one, probably against their parent’s wishes. It’s highly improbable parents would tell their kids about the other people out there, because no parent will teach their child about beliefs they disagree with, only to risk the child agreeing with them and leaving its own parents to join others who agree with those beliefs.
What I’m trying to say, actually, is that a system needs to be thought out which would allow for children to be educated and informed about the world they live in, consisting of all communities, in order for them to be able to pick their own community once they turn adult. This would, of course, lead to families being torn apart, but with communication systems such as the internet available, and some no-man’s-land between communities, that problem should be minimal.
Coco (URL) - 13 05 08 - 07:26

Coco, i believe with just about everything your saying, but who says the child needs to be 18? A child can run away at any age, and if it finds the need, it will.
Garret - 13 05 08 - 16:23

Uhhh, Coco, this isn’t an insult or anything, but how old are you? Again, not an insinuation towards anything. Just curiousity.
Kaleb () - 14 05 08 - 06:49

Fuckin-A! Im sick of the Goverment tryin to rip me down!
Jim - 14 05 08 - 09:57

fuck that anarchy meens that there is no rules at all.witch meens complete chaous witch will then leed to the end.the end is the answer,there is to mutch pain and suffering in the world nd we are killing everything slowly and painyfully.
Shannon - 16 05 08 - 09:14

i like what u said about we have to quit just talking about anarchy and just do it!!!!!! we need to take some action
Jason - 16 05 08 - 20:42

Shannon you are insane (and you can’t spell) its people like you that give all of us a bad name. who wants the world to end. The point of this site is to discuss a new way forward, not the best way to fuck us all over
Rick - 17 05 08 - 23:29

Rick is right Sharon, you can’t spell if your fucking life depended on it. Ts isnt a fkkn txt msg!
But seriously, if the world was filled with illogical, narrow-minded, and clearly undereducated people like you, the world would end, and the solar system would laugh at us.
kevin () - 18 05 08 - 11:24

My time spent on this website, has persuaded me to go Anarchy. Thanks to the open-minded people that have helped me by sending me message through email and such, and as jason said, what are we waiting for? Discussion or revolution? Im ready, how about you?
Austin - 18 05 08 - 23:19

This is the only form of society that truly makes sense. If a government exsists and makes a value system over all people, inevitably someone is oppressed. With anarchy, everyone is free to their own values, as long as it doesn’t hurt others in thier chosen society, it makes all sense.
Daniel () - 19 05 08 - 12:45

this is a fake anarchism.democracy (as an idea,and as what we are buying from media=goverment),is exactly freedom to decide,thou it never existed in human history.what is your idea about real changing?your view of human nature is sadly naive,you shouldnt neglect the reasons of our deviation of democratic society,idea is corrupted by human nature,that is a real place of interest to change
aleksandar () - 19 05 08 - 17:42

Hi there everybody! I’m brazilian and I have been anarchist for about four years or so. I’m finding this discussion very interesting guys. I’m kinda “projecting” a new structure of society, mixing up a lot of elements from communitarian anarchism, linux, and a lot of other ideas that blend together. Currently I have a few texts in portuguese but as soon as I complete I will translate it and send you the link… Congratulations to the site, it really knows how to briefly say a lot.

About the answers so far, a few people said something about “the human nature is etc”. I’m sorry but I don’t think any anarchist would be determinist enough to simply deny freedom because of “human nature”. Our idea is ALL about contradicting what everybody think as “the human nature”, which within their minds means “capitalism” or “competition” or something like that. It’s not about “manipulating our genes” and stuff; we all have such instincts but we do have control over our decisions, we have to learn how to deal with them. Yeah, it’s not easy, but we gotta try for our own benefit and freedom – otherwise we would even be slaves of ourselves, obeying to our instincts without ever questioning them… Believing humans can be different is the only way I see anarchism possible, even if it’s not communitarian – Free and empathy-based education is an excellent and, in my opinion, the best way to make people better at all without “making” them up, but giving the oportunity for them to make themselves…

I said before I was inspired in some ways by Linux, didn’t I? Take a look at it: we have different distros but we consider that we make part of the same iniciative. We can friendly discuss about the differences but we won’t really argue at all with such a thing as “my distro is better than yours, we are the best linux and you deserve to perish” or “your distro has this bad configuration, you deserve to be destroyed!!”... Yeah, there surely are differences between humans and computers but we can have a nice parallel here, hum? =)
Rev. Peterson Cekemp () (URL) - 21 05 08 - 17:28

And, please… Can somebody explain me why do an anarchist website has “Copyright” at its bottom? oO You know.. Just confused…..
Rev. Peterson Cekemp () (URL) - 21 05 08 - 18:19

Well, this site once had some hope to it back before the admin pretended to be four different people and the Utopian socialites from Libcom flamed the crap out of it thanks to the link to the far-right site corrupt down at the bottom.

I completely agree with everything you say about human nature, by the way. It’s self-justification of authority through dubious and relative empirical induction.

Can’t wait for that link, btw. Are you really a Reverend?
BulimicMind - 24 05 08 - 19:24

Well, I’m happy BulimicMind is back. Or at least watching. There isn’t a human nature. We have instinct. Eat, sleep, reproduce, live. This human nature crap is just a lure for an ambitious someone to take advantage of the paranoia that all people are out there to be bad. I think thats pretty much what BM said though… Waiting for the link.
Kaleb () - 28 05 08 - 08:36

Eh, I never went anywhere. Don’t tell the communists at Libcom though, they might demand an explanation for my presence.
Good to know this place isn’t entirely vacant of activity, comrade.
BulimicMind - 29 05 08 - 07:04

My apologies for the assumption, though your resignation post led to me to believe otherwise. No, this place is like a body on life support though. My local anarchist movement is doing better, and I live in Nowhere. Waiting on that link just like you comrade.
-Kaleb
Kaleb () - 29 05 08 - 18:24

I’m confused. How can you have laws under anarchy? Who enforces those laws? There would have to be a governing body in place to achieve such a goal; but doesn’t that go against Anarchist ideology?
Wobbly Yule - 06 06 08 - 10:22

There would exist no laws in anarchy that were not unanimously agreed to voluntarily.
Anything that bills itself as anarchism that does not follow that ethic is false.
BulimicMind - 06 06 08 - 19:14

Here are some scenarios to consider…

I wonder what would happen if one community decided that it was their right to kill all other human beings and have all the worlds riches to themselves. Would Communitarian Anarchists then decide to train a global police force or military establishment to ‘protect the interests of the free world’ against such groups. What if it was a community of rapists, or a group of terrorists, or just really aggressive bullies? At what point would it become right to sanction the use of force against others, and who would be authorised to make such decisions?

Does Communitarian Anarchism also sanction a central governing body to make legislation on behalf of ‘all the free people of the world’, and if so, would this be an elected body? Would all communities be allowed to vote for such an organisation, including the ‘criminal communities’? And if they weren’t allowed to vote, and were put away in some sort of incarceration or rehabilitation facility, would we all have to pay a global tax to pay for such expensive institutions as prisons, police, judiciary, legislature, etc?

Would all communities have to pay taxes equally, even if they had decided to be a nudist, tribal society that doesn’t produce any surplus? What if they couldn’t afford the taxes, would they then be put in prison along with the rapists and murderers, or would they then have to forcibly change their community’s ideals in order to conform to the central governments requirements? Would they be allowed to create a communist economy, which would produce less surplus, or would they have to fall in line with the governments economic policies in order to stay out of jail?

If you follow the logical conclusions of these premises, where one community attacks another for whatever reasons (maybe they’re a bunch of madmen, maybe they’re greedy beyond belief) you end up with centrally controlled states, just like we have now, in which we all struggle to find the right balance between personal freedoms and collective responsibilities. Isn’t the world today, actually, the only way it can ever be, with institutions trying to enforce the rule of law, decided upon in as collegiate a fashion as possible, in the unique circumstances of every particular nation? We’ve discovered over the last millenium that a democratic form of government does better at maintaining this balance than any other, but it’s certainly not a perfect system.

I am an Anarchist, and I believe that we will achieve a purer Anarchy if we continue to push for democratic reforms all around the world, where they don’t exist, and greater devolution of powers in our existing democracies towards more local institutions. We don’t need to overthrow our governments or subvert thousands of years of progress reflected in our laws and societies! We just need to keep pushing them towards a greater balance of powers between the individual and the collective.
maejrus - 13 06 08 - 10:48

Thank you, maejrus
BulimicMind - 13 06 08 - 20:47

i think this is what the world needs! its a brillant idea we just need people to step up to the plate and take action! something might be right for one group of people but totally wrong for another set this is why communitarian anarchy is the way to go. look me up on myspace to say something back amanda nelson out
amanda () - 14 06 08 - 18:58

“I am a citizen of the world” – Diogenes, Greek (rather, Earthen) Cynic

The problems with communitarian anarchism are the communities. It bills itself as the “you do it your way, we’ll do it our way” anarchism, but who is the subject ‘you’ to which the sentence refers? You, or your community?
Alas, that is the curse of this “new anarchism”, this “anarchism of the future”. Every attractive thing about it has been stolen from it’s ideological nemesis, individualism! After all, you don’t want to be pushed into line, do you? You don’t want to conform to just one Globalist Utopian schematic, do you? Well then welcome aboard!
Yet the next words out of the communitarian’s mouth are in praise of the “community” and the “greater good”. What? What is this supreme contradiction? We should fear being governed by laws that apply to everyone, but not laws designed specifically for our particular geographical region?

“Communitarian anarchism is strongly opposed to the idea of one system applied to all people; we think that leads to the normalization of cultural diversity, creation of giant bureaucratic states, exploitation of our environment, and financial structures that force us to obey dogmatic, capitalist jobs where we slave for a rich elite who don’t care about us.”

Slippery slope fallacy. Cultural diversity is a blanket term, it applies as much to the nuances in traditional marriage garb as it does to the tribe that mutilates it’s infants and cuts patterns into children’s skin with sharpened rocks. Bureaucracies and states are opposed by every anarchist, you can not seriously claim that every globalist anarchist is a hypocrite by attempting to conflate globalism with statism. The environment, if it must be protected, requires uniform protection, you can’t have one country polluting and another not polluting, the same outcome will ensue – the ruin of the GLOBE. Or rather, the planet it is modeled after, our own Earth. And capitalism has nothing to do with globalism either. What kind of an argument are you trying to weave together there?

“Some say anarchism is trying to create Ultimate or Absolute freedom, meaning no restrictions at all = everything’s allowed. But wait. We all carry values. Some things seem to be less wanted, like dumping radioactive waste in rivers, raping women, torturing children, exterminating ethnic groups etc. Suddenly it seems like "Absolute freedom" is not realistic, since it would allow these things to come about. Think about it: Would you allow your neighbour to shoot your dog, because it was his personal freedom?”

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193..

Some may say it, but no anarchists are saying it. In fact, they’ve been trying to shut those people up for years. ALL anarchists oppose the freedom to coerce, whether communitarian or cosmopolitan, individualist or collectivist. The million dollar question is: do you?

I am an individualist cosmopolitan anarchist. I believe the same one standard applies to all people, and that standard is objective and not up for negotiation. That standard is as follows: Don’t make anyone do anything they don’t want to do – even, especially, dogs.

If communitarianism would excuse anyone or any community that didn’t adhere to this libertarian principle, then I will not excuse, or endorse, communitarianism.
BulimicMind - 15 06 08 - 13:56

weather or not this is ‘true anarachism’ it doesn’t matter…. I’ve been a supporter of “communitarian anarchism” forever… under other names but essentially the same….

the point is that we shouldnt have a central goverment running our lives for us… that we can exist in pockets of people here and there, whom…in each community…live by their own set of rules… like tribalism… how humans originally lived… until empires came about… tribes of people lived by their own standards and each tribe had it’s way of life… local order not federal/national/international power….
-trinidad
trinidad () - 28 06 08 - 09:21

Anarchy is a joke, communitarian anarchism… is a joke. You people dont understand government. If any of your ideas came to be, what you would get is government. Only it wouldnt be a national government but rather small states made up of seperate governments. Laws are the foundation of all societies and would exist in these so called "communities". But you wouldnt have freedom you would have feudalism. No law, No government= chaos. Chaos will not sustain itself and a form of government will eventually come into existance. But it wont be some freedom loving Anarchy love fest. It will be ruled with an iron fist, it will be the opposite of which you seek.
Noway () - 01 07 08 - 17:09

Wrong and wrong.
BulimicMind - 01 07 08 - 21:57

fuck ya fuck the rules
esteban - 02 07 08 - 16:11

this sounds ok, but i think everyone in the world would have to be anarchy, unless there would be some form of a defense. say france becomes anarchist. whose to say the u.k doesnt invade that “void”
justin () (URL) - 07 07 08 - 14:58

Shannon, your fuckin retarded. Anarchy isn’t the end, its a beginning. A beginning to a new way of life as we know it.
Jim () - 08 07 08 - 04:36

I throughly enjoy this website whereas all minds come together to share the philosophy of anarchy, for it or against it, it’s the beauty of human thought and the theory of life that makes Anarchy work. However, it is in my emotions and thoughts that I sense to shun those who, percieve the negative ideology of Anarchy, that it generally and essentially equalizes death, void, and chaos. You are inevitably wrong and have the indecency to undermind the fullest potential and harmonic existance of human beings. To say we must have a goverment to function is right, however, with communitarian anarchy, we ARE the government, not the pricks and bastards in the oval office, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT in a stateless and classless society whereas we all are made as tools to pave the way to a better future for us all. We don’t need a government, we can govern ourselves just fine.
Iron - 17 07 08 - 04:36

Finally…it seemed I’d never find other anarchists who agreed with me on this. I agree with you completely! Very well written, will continue reading from here.
Selkie () (URL) - 17 07 08 - 12:36

I’m an old skool Anarchist. I don’t go around screaming “FREEDOM” every chance i get. My ideas are very simple, and very realistic. I don’t believe in utter chaos around the world, as this would spell an end. I believe that if Anarchy really was what was goin down (sorry if i’m not using big enough words for you all) then we would probably end up with groups with different ideals, but i don’t think anyone should be able to tell anyone what group to join, and i don’t think it would be right to kill someone becuase they have different beliefs.

If everyone understood a brotherhood of man, then we would not go around killing each others dogs just becuase we have the freedom to. I would never kill a dog unless it kill a baby or something like that.
An eye for an eye is how i play it. Simple as that.
Show friendship to everyone and everything untill it has not been a friend to you.

Dats it.
Zidane - 18 07 08 - 12:58

I have been a communitarian anarchist, in practice, day by day, since 1971. You all need to just get with it, live in a group, share the ups and downs. I strongly would encourage you to put your ideals into practice. Peace and blessings!

Love:

Mike
Mike - 18 07 08 - 18:56

BUt who is there to enforce those rules that each society can be its own, what if the other communities try to take over the others and convert? then youre just screwed. and who would decide what the people want? majority vote? democracy? there will always be a leader, and people aren;t mature enough yet to even think about living a fully ‘free’ life
obserer - 20 07 08 - 23:13

Bulimic, sorry for the gap!
I’m still working on the project…
About the “reverend” thing, I’m a discordian reverend. Discordianism is a free religion (actually some say is a joked disguised as a religion..) which has a lot to do with anarchy.
http://principiadiscordia.com/
About the website, try Creative Commons =D
Rev. Peterson Cekemp () (URL) - 24 07 08 - 12:54

Alot of problems from people opposed to this idea are "what if…" "what would u do if… ?" and that’s exactly it, Anarchism allows a solution to be made at the time it is needed not relying on archaic laws, pretence etched in stone as the world around it moves on. I really believe in learning from history but i don’t think just letting the same old shit to go on because we are too afraid, lazy, or insititutionalised into stupidity to think a new solution is needed; or more likely not caring at all cose u think it’s the governments job to look after the problem; "I voted so i gave them the power to think for me." It is true this idea is flawed but so is monarchy, oligarchy, etc but i’d rather live in a flawed society free from the whims of the power mad.

I’m not a fan of labels and this communitarion anarchism tag is… well… not really that good, but what’s in a name; would a rose of any other name blah blah. Alot of issues would need to be dealt with that cross borders (eep yes unfortunately this idea assumes borders), e.g. trade, environment, and maybe education (so freedom of thought thru discovery is more open and not litigated to a communities small, narrow, localised needs). Does this involve governance? I guess so but answer me this, why do the people who govern have to be in power? Why can’t they have the Authority to make decisions rather than take the power to dictate? Freedom dose take vigilance, getting lazy and letting your power be taken is something each individual has to prevent.

3 rules i think r basic rules to Anarchy:
1. There are no rules!
2. If we need rules for a situation we make them as we need them.
3. If we don’t like the rules anymore or isn’t needed, we change or abolish it.
GentleFurie - 27 07 08 - 01:41

This is what we need. It’s not total Anarchy, which leads to Chaos, it’s a type of Anarchy that’s fair and can work. The problem is getting people to realise that Anarchy and not Democracy is true freedom.

Anarchy Now!
Violent Sleep () (URL) - 08 08 08 - 08:55

We can win! We can make freedom ring! After all, our forefathers rebeled against Great Britain, when it was time.
Chuck Maurer () (URL) - 19 08 08 - 22:01

I agree with this post to a large degree. At the same time, some universal ideologies (idioms, I think they’re called), such as rape, murder, and some of the other things that you mentioned, still just couldn’t be allowed. I’m not saying a law should be established to prohibit that; I am simply saying that in anarchy, such things would be attacked by other groups and some conflict between societies is bound to occur.

I believe that values and morals of each person will, for the most part, sustain order under an anarchy. For the rest of society, that sort of thing would inevitably be resolved by vigilantes. These powers, of course, would be kept in check by other private enforces who take it upon themselves to make sure that justice and freedom are maintained, and that, in the end, the people will take care of the people for the people’s sake.
Anthony James of the band Exclusive Side Project () (URL) - 25 08 08 - 13:45

I think we should live in a society where everyone is equal and has the right and freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it does not mess with anyone elses rights.

Your thoughts?
YeeHaA - 12 09 08 - 17:14