Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:47:24 +0100
Subject: Re: anarchy and crime...
From: thomas sivertsen <thomas-AT-bek.no>


[fnipp]
>> But please elaborate on that "any anarchist social unit would be rather
> sharply and clearly defined". It seems to exclude a lot of people and
> impressions that may or may not advance the social unit you talk about.
> Isn`t that just regular nationalism and/or rejectionism?
> 
> Not at all, by using such language I was responding to Madalynn's statement
> concerning "some not-so-clearly defined
> organism referred to as 'society'."  I would posit that most, if not all,
> anarchist societies would be ad hoc groups -- that is --
> created and maintained to some specific purpose.  That purpose could be, as
> previously mentioned, mutual self - defence, or a food cooperative, or a
> craft guild, or a conflict resolution court, or a volunteer fire brigade, or
> a streets maintenance crew, or cetera.  An individual or family unit might
> belong to as many as they would think advantageous, but certainly would not
> be required (coerced) to belong to any.  Nor, I suspect, would they be
> denied membership to any should they be willing to abide by the stated
> tenets and goals of such group.   It would be rather an a la carte type of
> association, one would guess.

I would think so too. The problem for most people is mostly conceptual. This
is exactly the opposite of what the state wants, hence what people think
they want. This makes argumenting for, or (an attempt of) living by
anarchist principles a lot harder than it should. To me, anarchism is just
plain common sense and a gut feeling! What is the problem?

> 
> I currently belong to such an ad hoc anarchistic group that is part of a
> world - wide fellowship with millions of members.   There are no dues or
> fees for membership, you're in if you say you are in and you're out if you
> say you are out.  The only "leaders" are persons who are elected to perform
> service work on behalf of the group.  They have no power to govern or to
> compel anyone to take, or refrain from, any actions.  This fellowship has
> been extant since 1935 and show no signs of abatement.  My own group was
> begun in 1946 and is very hale and hearty unto this very day.

Sounds great. For someone new to this list (but a lifelong anarchist), what,
where and who? Links to info?

> 
> Perhaps the biggest obstacle to robust anarchism is the mindset that the
> social "order" must be that -- orderly -- and all - inclusive.  So long as
> that attitude of "citizenship" or -- as you so correctly point out,
> Thomas, -- "nationalism" or its opposite, exclusivity ("rejectionism" as you
> called it), prevails we (society) shall continue to find ourselves in the
> soup.

First, I find nationalism and exclusivity to be the same thing in practice,
although not in concept (a nation excludes those not of the nation and those
within the nation, dissidents, racism etc.). And you are quite right, I
think, about the fact that the mindset is the single largest obstacle to
robust anarchism. It need not be stable, but people can at least do what
they feel they need, without coercion. But stability is for some the most
important, and it might have some merit for some. Mostly due to conflict and
Machiavelli, I guess. The type of conflict is an issue. Stability means lack
of friction, which agains means lack of progress... Not good. Perfection is
not necessarily a good thing, either. Pareto-optimal progress is more my
personal goal, and historically an anarchist goal as well. 3 steps forward,
2 steps back, nobody gets hurt.
 
> Anarchism, in order to be anarchistic, cannot be mandated.  Voluntaryism is
> the watchword.  Also, in order to become completely anarchistic, one must
> find the courage to withdraw from the "Statist - quo", so to speak.  This is
> no small order and requires rather more spine than most of us possess.  But
> since we strive for progress rather than perfection we are able to continue
> the struggle, undaunted, on a daily basis.  Recall Seneca: "One should count
> each day a separate life."

And that might also be what scares a lot of people off. Constant struggle
and "realistic consequence thought" is not for everybody. Voluntary progress
seems to be difficult, though, but absolutely worth the fight. It probably
has  to do with the fact that people think stability is what makes progress,
or they think that this is as good as it gets. And it`s hard to make people
actually think over these things. Realism creates depression, which is quite
easy to defend oneself against with ignorance. Let other people deal with
what makes the world go round, and you just run around in la-la land where
you can ignore the fact that a good life have been stolen from you and
others. Fuck it. Sorry for ranting. It`s dangerous to think one has a
superior morality, though. It needs to be done very carefully. No messianic
rants and shit like that. It`s important to understand peoples apprehension
and motivation for the "Statist-quo", as you put it.

> 
> In the final analysis our revolution is a personal one and comes from within
> the individual.  In hoc signo vinces.
> 
> old goat

My latin is shaky, but you are quite right about that english part there.

    .thomas