Now, most of you are probably aware, the G20 summit is currently underway in London. The summit is a meeting of the leaders of some of the world's largest economies which will aim to solve or at least positively affect the current economic slowdown. The summit is currently the victim of protests by "Anarchists", Anti-Capitalists and Green Campaigners, as reported here by the BBC. Usually I wouldn't care since I'm quite happy to completely ignore such people. However, in this instance in another article by the BBC here, the BBC notes that the protests are being undertaken by anarchists.

The issue I have with this is twofold. One, they generalise Anarchists, rather than specifying any particular branches. By this view, Hitler is the same as John McCain, due to both holding conservative views, or Barak Obama is the same as Mahatma Gandhi due to both holding libertarian views. The BBC in this viewpoint is completely neglecting the fact that there are Anarchists who support Capitalism or who support individual commerce - such as Max Stirner's Egoist philosophy. I feel that John McCain would feel as much aggrieved by being classed as holding the same views as Hitler as I feel by being classified as holding the same views as these morons.

The second, and main issue I hold with these individuals being classed as Anarchist is that their views are not Anarchist at all. They may well hold anti-Capitalist sympathies, but they're breaking the fundamental rule of any anarchist dogma. The phrase Anarchy comes from the Greek An meaning without and archy meaning rule. You can apply this suffix to most systems of rule - monarchy(Rule by one - head of state), Oligarchy (Rule by a few - Most Dictatorships), Pantarchy (Rule by all - a true democracy). So, Anarchy means that society should be without rule. This is not the same as saying without law - since most Left Wing Anarchists agree that there are natural laws - that you are able to do whatever you so please so long as it doesn't bring harm to another. So if you believe in a society without rule, you're agreeing that everyone is allowed to do what they like, regardless of how much you may find it distasteful yourself; freedom for all means exactly that, every person has the exact same freedom and you must tolerate them that.

From this, we can devise a small checklist for being a left wing Anarchist:

• You believe you should be allowed to do whatever you like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else
• You believe that everyone else should be allowed to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm you

You may note that I don't mention any preferences towards economic viewpoints. This is because there are Socialist Anarchists, Mutualists and a multiplicity of other doctrines which each advocate slightly different economic systems, from none to a new form of money, but in which the overriding factor is simply that they treat everyone fairly. This may also seem slightly callous, yet I would class that it's human nature to want to help others where you are able. Further to this, Humans are social creatures - we band together and work together. Therefore, I believe that in true Anarchist communes, everyone would work together and help each other, without a political programme forcing them to do so.

My main problem therefore with these "Anarchists" is that in their attempts at protest - whether peaceful or violent - is that they are breaking Natural Law and further to this, which I personally believe to be a far more heinous crime, they are attempting the very thing which they apparently stand against government for - they are attempting to force their morality upon the rest of Society. Freedom means exactly that - everyone has to be allowed to believe what they want. At the moment, the majority of Society (whilst distrustful of banks) would not advocate social revolution and the overthrowing of Government. Whilst this may be De Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority in action, as anarchists it is not our place to judge another's beliefs.

Maybe these "Anarchists" believe that it's simply Government Oppression which keeps the populace from throwing off the shackles of slavery, but it that their decision to make? It's fact that the older you get, the less receptive you are to change - (“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill). Therefore, by attempting to affect violent social revolution, they are attempting to force their ideas upon an entire generation. Perhaps one of them could explain to me how this is any different from Government's oppression of Children. If, in attempting to correct a system we utilise the exact same system, we are not changing the underlying problems, merely the face of the problem itself.

Perhaps they're prepared to disregard that and are convinced that through revolution they could completely avoid the corrupting influence of power. Infact, for arguments sake, let's say that they did. They've now formed a brand new society which, in time, everyone will begin to accept as the status quo. What they'll have managed to achieve is widespread harm to individuals - not least agents of the state who were innocents caught up in something bigger than themselves. Again, another flaw - nothing is bigger than the individual. As sacred as my life is to me, is the life of another to himself. It's all well and good arguing that such revolution is for the greater good - and this is also my main problem with Marxists - yet in any such revolution you are completely disregarding the sanctity of the individual life. If someone wishes to die for a cause, that is their choice yet what if someone does not? You're again attempting to force your morality upon them, what is power but the ability to influence or change the way a person acts. At least Government can claim they have Authority (Power which is afforded to them by people) regardless of how I've given them no right to authority over me except that I was born in a country shackled by my ancestors. I've given even less than that to these people to act on my behalf.

I believe that the only way Anarchy can truly be achieved is through education and choice. You can build paradise but you cannot force a dissenter to enter, for they will be distrustful of what's inside. However, if you teach anyone how to build paradise alongside you, they will enter of their own accord and with the achievement of having been a part of the collective which built such a thing. Violent revolution and protest at the current status quo achieves nothing. Infact, it achieves less than nothing since any such revolution would merely split humanity.

I would argue that these people are not Anarchists and are not Utopian but are instead Nihilists and would wish that they be presented in the media as such. I would be interested to hear if anyone would argue differently.

I'm speechless

How do you know so much? But yea, I heard that the last time a summit took place in the 90s there were violent protests, no idea why though.

That was a good read - thanks Rob

Ps. Apparently there is some 'famous' activist with the last name Bone? The media was waxing lyrical about him the other day. Half the shit they go on about is so romanticized and over-stated that it's just mind-numbing.

It's infuriating that it's the BBC though - whilst being state funded they're an agent of the state, they still claim to be impartial. I'd like to see some actual impartiality not branding everyone with an axe to grind as holding a political view. They manage to report impartially on the mainstream political parties and, it could be argued, even support the Green Party.

I'd guess you're talking about Ian Bone. And yes, he's amongst the people who I refute actually care about post governmental society and care more about getting in fights.

So further reports have been generated throughout the day and protesters, amongst other things:

• Targeted bankers with verbal harassment
• Threw missiles at Police
• Stormed offices of the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC

Joseph Proudhon famously said property is theft. This is often the justification for the vandalism of buildings by these "Anarchists". I completely agree with Proudhon in this - by building walls you're stealing the ability of another to cross land. Since all land is owned by all things, building walls is theft. However, by storming these offices what they're doing is not reclaiming land for mankind, but instead sating their own pathetic egos and lashing out at "The System" which oppresses them. Vandalism doesn't change anything. It doesn't knock down walls and transfer the ownership of land to common ownership. Infact, they're achieving rather the opposite - they're damaging the land owned by all and ensuring that the walls around it are rebuilt stronger. Through non-violent revolution all infrastructure will pass into the hands of the collective and therefore, by vandalising what is currently property, they simply damage the communes of the future.

Further to this, the protesters have been attacking the police and people wearing suits. Now, call me stupid but whilst the Police may be agents of the corrupt state and businesspeople the agents of an unfair economic system, but they're also human beings. The whole legal basis of both government and business is that collectively, they form an entity. This entity is treated as a living person. The aim of any social change would be to remove the entities, not to harm the agents who are as much people as any revolutionary. In the case of the policeman - an idealist policeman often manages far more good in their life than any revolutionary. Of course there may be policemen who abuse their position and bring harm to others, but so are there doctors and teachers who abuse their positions. Yet I don't see any targeting of hospitals.


I read a lot and theorise. It's my aim at some point to actually put my full ideology to paper but I've still got work to do on the actual instigation. I don't want to end up with something like Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto which basically lists all the causes of Social Revolution and then the aftermath of the revolution but encompasses revolution - which would take generations - into a small phrase (Dictatorship of the Proletariat, if you're wondering).

Oddly whilst it seems fairly obvious exactly what needs to happen to me, no-one else seems to have written it. But most theorists' ideas overlap with that of others - some even just write critiques upon the work of others. It's quite infrequent that people come up with entirely original ideas, such as Socialism for example.

Yeah - I guess it's just a stupid limitation that I should get rid of - otherwise I'll sit around doing nothing.

Wow, Very.. Uhh Logical

tl;dr

Wait, at first I thought you were notifying us of the protests, or complaining or something.
So what' are you trying to say, that Anarchy rules minus a few bits?
I'm not gonna get too deep on this, but then there wouldn't be any federal form of tax.
No tax = no public hospitals and schools, etc, on that scale.

Also, I can see government eventually developing again;

Lone people > Band together > Create council > join councils > etc, etc > governments again > fighting again (hopefully not), etc.

If people were free to do as they pleased as long as they didn't harm others, what sort of force would there be to keep that rule? There would be those who just broke it, and the others would either not reply and be continually attacked and possibly anihilated, or fight back and have war.

Saebjorn did you read everything he wrote? Sounds like you didn't.

I know this because you sound like me when I am too lazy to read a wall of text and then I ask the OP to condense it all which in turn loses a lot of the detail.

Well, actually in my particular branch of Anarchy, there's no tax at all. There's no money. There's no government, no bureaucracy and the majority of pointless jobs that are currently in existence are removed. People do things because they want to. Do you think there won't still be people who want to become doctors to heal others? Or that there won't be people who want to teach others and who draw pleasure from guiding other minds? These people will still exist and will infact be able to help far more people than under the current systems (Hospitals refusing treatment to those without medical insurance for example, or offering a diminished treatment).

Anyway, the post is about my disappointment with the media - with even those papers with left wing sympathies mis-reporting the political sympathies of the protesters.

Whilst it's absolutely nothing to do with my post and simply because you asked; why do people commit crimes? The obvious answer is that people want more than they have. Why do they want more? Because society tells us that property and commodities are the measure of man and his success. Marxism argues that there are those who will not - under any circumstances - give up their wealth. These are the Bourgeoisie ruling class who own big business and protect their own interests. Through paying workers a fraction of what their work deserves, they exploit them to make further profit for themselves. However, Marx argues that humans are also malleable and therefore we'll eventually realise we're being exploited and rise up and revolt etc.etc. etc. Somehow, he draws the conclusion that the two are mutually exclusive. I argue that either all humans nature is malleable - and therefore even the Bourgeois capitalists - can change their ideas for the betterment of humanity, or none are and therefore the entirety of Marx' work is incorrect. However, I'm not doing his works justice by trying to critique them in a single paragraph.

As for the force that would maintain social justice, that's quite obvious - the individual themself. Currently, what force is there to stop people from committing crimes? You can argue that the law stops people committing crimes, yet this is obviously not the case. The police and criminal justice systems punish people for committing crimes, yet upon release such people are likely to re-offend and, even if they do not, are branded as criminals for the rest of their life. I don't pretend to claim that all criminals are latter day Jean ValJeans, yet you have to ask: if you remove the competitive aspect from social policy, would people still feel the drive and the need to have more than everyone else? The criminal justice system does not work - this is evident from crime rates, yet by dealing with the causes of crime, perhaps we can fix this. When you're young and your parents tell you not to put your hand near something hot, sooner or later you will. You quickly learn why they told you not to do it. Similarly, if you show people the effects of their crime, the individual themself is more likely to regulate their behaviour - by adding a human face - than listing off faceless - and therefore apparently victimless - crimes in a courtroom.

As for your cycle, that would be the result of Individualist Anarchism, yet it's unlikely in a Collectivist Anarchist scenario. The simple reasoning is that in collectivist anarchism there is already a council, but it is a council of all people rather than a select few. Whether this is through a direct representative system (The people select one candidate who must follow the will of the people) or through a full democratic system is open to debate.

Why does every natural society independently come up with this? Because it is true and a part of human nature. People will find the most arbitrary things to tack value on to. Wealth = Power = Sex = Reproduction*. The same reason why dogs defend territories, only to a more abstract and compact level. It's not society that is the problem with material wealth, it's just man's instinct to show off how successful he is and therefore reap the benefits of attention.

Also, not all crimes are to acquire more wealth. Some crimes are out of lust (killing another person over a mate), some crimes are out of pure power (some rape). Not to mention crime is a subjective word, meaning anything that a group of people decide is a "bad" action and anyone who does it will receive punishment. In Singapore chewing gum in public is illegal, and considered a crime. Does anyone gain any type of material value out of this? No.


*Sorry of this seems out of the blue, I believe everything goes back to instincts and survival, and any type of behavior I always try to relate back to it.

Yes I did. At least, everything until that post.



Yes, there will be. There is also an equal chance that there will be nutcases intent on destroying the entire world.



Possibly, because nobody else is trying so they have an easy path to wealth.



Well yes, but there are some people who don't care. Even though they are a minority (I think) they can still have an effect.



as in, "Shuuuuuuuuuuun. Shun the backstabbing son of a ***** who likes to wreck our town"...liek that? All on one. Errrrrrr, it coooooooooooould work theoretically... .

To put that sort of anarchy in place would be an international dramatic change on a colossal level. Unk.
My personal opinion is therfore obvious - I like our system. We just could use a couple of changes.

EDIT:I've obviously deviated from the core topic here, somehow...

EDIT2: ah, right:

You can never trust the media more than, like, 45%. Don't you know that? Bi-as.

tl;dr: magical space place with non-carbon based life forms

This topic was made by Rob, in the debate room. There should be no posts.

I wont let that be the last post. Even if this one is considered spam.

What formed this belief on your part? It's a result of things you've read, things you've seen and things you've heard with perhaps a smattering of things you've done. This is the basis of all opinion. In different cultures, entire populaces have the same or similar opinions (part of the definition of a nation). What this shows is that human ideas and therefore human nature are malleable. Your ideas are usually a product of the society that raised you and taught you - would you know that the law prevents you from going over a certain speed in areas without having been taught through scaremongering advertisements and state run driving instruction? Further to this, the thing that separates us is our ability to rise above instinct. Instinct often tells me I want to have sex with a girl but that doesn't mean I necessarily have to. It certainly doesn't mean that I run over and start ripping her clothes off. (Well, not without getting to know her first amirite?)

Further to this, what's the point of wealth accumulation if no-one gives a shit? Let's say you've accumulated all the money in the world. Since money is an abstract ideal to which we assign material value, but which has no inherent value in itself (I mean come on, it's either paper or it's imaginary in cyberspace. Explain to me how either of them are worth anything?), what happens if no-one else ascribes any value to it? You're suddenly sitting on a massive pile of worthless.

The reason that Social Revolution would take generations is because currently, we're not enough. We wouldn't be able to teach children how to be selfless because we don't know. What we can do is show them the way, then they'll be closer. They can teach their children and maybe, within two or three hundred years, we can actually change the way humans think. Of course, we can't make them, we can just show them the arguments for and against and allow them to reason it out. We can show them what we have and hope they choose a better path.

I do not deny this, I was simply saying that some things are universal about nature. My argument was that you said "society tells us that property and commodities are the measure of man and his success", and people commit crimes for and because of this. I'm arguing against that. Society doesn't tell you property = success, your actual success tells you. Every culture in the world property = success on some level, and is what separates the unsuccessful from the successful (which is what Marxism tried to level out, which in turn gave way to people's natural tendencies to aquire wealth over others).




What about when people train truffle hunting boars? Its natural instinct is to eat the truffle, but it is trained against it. Is this not "rising above" its instincts? You only not have sex with the girl because you know there are consequences, and you wish to avoid them. Humans are not special.




I don't know, but people ascribe "worth" (which is a completely subjective concept) to anything. Why do I spend months of my life getting to 99 fishing in runescape? No one cares, it won't earn me anything, I can't put it on a job resume and expect to be taken seriously. Why do I do it? Why do people do pointless tasks for pointless achievements and pointless items at all? I don't know, but we do.




I don't know if this was towards me, or what, but I'll ask this: How do you know you're being selfless and what are you defining as "selfless"?

People spend months on...in this case, level 99 fishing...in order for them to be able to have a sense of accomplishment (hence, capes of accomplishment).

A similar case in wealth accumulation. Having accumulated wealth, it gives a sense of accomplishment (in some small way). It may not be something that some people may worry about, but does that even matter.

Has anyone heard of the old saying "One man's trash is another man's treasure"? In this case, one person doesn't give a shit, but the other feels rather happy about the accomplishment (whether it be 99 fishing or tight wads of cash).

I am being neutral at this. Anarchy or not I'm just trying to make a point.

If I wasn't at work, I would totally read this thread. You are so smart, S-M-R-T. I'll come back over the weekend and make a real reply. Just figured I'd say Hi.. and I'm kinda known for my spam anywho.

One of the few things consisting of absolute truth

rob - have you read the freedom manifesto by tom hodgkinson? He makes a lovely case for anarchy, and provides an interesting, inspiring, and rather amusing read.

I think you should write the Rob Manifesto, without delay. Free copies for Crypters, please.

Damn right...

I'm not sure what the point of debate here is about. It seems that you are upset about the way that media portrays anarchy as well as how these anarchists have carried out their actions.

First, it's quite obvious that there are different types of anarchists, and I'm quite sure that the media didn't mean any harm when choosing such words to describe the dissenters.

Unless you believe western media is bad, of course. Then it's a whole other story.

What's interesting about anarchy is that it puts itself into a double bind. You even draw out this double bind yourself. Consider the syllogism:

1. You should be allowed to do what they want insofar as it doesn't hurt others
2. Everyone else should be allowed to do anything insofar as it doesn't hurt you
3. These anarchists you discuss are bad because they are forcing their views upon others with their protest
4. Therefore, anarchy is in a double bind because to accept the postmodern mindset of anarchy, you have to force that mindset onto other people who do not have the same postmodern view.

Just some thoughts I had. No real opinion on this issue.

1. What? Copy-paste? you should be allowed to do what they

2. Didn't make sense until I read it through about 5-6 times.

?

I just say they're not Anarchists. That's different to them being bad, it's just that they're not what they're portrayed as/they're portraying themselves as.

It'd be much like saying a Libertarian Conservative is bad because they're not anarchists.

The media, of course, always portray an anti-Anarchist bias. Mainly because they have to. The same as government has to big business has to and any state run institutions have to. For them, it's a matter of survival. The common media stereotype of an anarchist is of uneducated drug taking hippies donning balaclavas, spray painting large "A's" across buildings and burning things, stealing and harassing people, before removing such, going into hiding, taking more drugs and chatting a load of shit in a spaced out fashion. That or just posting a picture of the Sex Pistols kicking something over. All of which are more easily associated with branches of Nihilism, not any branch of anarchy - well arguably egotists may do so, but it's highly unlikely.

I suppose it is then possible to claim that I'm then forcing an ideology of Anarchy upon their views of Anarchy, but I maintain that my ideas are more attuned with Mikhael Bakunin whereas theirs are more in line with Nietsche. Therefore my ideology is Left wing Anarchichal whereas theirs is more Nihilistic. I'm less against what they believe and more in favour of it being classified correctly. Wouldn't you be slightly disappointed if you rented Die Hard from Blockbuster and ended up getting Dirty Dancing?

I didn't copy and paste it. I typed it out absent-mindedly. Kind of odd now that I think about it.

Well then this just turns into an argument of political definition. In light of what you just said, the term "Anarchist" is not specific enough. These people (or the media) feel that their beliefs constitute "Anarchism." But neither the media nor the protesters are at blame for this. Anarchism doesn't specifically refer to Bakunin, Goldman, or any other one philosopher. The fact that the term itself is becoming vague is a result of more political diversity, which is perhaps a good thing.

I agree that media stigmatization of anarchism is a bad thing. But of course, this also has to do with public misconceptions about the nature of anarchist philosophy as well as the lobbyist government-centered media itself.

In my opinion there is two reasons to explain the actions of the so called "anarchists" at the g20 summit. Either A) [Very unlikely] They believed that they were taking part in the so-called first face of Anarchy; 'Destruction' which of course would be followed by creation. Or they were following the cliche ridden pop-culture of anarchy which is no order and free for all, which couldn't be further than real anarchy which is of course total order in its purest form, without the need for government.

I don't have much of a head for politics: I'm more interested in knowing how many of these 'Green Campaigners' walked or cycled to the protest and how many drove in their cars to get there. Either way, was an interesting read, though I'm not sure I understood everything.

The principles behind the respective proportions of those "green campaigners" of whom, drove or took more "enviromentally friendly" means of transport rely fundamentally on the same principles as the pharisaism of the so-called "Anarchists" at the summit.

Both are examples of human beings and their exhibition of what I believe is a species exclusive characteristic and what, from reading this topic and Rob's replies, is the foundation of this topic; the hypocrisy of mankind.

An incredibly thought provoking read Rob, wish I had read it sooner.