US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Organizing
A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
I recently received a letter from Pete Stidman saying "you have to rationally point out the faults of anarchist ideology." He is so right. Here are the faults of anarchist ideology:

Anarchy is the system of government whereby there is no rule. Anarchy violates the rule of excluded middle. Therefore anarchy is absurd. One cannot have a government with no rule. To govern is to rule. Redefined, Anarchy is "to have no system of government." Which is impossible.

In the absence of a system of government, man will be left to his devices. Left to his devices, man would act individually, would form little cooperatives perhaps, but OOPS, those are systems of govenrment. These would be overthrown by gangsters and bullies (organizations and individuals), which would necessitate the anarchists fighting back. If the fighting back were disorganized, the anarchists would lose, since organized fighting squads are superior in strength and tactics to small disorganized mobs of unruly slobs.

Which would again necessitate forming an organized governing body in the anarchists, out of self defense.

Anarchy is therefore a worthless ideology, since it requires that we form something formless, and then defend it against the many different forms which naturally arise.

This ideology is found mostly among high school age students who are in open rebellion against their parents. Most people grow out of it when they assume the responsibilities of adulthood. Many people never assume the responsibilities of adulthood. It is a lie to call this an activist ideology, since in trying to maintain itself as a formless blob, it is necessarily reactive.

Realization of this point is forestalled by hanging around other anarchists and reinforcing the belief, but this too is a form of government by ideological consensus. Preservation of ideology is a form of government as it seeks to change the natural order and replace it with beliefs. Anything which opposes a government is another form of government. When it is not, it just disorganized mess issuing an animalistic complaint. Herd and pack mentality. Government for dogs and swine.
Anarchism is thus critiqued.

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Re: A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
Sometimes ignorant people should be a little less cocksure in what they think they know, because ultimately they just look embarrassingly stupid when they clumsily trip over ideas and try and bullshit their way through an argument.

Anarchism derives from the Greek 'anarchos' which means 'without authority'. Authority entails someone (or, more accurately under capitalism, some class) with a higher level of social power enacting 'rule' over the 'ruled' by force, or the threat of force.

Anarchists believe in 'self-rule', or directly democratic social order. You can have social decision making without hierarchical social relationships (which are embodied by capitalism and the State): popular assemblies, neighborhood and workplace councils, etc.

We believe in defense through democratic militia systems without rank or privilege, which different than standing armies.

Governments are forms of instutionalized power, with courts, jails, military, etc. Defense of ideology does not entail government? Who would even argue argue such a thing?

Also cooperatives are not governments, they are forms of economic organization and distribution. Big difference.

And who said anything about disorganization? Anarchism is organization without coercion, privilege and hierarchy.

My suggestion: pick up a few books and read them before trying to act like a smart-ass when it is clear you don't know shit.
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
"Anarchos" Without Authority. Imagine running a world without authority. "Auctoritas" the authoring of statements, having the rank of author. Imagine having no authority whatsoever. No authority equals no value to ones statements, an infinite cycling of abject worthlessness. On this, no useful human system can be founded. Authoring would be impossible. Language and communication would be impossible. Anarchos is a negation of systems as such.

You confuse anarchy with democracy. Democracy, rule by the demos. Rule of what? Rule of people. Rule of the people, by the people. Have you read the US Constitution lately? We have a Democratic Republican Constitution. This is a democracy, it is just not abject rule by every slob who wishes to rule.

Anarchy is not self-rule. Self rule is "autarchy." Compare Autarkeia to Anarchos. You do not believe in self-rule, you believe in the elimination of groups to rule themselves by rank. If you believed in self-rule you would move away to an island. You believe in ruining rule for all.

It is no coincidence that you pit anarchy against what you call the capitalist class system. To oppose "rule" as such, is identical to opposing religion as such, wealth as such, government as such. One only categorically opposes all forms of rank when one is of the LOWEST rank. Specifically, of the lowest intellectual rank. Low intellectual rank begets all other forms of low rank. Persons of high rank do not oppose rank as such. I do not oppose rank as such.

Forms of economic organization and distribution are governments. They govern exchange. Do not mince words. Anarchism is the belief that 'anarchos' -- the lack of authority -- can be a basis of organization. Wrong. Organization is the integration of systems by rank. One cannot escape epistemology, (categories, organizations, ranks, files). To do so is to refute the human brain itself. You cannot argue against yourself and win.

No amount of swearing, stammering, special pleading, or claims to being the professor of anarchy, can refute this fact.
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
Organization is the integration of systems by rank? Really? News to me. You really believe you cannot have organization on any level without it being hierarchically structured by rank?
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
Well, "packing" is a form of organization, but we still say that the items packed are uniform. eg honeycombs, sunflower seeds... Uniformity is a rule. Pack in more items than are allowed (another rule) and then some items pop out, and are a different rank.
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
29 Aug 2004
Anarchist, Environmentalist, ANSWER, Rainbow/Greens...What's the difference?
30 Aug 2004
Dissent is good for Democracy. Good for Freedom of Speech. Good for any person with a brain.
Anyone who doesn't like any marcher? Against what our government is doing? Is one complete idiot!
Wait till Tuesday. When the blind, sick, poor, elderly and cripple walk up to Madison Square Gardens and present Bush with an arrest warrant! I'll laugh my ass off!
Watch the cops. Will they bust heads on the meek and weak? Without a contract and raise for a few years? I doubt it!
Bush is the evil. His party is the enemy!
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
30 Aug 2004
The poster anmed Anarchist only proves that he believes in anarchy of definition, as well as anarchy of politics. "Anarchist" has already been defined by your superiors including Webster. You may be living anarchism by trying to undefine the word, but you are not defining it.

You expose the fact that there is no "we" or any "know" in your position when you say "we know you have been a member of Kobe for some time" Since this statement is false, and one can not know a false statement to be true, I can only assume that it is also false that you exist in the plural.

Or was that a royal we? Are you a government again? Please stop plagiarizing them Matrix anyway. It was not that good a movie.

I did check out KOBE after you posted that though. Thanks for the link.
HUH? You must not have the same dictionary as I do
30 Aug 2004
"Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state"

I dont think so, Anarchy Andy! The ONLY ideaology which seeks elimination of the state is anarchy. Lets look at that. Here is the definition of Socialism:

Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Hmmmm. No mention of elimination of the state in there, either defined explicitly or implicitly. Nope. Lets look at Communism:

Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

No mention of elimination of state in there either. In fact there are NO ideaologies which advocate elimination of the state EXCEPT anarchism. Its the only stupid choice of all potential governmental systems our there which has the least chance of ever materializing. Even if it did (actually, riots, fires, and social disasters beget anarchy for a short period of time before more SENSIBLE forms of social order are established), it cannot last for long before all participants are reduced to primitive foraging and territorial control of resources.

There is nothing "generic" about anarchism. It is clearly defined, the foolishness of the concept is crystal clear.
Re: A Critique of Anarchism
04 Sep 2004
"Sometimes ignorant people should be a little less cocksure in what they think they know, because ultimately they just look embarrassingly stupid when they clumsily trip over ideas and try and bullshit their way through an argument."

I agree. This also applies to an anarchist saying he thinks he (pluralized) knows someone else is a member of an organization, when in fact he is not.
In fact, if you pan out to be a bigwig anarchist (which I doubt) you will forever be known by me as the person who sees monsters under every bed.

I have always been a member of myself, and I have known this for a long time. You however are not a member of myself, and I know this by the verification principle.

So if you are not me then how can you claim to know what I am or am not a member of, since I myself do not know that information, excepting for cases where I am an eigenmember?

Can you answer me that simple question, Anarchist?