General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnyone here, deep in their heart, an Anarchist?
I don't mean necessarily politically, but one who holds deep feelings of anti-authority.
One who believes authority and respect should be earned and not simply given
One who detests authority of all forms, and sees it as the ultimate corrupter?
One who feels that more work gets done in a communal fashion, than in a hierarchical one...
Because that's me
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)
digonswine
(1,487 posts)but a healthy skepticism of those in authority, and the ability to question the same, and the expectation that those in it will feel they are beholden to those they represent--is only as it should be.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)see themselves as in a special class wherein the opinion of and serving their constituents is of no importance ... and often they get this free pass because I think too many citizens are in a rut when it comes to voting for who is really the best.
The other major difficulty is money, sadly, our system is often based on who has the most money, and some candidates spend their own money for elections. That, does not serve the best interests of the constituents.
The US now has about 50% of the population living in poverty or on the border of poverty. To me, there is no way that millionaire + politicians serve the best interests of the 99%, no way at all. True, some politicians are exceptional, but many are not ... and when one looks at the favorable rating for congress, it is most assuredly quite dismal at about 13% approval rating.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)I suspect that there are many well-meaning thoughtful non-pricks that would like to serve. I know I would(introversion wangs that up a bit!) I am not sure that it is the corrupting power of power itself that trips up the good person. It is THE FUCKING SYSTEM!
Do you remember--probably from 1998 or so-when Fritz Hollings retired and admitted that most of an elected rep's time is spent in pimping for dollars? It is the system! The re-election campaigns begin upon arrival in office!
I think there are some good people with power.
I will say it again-and I know many agree--the BIGGEST FUCKING PROBLEM with the system is the financing!! Done-no more.
Luckily-money buys access to the courts, so the biggest assholes have the most access.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)the system. And lots of people will never stand a chance to get ahead the way it's working now. And what systems were in place to help those trying to get ahead TPTB keep taking away. Speaking of assholes, I sure hope Walker in WI gets recalled. That, is one prick that deserves it. Last I heard, they now have enough signatures to put his recall vote on a ballet.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)yes-Walker will face a challenge--BUT-there is no strong Dem to take him on. I fear this will be for naught.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Yes, I know the true quote is "tends to corrupt," but so far we're batting 10 for 10, it having corrupted EVERY SINGLE PERSON who attained it.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Got notoriously low level of compliance which fortunately gets overidden by intelligence at times.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Very few people are suitable to be in positions of authority. It takes a special kind of person who can be trusted with that kind of responsibility. Ony very wise people should to be in such positions. Some Indian Chiefs eg, were suitable judging by their writings. I can't think of many leaders who are particularly wise. So, I guess I am willing to respect people in authority if they earn it.
You only have to look at internet forums when people are given a little authority and how some of them react to it. Good leaders generally don't enjoy their roles, because they care too much about people and understand that their decisions will impact others so they carry a great weight because of that understanding. A majority however, don't think that deeply and just act out of expedience, or 'according to the rules' never wavering from the rule book, regardless of whether the rules are always applicable to every situation.
Don't know if I'm an anarchist or not, but I'm not wild about the system we currently live under.
I'd like to know more about it I guess.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)under is pretty F'ed up IMO, and this is often because of the people in office, and that's because money is soooo embedded into our political system. Politicians serve the interests of major contributors and lobbyists, and that to me does not make for a good system representing ALL of the people.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... I totally agree with. That doesn't happen very often with anyone. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) 
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...the posting methods are centralized. Even with a revolutionary Jury System you are moderating based upon a minority opinion, and there exist no sort of direct democracy to facilitate such discussion (indeed, speech should not be moderated, in principle).
If you want a more anti-authoritarian messaging system, go to USENET.
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)I, like most everyone, have my own best interest at heart. So why would I vote for a person who is only looking out for themselves anywhoo?
I'll have a fun year convincing my family that they shouldn't vote for Mitt who's worth about half a billion bucks.
My anarchist view in summation. Why should I pick you to rule over me? I'm the only one looking out for me.
Dawson Leery
(19,534 posts)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)does that make any sense?
Taverner
(55,476 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)I wear it on my sleeve.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)obliviously
(1,635 posts)I have always felt I am the Antichrist, since childhood I have wanted to overthrow the religious economic structure of the world and be your leader!
salib
(2,116 posts)However, a seductive aspect of Libertarianism is the claim that it is quite nearly anarchistic, and so I always approach such discussions very cautiously.
It is quite important to note that most civil liberties in modern society (the civil rights legislation in the 60's is a good example here) have been ENFORCED. Those whom it was forced upon certainly did not respect the law nor those who created it. They wanted Jim Crow to continue.
Sound familiar? Remind you of some comments by Rand and Ron Paul? Comments which disgusted most here on DU?
Just as "States' Rights" was just a cover for maintaining slavery and then Jim Crow, so is the claim of Libertarianism simply a cover for might make right and no equality in fact. One must recognize that it is community, not just the individual, that has value in human society. No one is an island.
Yes, I have a strongly anarchistic streak. However, I recognize how easily those "tendencies" can be co-opted by very dark personalities and objectives.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...saw what a force the anti-authoritarians were back in the 70s. Go back, Cato Institute, Center for Libertarian Studies, Libertarian Party. It's not that anarchism is "easily coopted." It's more that there was a concerted effort to coopt it. Billions of dollars have been spent over the decades.
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)Though, if you ever bring up this fact to modern day libertarians they freak out and deny it. What I find very ironic is the fact that so many are inspired by Ayn Rand and yet she stated in an interview that she pretty much hated libertarians.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...of how well Libertarians (big L) have utilized double-speak to the point where even DU is infiltrated with such absurd concepts hiding under a veil of progressivism.
knowbody0
(8,310 posts)and I raised my kids to question authority as well.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)I'm quite socialist
Taverner
(55,476 posts)I believe in Social Anarchy, Anarcho-Socialism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, etc whatever you want to call it
Hard to explain, but it takes from both Bakunin and Marx, Euegene Debs and Emma Goldman...
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)in that authority is necessary in organized society, but not to a point that it stifles individuality. And that individuality and free will is necessary, but not to the point that it harms society...and so forth. If there were a simple solution, the society that settled on it would prosper beyond all others, grow at the expense of the rest, and soon we would all be there...but there is no simple solution. Its probably easier to get things wrong than to get things right, and every new season we start all over again, forgetting the lesson of seasons past.
Anarchy is one response to an excess of authority, but without that excess there is no use for anarchy itself.
Fuzz
(8,827 posts)
opihimoimoi
(52,426 posts)allowing faster and better solutions
this authority thing is another matter
WonderGrunion
(2,995 posts)is what makes our species better than all others on the planet. It's also the longest recognized word in the English language.
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Power is the constitutive responsibility of the people (for lack of a better term). I would no more recognize the US Constitution than I would "God" as a basis of power and legitimacy, to the extent that it is made to function as some kind of holy origin. The people make and remake the human, inhuman, and ecological order, all the time. Constituted power (dead power) is the enemy, whether it is made up of the Holy Writ of the Bible or the Holy Writ of the Constitution.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It is not a real thing. A police officer has no more authority than anyone else. It is strictly imaginary, unless we define it as violence.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)They can be free dogs...
G_j
(40,558 posts)another dog here.. 
Tikki
(15,048 posts)I feel energized.
Tikki
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
NashvilleLefty
(811 posts)Anarchy ultimately results in the Reign of the Bully.
I agree that authority and respect should be earned and not given, but too many people mistake fear for respect. And in an Anarchist society the best way to gain authority is through fear and intimidation. Which many mistake for "respect".
Mankind began with an Anarchist society. There is a reason that we rejected it. There is a reason we developed laws. Because Anarchy doesn't work.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)There is a difference
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)I want to change the world by letting it self-destruct by itself.
marasinghe
(1,253 posts)
on a slightly different note, i would think that every form of authority - from autocracy through to supposed anarchy - must always be questioned; & discarded when it does not meet one's personal standards of logic & ethics.
there's a discourse (the Kalama Sutta) attributed to the Buddha, along the following lines:
'.... Don't let youself be led by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through a preponderance of views, by probability, or even by the teachings of a person accepted to be a good teacher by common consensus.
When you know for yourself, by practical experience, that certain qualities - are skillful; are blameless; are praised by the wise; and, when adopted & carried out, lead to the welfare & happiness of all living things — only then should you accept & practice those qualities, for yourself ....'.
what he was basically saying was: always question authority.
my ideas on authority follow those same lines; which might in itself, be a contradiction in terms; but works for me.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)"... must always be questioned; & discarded when it does not meet one's personal standards of logic & ethics. "
graywarrior
(59,440 posts)Mudoria
(2,838 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)To demonstrate this ... below, I've re-ordered the three statements you made.
"One who feels that more work gets done in a communal fashion, than in a hierarchical one"
"One who believes authority and respect should be earned and not simply given"
"One who detests authority of all forms, and sees it as the ultimate corrupter"
Read them in this order.
Notice that the 2nd and the 3rd are now in conflict.
The 2nd describes when authority is OK ... the 3rd says authority is to be "Detested in all forms"
How do you reconcile that?
I'll try ...
Communal structures are often preferable, because they focus on consensus. Which is good (Your #1 above).
Where communal structures FAIL is when consensus can not be reached. If there are no existing leaders, leaders WILL emerge ... and they will rally support, and many will give them respect, and decide that those leaders have earned authority (your #2).
Those who disagreed with those emerging leaders will be unhappy about that, and they will fight back, using your #3 item above. Basically saying, "if I am not the leader, then there should not be one".
Taverner
(55,476 posts)2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive
Give me a night - - I'm too inebriated to handle this discussion at this time
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'm not loaded yet ... but I am enjoying some wine at the moment.
So ... Sleep well ... I'll check in over the week-end.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)She comes back tomorrow, which is awesome, but life is good without the watchers....
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Some of us parents should never be left at home alone!!!!
TBF
(35,819 posts)FAIL is when consensus can not be reached. If there are no existing leaders, leaders WILL emerge ... and they will rally support, and many will give them respect, and decide that those leaders have earned authority"
Which takes us back to the Paris Commune - a really good try. The failure happened because they didn't defend against outside aggressors. How do you do that without becoming too authoritarian? That remains the big question. It seems that Occupy is trying to answer that. We will see how they do.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The point is, once you have a group of a fair size (even with no "outside aggressors"
you WILL have disagreement.
Once you get about 10 people together, you will have competition for leadership positions in that group. This is a well understood dynamic in social Psych dynamics.
If you get 10 people together and try to order PIZZA, leaders will emerge. You do not need "outsiders" to make this happen.
It just happens.
TBF
(35,819 posts)in capitalism we are trained to look for "leaders" and to consider certain behaviors "leadership". I think if we had a different economic system we might see and teach other behaviors, and might well define them differently. YMMV.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The earliest humans did not have capitalism, and yet they had leaders.
As soon as you have TWO people, in certain situations one of them will be the leader. That individual will propose a common action, and then those two individuals will move forward.
Add a third person, and the dynamic becomes more complicated. You can see this with kids who are simply trying to decide which game to play next.
Add a forth, and the dynamic becomes more complex.
And so on.
And when you talk about "leadership behaviors", the reality is that a person who proposes outcomes that "the group" sees as positive most of the time ... those people become leaders.
There is a tremendous among of research in Social Psych on group dynamics and leadership. Most of it has nothing to do with capitalism.
Much of it looks at how a group can have multiple leaders, one who is action oriented, one who is socially oriented. The first tries to maximize some narrow group objective (order the pizza), the other focuses on the social cohesion (making sure that everyone will get a few slices that they will like).
TBF
(35,819 posts)Not that I necessarily always detest authority, but absolutely believe it should be relentlessly questioned.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)IMHO, though, it's liable to change.
TBF
(35,819 posts)is alive and well I see. You are insinuating that anarchist thought is juvenile. I beg to disagree.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The thing is, though, all I'm saying is that he's likely going thru a phase, as many teens do. I know I had my share of that as well.
That said, anarchist thought is pretty interesting sometimes.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)This allows a person to do whatever they want: rape, murder, steal with no repercussions as long as they can defend themselves from the individuals who oppose them.
That is not good for society by any means.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)"It is a feeling of loyalty and allegiance that is the result of knowledge and belief. No law will make a citizen a patriot."
- Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura, upon squelching a state bill that would have required every child to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day.
agent46
(1,262 posts)
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Wait...what? Well, that's very different.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
If Josh is on the left of the right?
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)I think he is he on the left and his writings against Ron Paul's libertarianism are very good, but some of his other posts, especially his strong support for democrats, makes me wonder. Simply because I can't imagine an anarchist being anything more than a lukewarm supporter of either of our two political parties, both of which are rather statistic.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Technically anarchists are anti-political. For an anarchist to be political they must chose a party. Choosing the lesser of evils (that have a chance of actually being elected) is a nobrainer.
I support the Democrats because generally speaking the largest criticism of the Democrats comes from the authoritarian left whom I have as much disdain for as Libertarians (large L). The anti-authoritarian left is anti-political, their criticisms are largely missing, because politics does not concern them. Hell, they only come out once every 4 years to express distaste in the parties (at the DNC and RNC conventions; last DNC we were called agent infiltrators!).
As far as active party support is concerned, though, it's non-existent. I'm an independent. The only time I ever actively campaigned was for Dean in 2003, and I didn't vote again until 2008 (I lived in a Southern State, my vote had no impact on Kerry).
Despite being an anarchist I do enjoy, quite a lot, politics, and political rhetoric. It's fun, it's exciting. People may be confused when I "come out in support of Obama" but "show disdain for Chavez" and such, making it seem as if I'm some sort of DLC Democrat or Blue Dog. Yet no one has ever seen that my support for Obama only goes so far as support him as a person and as a political persona, and not his actual policies, which are still miles better than any Republican could offer.
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)Or would anarchism be believing authority does not exist?
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Anarcho-syndicalist, checking in.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)I hate the concept that people need to earn my respect. I give everyone the same baseline level of respect, if they don't return it or demand that I 'earn' it from them, I remove it.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,616 posts)Kidding. I just had to wave an "anarchy flag" for a minute.
I'm probably not much of an anarchist. Like you, I think authority and respect need to be earned, so that's more of a meritocratic view.
Many times I detest authority. When I was a manager, a leader at work, hell, i even detested myself. It was bad enough that I dropped out of management and went back to just working.
So, having some experience being a manager, I try to sway those in leadership roles, cooperate where it makes sense, and sympathize with the emptiness of that job. Personally, I like it here at the bottom of the totem pole.
Yes, work can get done communally. But even then, someone with experience, knowledge of the particular task, will step up and lead. Otherwise, we can spin our wheels communally.
Festivito
(13,858 posts), or realize that they can get sick.
An anarchist ideologue would ignore the clear, albeit un-self-proclaimed, authority of a good post for being pro-authority.
46 did a good job.
So, how goes the anarchism.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Most sickness is dealt with by preventative medicine, other ailments that either happen due to a failure of preventative health care, or due to uncontrollable causes, would not necessarily indicate an authoritarian relationship. I like fixing computers. I can fix yours if you needed it, and I would not hold that over you for monetary recompense, because it is a task that you may not be able to do but I would.
Capitalists, however, would find such behavior inherently stupid. Randian's would say that selfishness is better and that indeed I should make you pay me to fix your computer.
So you can imagine people who have acquired the skill of medicine using that skill to help you, as an equal human being, rather than viewing you strictly from a service point of view, and trying to milk as much money from you as possible (we already know a good deal of medical care costs comes from unneeded services).
Solly Mack
(96,484 posts)Authority claims I have a problem with authority and I maintain authority is the problem.
I tell it all the time, 'I'm just not that into you'.
Naturally, authority is quick to point out why it thinks I'm wrong. (as its very existence depends on everyone thinking it is right)
Authority is just too damn needy. A black hole of incessant demands for validation. 'Love me. Respect me. Do as I say' it whines.
Who needs that shit?
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)but i feel the urge......
varelse
(4,062 posts)I have no problem recognizing and accepting leadership, but I have no respect for authority. I tolerate it only because I prefer to choose my battles rather than spend every second of my life fighting.
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)more knowledgable, or more experienced, or quicker-witted than me.
However, I see no reason to defer to someone simply because they are older, they hold a degree, they won the most votes in a contest, or they have a uniform on.
If I accept someone's judgement, it doesn't automatically follow that they cannot fail, make a stupid decision next time, or be corrupted.
So, you have to watch their ass.