Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


+1 vote
His writings display a great understanding of the human condition, although he never seems to say so, he appears to be akin to anarchist thought. What do y'all think?

The reason I never expanded my question was simply that I posted one a few weeks ago with various quotes and a little background of his rise to fame all of which demonstrate his disdain for society as it was/as it is, and yet goes so much deeper by getting to the root of the real issue, that being our way of falsity. Anyway for some reason the site owner decided to delete the whole post. Which I found strange as I thought anarchists would be open to a discussion concerning every aspect of anarchy.

A quick internet search will reveal all that anyone needs to know about this man and the vast volume of work he left behind. Here are a few quotes.

“Governments want efficient technicians, not human beings, because human beings become dangerous to governments – and to organized religions as well. That is why governments and religious organizations seek to control education.”

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”

“Freedom and love go together. Love is not a reaction. If I love you because you love me, that is mere trade, a thing to be bought in the market; it is not love. To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom.”

“To ask the right question demands a great deal of intelligence and sensitivity. Here is a question, a fundamental question: is life torture? It is, as it is; and man has lived in this torture centuries upon centuries, from ancient history to the present day, in agony, in despair, in sorrow; and he doesn't find a way out of it. Therefore he invents gods, churches, all the rituals, and all that nonsense, or he escapes in different ways. What we are trying to do, during all these discussions and talks here, is to see if we cannot radically bring about a transformation of the mind, not accept things as they are, nor revolt against them. Revolt doesn't answer a thing. You must understand it, go into it, examine it, give your heart and your mind, with everything that you have, to find out a way of living differently. That depends on you, and not on someone else, because in this there is no teacher, no pupil; there is no leader; there is no guru; there is no Master, no Saviour. You yourself are the teacher and the pupil; you are the Master; you are the guru; you are the leader; you are everything. And to understand is to transform what is.

I think that will be enough, won't it?”
I don't know who that is, so, to directly answer your question, I don't think of J. Krishnamurti one bit, except to comment here. If you expanded on your question with context of who this person is, and maybe provided some examples of where and how his thinking aligns with anarchism, I might be interested in engaging further.

some threads here that mention him

"it is not a sign of good health to be well-adjusted to a sick society"

that may be slightly paraphrased, but that is a quote from krishnamurti. you don't have to be an anarchist to appreciate that. it is one of very few slogans i have ever deeply appreciated.

but more to the question, some old issue of green anarchy had a piece (it was part of a series): "reclaiming krishnamurti for anarchy". you might be able to find it on the anarchist library, or perhaps lbc has the back issue.

edit: found it here
your previous question was deleted by mistake. glad you tried again.

1 Answer

+1 vote
i don't know anything about krishnamurti (except his name is fun to say). but there's probably something worth saying about anarchist principles not being specific to anarchy. it was a big tactic of crimethinc's in particular: to claim so many people for anarchy (as anarchists) because they said things that fit easily within the parameters of anarchist thinking.

while that's useful in certain contexts (to explain the breadth and accessibility of some of what we think, for example), in other ways it is disingenuous, or maybe just misleading, since the edge of anarchy is what people do have a hard time with: the idea that we would do better without so many of the things that we take for granted and rely on today.
by (53.1k points)

in "fighting for our lives" (i think it was that), crimethinc painted some rather broad pictures of "normal" behavior that they presented as anarchist. calling it "anarchist" when a bunch of friends make dinner together could be misleading. though i do think it is important to point out when anarchistic ideas are not specific to anarchy.