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.


–2 votes
I know they dont agree with democracy at all but do they atleast agree with ideas equal rights and all the equality stuff
see, this is a symptom of the general problem. the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing. and, for all your own language aside, none of you have provided me with anything worth responding to further.
the principles of anarchist thought are not dead; they are not in the past; they are either a living, changing set of ideas or they're useless. the world changes, and ideas need to change to remain (or become) relevant.

it's too bad that you have been unable to find something of value on this site. better luck elsewhere.

" the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing"

yes, and they shall never, ever be tweaked or adapted by anyone, as that would clearly make them not an anarchist.

good riddance, you condescending, narrow minded ideologue.

@dot: your patience is admirable.

"the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing."

...another way of saying 'it hath been written' which, for not being a religious person, comes across as kinda biblical on your part.

one of the principles laid out in anarchist writing is that we get to figure shit out as it's coming at us, relative to a set of ideals. and that's really just democracy. saying that we're not willing to write down an authoritative plan is not the same thing as rejecting the principles that have led us to that position. this is the same point as seen elsewhere: it's not the abolition of principles, it's the abolition of enforced rules. the rejection of arbitrary restrictions. it's not a total absence of thought, but a rejection of all authority in controlling that thought. if we don't have a set of ideas, we're not proposing a real system of thought. we're opening up space for ancaps and other people that would oppose our basic values. and, that's inevitably just a hobbesian world of neo-liberalism that pits everybody against each other.

but, all i'm getting at is that you're reinventing the wheel where you don't have to. all of these ideas have been worked out elsewhere. you're not going to get anywhere novel by starting from first principles. taking the time to read through the existing arguments can only broaden your understanding of things, by drawing attention to things you hadn't thought of before and presenting arguments from perspectives you hadn't previously contemplated.

making every generation start from scratch is a surefire way to get absolutely nowhere.

and, if you're going to call yourself an anarchist, you really ought to have defined perspectives, at the least, on what property is, on mutual aid and on distributive justice. otherwise, it doesn't mean anything.

4 Answers

+2 votes
Best answer
The idea of "rights" is problematic for me because it either implies some form of inherent natural law, or affirms the right of some body of people to define what people in general are and are not entitled to.

The former option is problematic from my perspective because I can't see any way of defining an objective universal morality that would say that human beings are inherently entitled to one thing or another. The only way of doing that would actually be the latter option, in which case the objection becomes: Who gets to define what our rights are, and why should that entity's definition be accepted and applied universally?

There's also the fact that a lot of so-called "rights" are just affirmations of liberal democracy; the right to vote, the right to serve in the military, and the right to free speech are all components of liberal democratic capitalism, and granting people the "right" to these things is just a means of assimilating formerly-excluded social categories into democratic society.

"Equality" is also a weird term for me because I don't really have any interest in somehow trying to force the world into ensuring that every single person in existence has the exact same resources and choices available to them. I don't think that's possible or desirable. I do believe that institutional hierarchies should be destroyed and that people should have meaningful control over the content of their daily lives, including being able to access basic necessities of life/survival without having to sell themselves into wage labor or participate in capitalism.
by (8.7k points)
selected by
i donĀ“t think you are answering the question here at all. here you are mainly telling us your reservations to the concepts of rights and equality, which are not featured at all in in the question asked here. if by any chance this was motivated in response to what i wrote before then you should consider making this answer into a comment to my answer.
iconoclast - rice boy is addressing the part of the question that *specifically mentions rights and equality*. not sure how you missed that.
Ah, yeah, this is actually addressing the part of the question reading "do they atleast agree with [the] ideas [of] equal rights and all the equality stuff".

I suppose I could have concluded my answer with the phrase "based on the fact that other anarchists I've met have shared similar criticisms of the concepts of rights and equality, it would be safe to say that some anarchists do not agree with liberal ideas at all" - but it seemed kind of unnecessary?
A criticism of a concept can go from negating certain associations that come with it to total negation. Since anarchism by definition is againts hierarchies then one can expect a good part of it being concerned positively with equality. This is the reason why i might have not chosen to speak of equality at all in my response while deciding to deal with more specific issues which make a difference between anarchism and liberalism which are of course capitalism and states. As far as notions of "equality" and "liberty" it might be that i try too avoid too much of a metaphysical discusion and decided to focus on the differences between liberals and anarchists.
I don't really see how I haven't just outlined several differences between liberals and anarchists through my (perhaps metaphysically-inclined) answer, I guess. I felt it necessary to address the potential interpretations or implications of "equality" since, from a liberal perspective, it tends to mean things like equal opportunity to participate in the market, or equal access to state institutions. You could maybe say that "real" equality would necessitate abolishing all hierarchical constructs, or someone could say that "real" equality would mean that every single person is treated the exact same way and expected to have opportunities and resources identical to the next person. It's a complicated concept and I don't think it can be discussed without bringing up its varying interpretations.

late to this game, but...

@iconoclast: "Since anarchism by definition is againts hierarchies then one can expect a good part of it being concerned positively with equality. "

that draws an implicit (and completely false) dichotomy: hierarchy or equality. eliminating hierarchy in no way implies some sort of "equality" (whatever that means). equality, like rights, are terms that only make sense when everybody is shoehorned into a single worldview; one that inherently requires some "objective" "authority" to determine  a) what rights are granted to whom, and b) what measures constitute a ranking of "equal" (between every individual, with all their differences at every level).

[i think i just had a brief affair with "quotes"]

+4 votes
No. Even when we agree, our words actually mean different things.
by (8.9k points)
can you explain further
For example, with the word "equality", anarchists tend to believe in diversity without hierarchy, rather than making everyone the exact same. We don't believe in "equality under the law". So even when we use words like that, we mean different things. Do you have more specific questions of what we do and don't agree on?
best answer I have ever heard thanks :) Also, being a recovering spineless liberal/pacifist myself I have realized now looking back how satirical many of these words are... for example "social worker"...
dtk::  what.the.fuck.  ???

Liberals are upper class corporate whores in designer suits and red ties.

Tories are upper class corporate whores in designer suits and blue ties.

Went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs, articled at the same law firms, sold themselves to the same corrupt power structure.  Neither one of them *believes* in a fucking thing, except getting whatever they can for themselves.  Fuck them both, they'll make pretty bookends when put up against the wall, side-by-side, ...

So, no, i don't agree with liberals, by your definition or any other.  but maybe that's just me.

(it may be worth noting that britain and australia have also fallen into the trap of government by the old boys club, who pretend to disagree for the cameras, then sell policy to the highest bidder regardless of their putative stripes.)
–3 votes
Anarchism emerged from enlightenment thought just as liberalism. Anarchism shares with liberalism a commitment to liberty and equality of rights.

As far as the democracy issue it is an important debate within anarchism and the main opinions go from advocacy of direct democracy or local democracy to a rejection of democracy when it goes againts individual actions which do not harm others such as drug use or consensual non-heterosexual sex and love.  Peter Kropotkin and others said that they wanted to determine how "things are managed" (economics) and let humans go more or less free on their individual daily life lives unlegislated and unruled although one will think he did not mean it for cases of murder or rape. So that will be the anti-democracy of anarchists who also tend to be critics of social engineering ( and technocratic planning by experts.

Anarchism is mainly distanced from liberals on the issues of the state and capitalism. Liberals tolerate and the most pro-capitalist section of liberalism even are strong apologists of wage labour and class difference while anarchists reject that as obvious forms of hierarchy and advocate some form of wealth redistribution seeing that class difference makes the issue of equality as a joke without it. Liberals go from a modest welfare state vision to a laissez faire nightwatchman state while anarchists will oppose states and advocate instead descentralized voluntary associations of mutual aid while maintaining autonomy between individuals and communes and federations or networks of communes.
by (3.3k points)
–2 votes
Typically not. Agreements are very rare.

While there are a few ideas that liberals support which get nods from anarchists, generally speaking, as they're wont to support statism as a solution then that results in a lot of headbutting.

Like, in the case of democracy. I do know a number of anarchists do agree with liberals that democracy is a good idea but hold that they should be direct democracies.

Anarchists like myself though, don't agree with them believing democracy is divisive and the worst form of control you can exert over other people.

As for equality, what do you mean by that exactly? Liberals typically tend to believe in hierarchies such as the boss/employee pyramid. That's something that goes against anarchism which holds that workers should all be on equal ground with no one being the designated whip handler.
by (570 points)
edited by
Have I said something wrong by the way? I noticed I've been downvoted on this answer. If it helps I've tried to compress my answer down to something hopefully better.

It wasn't me that down voted you, but I'm going to assume it has to do with 'equality,' anarchism, and democracy. Democracy involves some sort of repression of the individual and/or usually subjugates the individual to the will of others and/or majority. I find the definition and etymology of democracy to be problematic and have difficulties seeing how it's compatible with anarchism. I have no idea of what you mean by 'equality.' Here's a thread/question that better explains anarchist issues with democracy.

By equality I mean things such as trying to put people on equal footing such as the elimination of mechanisms that create unequal interactions such as the boss/employee paradigm.

That and treating another human being as normal no matter what their sexual orientation, ethnic background or disability is. The golden rule is another way of describing it... I think.
I've gone ahead and retyped my answer in a big edit. Wasn't happy with the one I gave before.

"The golden rule is another way of describing it... I think."

i understand the golden rule as: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

as dot (i think?) pointed out in another thread (fuck if i can remember which), i don't want people treating me the way *they* want to be treated, but rather the way *i* want to be treated. and likewise how i treat them, assumedly.

but that does point out one way in which the golden rule fits into liberal ideology. only by assuming a "sameness" (equality?) between *all* individuals - as prescribed by mass society - could such concepts be desirable.

also, what is "normal"?