An Anarchist Manifesto - go fuck yourself

[ThorsMitersaw]

This is meant as a response or critique to "An Anarchist Manifesto". Not supposed to be comprehensive. Not supposed to be a knock down defense. Just wrote it up in a fury last night.

The title, "An anarchist manifesto", seems innocuous enough. But the quote subtitling this, setting the mood and aim of the rest of the document, is enough to make me face palm already:

Freedom without Socialism is privilege. Socialism without Freedom is Tyranny

First of all: please - define - socialism. The terms capitalism and socialism posses so many different definitions and usages in history and everyday vernacular that they are more of a hindrance to communication and attempts at rational discourse than any sort of help at all.

And Second: if privilege is created via society and it's get out of jail free card, how can it exist with freedom from societal constraints? Failing the existence of a state, where does this privilege stem from? I already smell an opposition to the possession of anything subjectively perceived as "wealth", accusations of differed consumption being referred to as “hoarding”, and appeals to “need”.

Now, this piece goes on to open with the following introduction:

What is anarchy? Anarchism is the most misunderstood of political philosophies, perhaps because it threatens both the established order and those who would become our new masters after we have overthrown it. Anarchists are constantly having to deny the images of them presented by both Left and Right. Taken in by these lies or suffering from their own preconceptions, few bother to investigate the reality. With this in mind we have put together this summary of what we do believe.

I certainly can agree with this. Anarchism is something under the constant barrage of put downs and distortions of its enemies. But this paragraph precedes several points about anarchism and uses the oh so vague word “we” to describe who is saying these things. Who is the we, we the viewer are presented with? Well it seems to be used as “all anarchists”. Now to be fair I do not really know if they are putting this forth as their own work alone or a overarching statement about all of those who call themselves anarchists. The title DOES say “AN anarchist manifesto” perhaps implying that there are more than just this one, perhaps implying there exist more than one form of anarchism, perhaps even accepting some great pluralism. But I highly fucking doubt it. In any case, the document is supposed to be a published piece by the Anarchist Collective at the University of Melbourne. So take your gripes up with them I suppose.

Now on to the several points which are meant to answer the opening question and supplement the introduction about what anarchy is:

[point 1] Anarchists seek to maximize freedom for all. We believe all people should be as free as possible to determine their own destinies and activities within the limits required by a respect for the equal rights of others. This freedom should [be] actual and practical, unhindered by unnecessary legal prohibitions or material constraints.

Please pay special attention to this passage as I will site it later.

I was almost on board with this. Right up until the last sentence. “This freedom should [be] actual and practical, unhindered by unnecessary legal prohibitions or material constraints.” So freedom is now defined as being free from material restraints. Well good luck creating matter out of thin air and suing the bourgeois universe for not allowing unicorns to fucking exist. Implied in this statement is opposition to legal restraints upon the satisfaction of desires and aspirations. It should be obvious where this is heading. If not then stay tuned kids.

[Point 2] Anarchists are opposed to authority and hierarchy. All persons must be considered as equals. No-one has the right to coerce or expect obedience from others except where necessary to protect the equal rights of others.

There are two sorts of authority. The authority as it exists which would essentially be the state around us right now, and the definitional conception of what authority is, essentially: the right to control. Being opposed to authority in the first sense is an obvious matter of fact with all anarchists but to be opposed to authority in itself is a ridiculous statement. All anarchists are making arguments about who has what right or claim to control over whom and what. All anarchists worth a fucking shit recognize the absolute legitimacy of persons claiming to have just authority over their own selves at the very least. Hell they affirm this with their first point when they say “We believe all people should be as free as possible to determine their own destinies”. Persons posses proper authority over their own lives.

[Point 3] Anarchists are opposed to patriarchy. As a coercive set of social relations based on gender hierarchy, patriarchy oppresses and silences women in ways that we are as yet not even fully conscious. Patriarchal structures must be destroyed wherever they are recognized.

Now do not get me wrong. I think to be an anarchist one pretty much has to be a feminist. But this portion here: “patriarchy oppresses and silences women in ways that we are as yet not even fully conscious”. What? So patriarchy oppresses people in magical and mysterious ways we can not even know? What sort of mystic bullshit is this? And the on to this: “Patriarchal structures must be destroyed wherever they are recognized” depending on ones definition of patriarchy I can agree or disagree with this. Again people please define your terms.

[Point 4] Anarchists are not opposed to organization. Anarchy is about organization. It is about co-operation amongst equals, free of oppressive power relations. Often a lack of organization allows oppression to go unnoticed and merely offers the "liberty" of the strong to take advantage of the weaker. We must organize to prevent this. We are opposed, however, to types of organization which are based on authority and hierarchy or which involve the unnecessary regimentation and subordination of individuals or which strangle individual creativity. We are implacably opposed to the centralization of power.

I have no qualms with this one so onward we tread...

[point 5] Anarchists believe in the necessity of *direct democracy*. Where disagreements exist amongst persons which cannot be resolved cooperatively, the will of the majority must be respected. Consensus decisions are always the ideal but when a consensus cannot be reached then democratic procedures must be employed. Considering peoples as equals requires this. Representative and Parliamentary democracy are frauds which separate the government from the people, deny us control over our own lives and encourage apathy amongst the citizenry. Real democracy places power in the hands of the people by making all decisions at the lowest possible level by voting in workplace and community councils.

And here we are at Point 5. This is the most objectionable passage within this manifesto to myself. It seems to me that many of those who call themselves anarchists are merely just pandering to the feel good religious feeling concepts of state. That many of the supposed anarchists are just wanting a wider dispersion of power over the affairs of others and not its total abolition. To put it more poetically, they see the gun in the room and instead of trying to say no one should point guns, they want to all have a finger on the trigger. This is no where better illustrated than through this little number: “Representative and Parliamentary democracy are frauds which separate the government from the people, deny us control over our own lives and encourage apathy amongst the citizenry.” I do not want to give the government to the people. I want it destroyed. I want that sort of arbitrary power over things and persons you DO NOT OWN, resisted and eliminated. NOT universalized. This is not a matter of having control over your life, this is a matter of having control over others lives which contradicts point 1 brought up in this document: “We believe all people should be as free as possible to determine their own destinies and activities'.

In my last video, which you no doubt watched and listened to, I criticized Mr1001nights childish view that all problems inevitably must lead to forcing one party to acquiesce. To take a page from Chomsky's playbook, I will quote myself: “An ideal solution for everyone is impossible. However you make the tired old STATIST conclusion that this demands that the dissenting party must be enslaved to the consenting party... There is no need for 100% ideal solutions because people who do not wish for this decided upon solution can choose another for themselves as they wish. What you are basically implying is that because no solution will 100% be agreed upon by all parties, that some parties will just have to bend over and take it like a man.” now granted there are situations where there it is not a matter of simply abstaining, such as some property claims and complaints, but why is it compromise is ruled out?And even if compromise is not possible or wanted by anyone...

Where did justification for this come from? : “here disagreements exist amongst persons which cannot be resolved cooperatively, the will of the majority must be respected”. Why? Why is this true? Why is this so? Why must we assume that 9 people must be catered to where 8 dissent? Is a matter of right and wrong merely a subject of numerical superiority to you? Obviously not if you oppose the state of the world now.

[Point 6] Anarchists seek the destruction of the State. The State, a government which holds itself to be separate from and above the people, is always an oppressor. It has its own interests: its natural form is a bureaucracy and the military, the police and the security forces are its weapons. "Control" of the state is an illusion which corrupts all revolutionaries. We will not be free while the State exists.

Point 5 seems to give me reason to believe your commitment to this is false. Painting the concept of controlling others lives red does not improve matters. “When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The People's Stick'.” - Mikhail Bakunin. Of course considering how willing people are to delude themselves when it comes to matters like these I do not know if it this is so true anymore. Other than my lack of belief about the sincerity of the author or authors commitment or adherence to this principle, I can totally agree with this. Mr1001nights would do well to take note of the third sentence here: “Control of the state is an illusion which corrupts all revolutionaries”.

[Point 7] Anarchists seek an end to private property. Our needs chain us as much as our enemies. "Liberty" without the means to exercise it is a hollow fraud. We are not free to do that which we cannot do because others deny us the resources. The capitalists' monopoly of the means of production, their control of society's wealth, enslaves us to them as surely as would a gun held to our heads. The division of the political from the economic is a bourgeois myth. True social equality requires equal access to the means of production. For this reason all anarchists are socialists (though not all socialists are anarchists).

Here we find the second most objectionable passage. I might have said this is THE most objectionable passage if I was not aware of the semantics nightmare about property which exists and probably forever will exist.

Again here I see a ridiculous revolt against nature. A revolt against the truth of existence. A futile rebellion against REALITY. “Our needs chain us as much as our enemies” if you include materialism and reliance upon matter and energy for your continued survival enslavement or associate this not being free then I am afraid you will forever be oppressed by that capitalist pig called the universe.

'"Liberty" without the means to exercise it is a hollow fraud. We are not free to do that which we cannot do because others deny us the resources” this is pretty true. It does not do me any good to be free if I am incapable of possessing the tools to make use of it. But what is immediately assumed and implied here is that other persons possessing things is a denial of this right to you or probably more accurately that they are obligated to provide them to you if they have brought them about. Obligated to give up the fruits of their labor to you. (whats that called again? Oh yea... slavery). This again interferes with point 1.

Onward within this : “The capitalists' monopoly of the means of production, their control of society's wealth, enslaves us to them as surely as would a gun held to our heads”. I agree that given a certain definition of capitalist, and of monopoly, that this is true. There certainly is no libertarian who can say with any sort of truth in their statements that the world today is dominated by plutocratic special interests whose power lies in lobbying the state (a criminal organization which is massively destructive to any concept of property rights) to eliminate their competition through legislation and to essentially outlaw entrance into the field. License and zoning laws should be obvious examples of the state denying anyone who is not an owner of means of industrial production form becoming so. I have mentioned these and others before in my video “How the State fucks the little man / How the Free Market would free the worker”. But I can not help but think such a concept is not a part of this point. Nope. I think what is meant here is that the private ownership, here defined as right to exclusive use, of the MoP is in itself unacceptable.

Because I do so love making fun of this phrase, lets tear apart the means of production. If all things which can be owned/possessed, rightfully originally appropriated through original labor upon resources within the commons, are divided into two categories: the means of production and other products of labor then we have a sort of chick and the egg problem. Most anarchists I speak to agree that we individually own the fruits of our individual labor in some manner but if the means of production are not grown on trees or come *poof!* into existence form nothing without the application of labor to unowned resources then they are ALL products of labor themselves. Is the lathe I just built means of production or the fruits of my labor? It seems obviously to me that it is both. What takes precedence? The right to the fruits of my labor or your supposed right to the means of production?

If private property or right to the exclusive use of materials one labors upon is not morally acceptable to these folks then I hope they are fine with the every day anarchist sins they commit by eating, breathing, drinking, and writing stupid manifestos on paper which no one else may use. Seems they are enslaved to a reality that forces them to require material sustenance which they must deny others the right to utilize in order to continue to exist! If one opposes this exclusive use then one would HAVE to oppose the right to trade or utilize anything without the approval of the rest of fucking humanity. If they oppose this right to private ownership of the means of production they necessarily must oppose the ownership of the fruits of ones labor.

[Point 8] Anarchists believe in the need for a total Revolution. There is no aspect of the existing evils, Capitalism, Patriarchy and the State, that we can afford to leave intact if we seek to build a world free of oppression. Like cancers these structures will reappear and destroy freedom if they are not sought out where- ever they are manifest and destroyed utterly and simultaneously. Because our goals are radical, involving the total overthrow of the existing order, we cannot hope to accomplish them by reformist means within that order.

Define capitalism. I agree that reformism is crap.

[Point 9] Anarchists deny the distinction between ends and means. Liberation and revolution are our activities not our ends. For this reason we will never be able to achieve freedom through authoritarian methods or destroy the State by seizing control of it.

this seems a redundant reiteration of a principle already touched upon in points 5 and 8.

[point 10] Anarchists follow no leaders. No-one can lead us to take responsibility for our own lives. Only we can liberate ourselves. The only "leadership" we recognize is by example.

No leaders? Really? I am sorry but even an agorist has to admit that not everyone is, will be, or wants to be an entrepreneur. And I have never seen anyone deny that leadership is a valuable and sought after quality.

[Point 11] Anarchists believe in a brighter future. We envisage a future free of oppression, of people living in community and in control of their own lives. We see a society governing itself though workplace and community councils, making decisions at the lowest possible level and cooperating and organizing together. We believe in a society where "economic" decisions about production and distribution which affect all of us are made democratically rather than left in the hands of a privileged and unelected few. Free of the destructive imperatives of capitalism, we will be able to live in harmony with the environment, use technology to our own advantage rather than our bosses and escape from the threat of war derived by the needs of Capital and State to extend their influence. We will build our own future.

“A future... of people living in community”. What is this obsession with ones neighbors? Why is it that so many anarchist have this conservative fetish for neighborhood block parties and stupid 50's shit like this? “of people in control of their own lives” As I have stated before I think it is control of others lives that you associate with control of your own.

“We believe in a society where "economic" decisions about production and distribution which affect all of us are made democratically rather than left in the hands of a privileged and unelected few.” elected or not this contradicts your statements about direct democracy and point 1 about being free to live. I do not care what my neighbors say I should produce in MY factory or store that I contracted to have constructed that I payed for... it is not a matter of community decision. Again I smell the sort of everything affects open limit upon intervention I spoke of in my previous video. And it stinks. Again there is no understanding of individual right here.

And the closing statement:

Anarchists know that it can work. We gain strength from the examples of anarchist revolutionaries at the forefront of progressive movements throughout history. We learn from the Spanish Civil War where peasants and workers seized control of large areas of Spain and organized them according to anarchist principles. We learn from other existing anarchist organizations and from our own experiences as we attempt to put anarchist theory into practice in our own lives. Anarchy for the New Millennium!

This does not sound like anything new or progressing towards the future, for the new millennium. All of this shit sounds like the same old lie of democracy. The same old desires for control. The same old denial of the man as an individual. The tired old beatings of the average statist democratic socialist. Maybe you should rephrase that last part as “more democracy for the new millennium!”

[Pambas !]

This does not sound like anything new or progressing towards the future, for the new millennium. All of this shit sounds like the same old lie of democracy. The same old desires for control. The same old denial of the man as an individual. The tired old beatings of the average statist democratic socialist. Maybe you should rephrase that last part as “more democracy for the new millennium!”

wrong ! You got the damn thing wrong, its :
Democracy and Socialism for the New Millenium ! One century of Fucking Failure Prove nothing !

[Kyle Bennett]

You're right, but don't expect it to have any effect. "Religion" was your key word, and I make it a point not to bother tying to argue people out of their religions.

[David Something]

I think you meant 'the tired old BLEATINGS of the average statist democratic socialist'.

But otherwise, a good read. I amy not agree point by point, but a good read nonetheless, and a worthwhile refutation of the socialist bullshit.

[Sira86]

If one day we live in a free society these folks can "occupy" some land and use it as their "commons". What will they do when one individual wants to build a little hut or a home? Will the individual own the home? Or if someone wants to tend cattle or plant some crops, We'll see how long people survive in this situation. This anti-propertarianism sounds like a war of all against all, no one owns property and everyone owns property. Sounds like enslavement to me.

[Xaq Fixx]

Good Read... It is sad that the author and her/his supporters so blatantly confuse Direct Democracy, a State political system for Anarchy.

[Pambas !]

Xaq Fixx 57
Good Read... It is sad that the author and her/his supporters so blatantly confuse Direct Democracy, a State political system for Anarchy.

Democracy is the WORST FALLACY available

Its a kind of thinking that because THEY take decisions in GROUP, people will take the RIGHT decision.

I'm not opposed to Jury or deliberations by council, but making it the centre of you whole ideology is an error of great magnitude.

I don't believe in Democracy, If one man is coerced one Billion who want to rape His property rights and his freedom of choice, then the billions loose !

Property and people choice is the best democracy avaible, people vote with their money to decide who better between Eminen and Bethoveen and no one get hurts

[ThorsMitersaw]

I should have proofread

[David Something]

Me too.