I've been wondering if anarchists have ever attempted to form alliancse with each other. That is, I don't see any reason why communists and anarcho-capitalists couldn't work together to form an unbeatable team. I'm not saying that they join together and forget their principles. I think they could potentially work together and find middle ground and work together to form political parties and make many of their actions in place, and, eliminate as much government as they could.
In reality one should not expect to totally eliminate government (which is my position) completely unless everyone agrees to it... but if anarchists are really that committed to their cause wouldn't they think that it would be a better idea to work together and perhaps create an egalitarian society where anarcho-capitalist principles and communist principles and anarcho syndicalist principles woul coexist? It could lead to their vision of society (while not an exact replica, combining all of the views could produce something else).
I'm not an anarchist here... but I just thought I'd pose the question. Anarchists continue to rant and rave about the political system. They always rant and rave against political parties. My question here is why don't they take that anger and combine it and form an anarchist coallition? Most anarchists believe that people are rational... so they aren't that irrational to not work together with each other right? I mean, isn't it somewhat hypocritical for anarchists to always be at odds with each other when they are constantly complaining about people in political parties always being at odds with each other?
Just something that occured to me today... I would also like to know if something like this has been attempted before.
I think it's safe to say that Anarcho-Capitalists would rather see what we have today than the communists to take over.
The simple fact is that the way that communists want to achieve anarchy (as far as I know) is through total state control to the point where the marginal state disapears and the state can no longer be said to exsist because of how brainwashed everyone is. The ideologies are totally incompatable in that sense BUT, communists could join the capitalists in order to, once the state is gone, attempt to form communes and mutalist communities.
The communists would be much more likley to join with the capitalists because thier ideology is at least possible in a capitalist society but the same is not true when the equation is turned around. The problem with this is that communists have bullshit ethics and egos that are the size of planets.
An anarchist alliance makes no sense. Anarchy isn't a plan, a program or an institution. It is only a state of things.
If you want to start a movement, you have to propose something tangible.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The cause of most anarchists isn't anarchy for the sake of anarchy, so forming an alliance with polar individuals would prove to be fruitless (and a headache). But there was the MLL and its heir ALL, who collaborate with various forms of libertarians.
Also, as a good voluntaryist, I would have no part in any political party.
Angurse:Also, as a good voluntaryist, I would have no part in any political party.
Hear, hear. Trying to dismantle the state through its own institutions only lends it legitimacy.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
A while back I was checking out the wikipedia entry on anarchy, and there is indeed a group called "Anarchists without Adjectives" that seeks to get all anarchists to work together.
Theoretically, as has been mentioned, syndicalists or anarcho-communists would be free to live as they desire under an anarcho-capitalist framework, but they wouldn't be willing to do so. It seems they view free exchange itself as being evil.
SilentXtarian:In reality one should not expect to totally eliminate government (which is my position) completely unless everyone agrees to it
I think if even 1% of people stopped complying the government would fall (I know he doesn't believe in copyright, but I'll still say I saw that in spideynw's sig first I think, and happened to agree). Of course, we wouldn't necessarily be able to create (or let occur) a free society, but we could certainly create some kind of zone for us to not be interfered with.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Yeah. We all know that old libertarians, the many different forms of anarchists and communists can't agree on much of anything.What I'm planning on doing is starting a group to debate the mainstream political organization on campus on particular issues.Our common ground is that the state abuses its power. We haven't worked out specific resolutions but rather than debate a plan of action (where we will surely conflict), we'd just establish that the state does not have our support on whatever issue.This allows clash with the mainstreamers since they support the state. What we anti-establishment folks have in common is we believe the system is run FUBU by elites who perpetuate global poverty and war.
Snowflake:This allows clash with the mainstreamers since they support the state.
yes, but when the statists retort," but these anarchists are idiot socialists", your 'side' will be in the unenviable position of having to concede, "we'll half of us are..."
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: yes, but when the statists retort," but these anarchists are idiot socialists", your 'side' will be in the unenviable position of having to concede, "we'll half of us are..."
Haaah its a big school. University of Tehas at Austin. I don't think anyone knows who we are. We'll call ourselves something anti-NWO-y as opposed to anything related to political ideologies. If they ask us what we believe we'll say that government shouldn't oppress and kill innocent people :P In this way we are a moral organization as opposed to political. Or at least we'll try to pitch it like that. But you're right, they will try to brand us as radicals, and we are. But we're approaching it very CX-y, in that for everything we say we'll have evidence bins from unbiased sources to back it up. I don't think we can convince many people, but we're hoping to catch them in some awkward positions where they'll at least have to admit in the back of their heads that they're a bunch of doublethinking immoral privileged sheltered political whores.
In my experience, most leftwing anarchists don't consider ancaps to be "true" anarchists.
They do seem to be a bit friendlier to "individualist anarchists" which I assume are Tuckerites. Not sure why one would be fine with IA and not AC. Maybe it's just the name.
SilentXtarian: Just something that occured to me today... I would also like to know if something like this has been attempted before.
I would be very careful with assuming they have the same goals.
Anarcho-Communism versus Anarcho-Capitalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmR-rQZ4qF4