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
You have to see this with a realistic point of view. Not so many people have the right morals to do good. I could see the downside on this, and I could see it leading to some more problems. What are your thoughts?

edited for tags
edited by
I think a lot of folks here reject morality as a whole, and from that, they can't say what the 'right way to go' is for anyone but themselves, because to do so would be moralistic.

1 Answer

+5 votes
I personally dont see anarchy as having anything to do with morals/morality, or creating a new code of behavior for everyone to follow.  If anarchy is to mean freedom, it must in some way embrace chaos and accounting for uncontrollability.  My anarchy is not a new way of ordering life according to a new set of correct guidelines.  I think part of being an anarchist is accepting the fact that freedom permits lots of "bad" things to happen, as well as all those that we enjoy.  I dont mean this to sound like a "this is the price of freedom" speech, but more to say that if we are serious about not being the new managers of life, we have to accept that things we dont like are going to happen and continue to happen as long as we live in the world and with other people.  There is no pacifist utopia where all desires are provided for immediately and without recompense/consequences, and that idea is not appealing to me anyway.  Affirming anarchy is affirming the opening up of possibilities, while still coming in conflict with the things you dont like in the world (authority, domination, etc.), but not from the position of wishing to order the world.

The utopic pacifist future of no conflict or struggle is the nightmare of civilized delusion.  It manifests from a desire to re-make the world according to ideology, casting out old ideology and reeling in the new shiny future, it is an out-and-out progressivist view.  Interesting anarchies to me are ones that wish to undermine this desire to mold the world and meticulously plan and manage the details of such a vision, and that instead leave a void or nothingness, but of a particular kind, not one that implies no material (people, animals, plants, etc.) exists within it, but one in which compulsory value forms are absent, as well as all the abstractions and reifications that govern the current world.

I hope this doesnt make me sound like an asshole, and its not my intention to shut you down, but I think that there is an assumption that all anarchists are driven by the same basic desires, and i think that this is totally untrue, and i wish to make it clear that there is a qualitatively different impetus.
by (2.3k points)
edited by
jingles, thanks- that was a good read. What do you mean by 'value forms'?
Value forms to me are kind of like morals, except they dont necessarily desribe right and wrong, but describe that implied or 'a priori' value people should see in different concepts, actions, things, people, etc.  One example for me could that I think is prevalent amongst anarchists is the social vs. anti-social question.  The social anarchists come to the table with the idea that being "social" (and i have a whole load of critiques as to what their 'being social' means) automatically has value and is "good"  (moral or non-moral good).  The "anti-social" challenge to this is that it needs to be shown why automatically orienting oneself towards and engaging with society is important, the challenge rejects the assertion of the 'a priori' values of the position.  I guess you could say they are cultural systems that instruct you as to how you should value different aspects of the world and attempt to create a fundamental, unquestionable base of value, from which proceeds the conversation about how to do things given these values.