A fear of Anarchism?

I don't know anybody who thinks that a revolution tommorow would work, so you're in good company. If you're that terrified of sudden change all it means is you'd be a reformist Anarchist as opposed to a revolutionary.

Er well not really Saii, because revolutionary anarchists don't think that if the state shut up shop tomorrow everything'd be hunky-dory.

We have to build a new society from the bottom-up, starting with strengthening bonds between people in the workplace or community or wherever, and it'll take a long time.

The people of the UK are constantly practicing mutual aid. Caring for family and neighbours, joining a union, trading skills ("yeah, I'll help you fix your car"), baby sitting, caring on a massive scale. There was much more of this before the welfare state: mutual aid schools, hospitals, public baths.

We will have rules but they will be decided by ourselves in assemblies, trades councils or workers' councils. They will be enforced. Anarchists used to call it the militia but I think you sound like a twat when you say that. We won't have prison but other sanctions may be used. The events in Iraq are the effects of capitalism and the state not anarchism, though I see nothing wrong in working class Iraqis seizing the property stolen from them for so long.

Anarchism isn't extreme but is radical. Some people fear anarchism but want change so they join a political party that gives the impression of change but in a nice friendly way (the Green Party, SWP, Liberal Democrats, Old Labour). Once they have power they will use it against people because they are politicians & that is what politicians have always done. Anarchism shouldn't be seen as the violent, loony wing of socialism but as the only wing who don't want any part in our own exploitation.

I disagree with others who have answered your post. I fear this is because there is a split within anarchism between those who are Class War Anarchists and those who are Post-Left Anarchists. This web site can't resolve these two very different idealogies but you should be aware of it if you want to find out more.

it's got nothing to do with being politicians really, it's down to human nature. when it come's down to it, nothing works really as there will always be somebody thinking about their self and what they can gain. greed ( it's a built in fault of the majority (

By removing all positions of power over others it makes it impossible for the greedy to *act* on their greed. Revolutions happen all the time we just have to make sure that when it happens here all politicians have no platform.

So you think 'Greed' isnt a social construct, but its somehow built into our bodies...?

Surely it's a bit of both. Like pretty much every aspect of human behaviour...

There is no such thing as "human nature", abstracted from the social matrix. We have all tendencies within our species' charcter: both altruism and selfishness, compassion and cruelty, the urge to build and the urge to destroy.

The degree to which any of these characteristics is expresed more than it's antagonist is due to conditioning. If your society rewards one form of behaviour whilst punishing another, it seems quite natural to me that one should be expressed more than the other. If I act on my impulse towards mutual aid, and give a homeless guy enough money for a meal, I am materially worse off: i.e. selfishness is rewarded and mutual aid is punished.

To abstract these expressions of humanity from the context in which we view them, and to generalise them into some ephemeral "human nature" is self-serving ideological apology to the extreme.

Boo ya.

Yep.

And to abstract them from their biological context, and to generalise them into "social constructs" is also self-serving ideological apology to the extreme.

Biological and social influences are both important, and it's very dangerous to ignore either.

Garner, that sounded nice, but unfortunately disregarded what I said.

I clearly wrote that:

Which doesn't idealise anything. I later went on to say that the degree to which any of these characteristics is expressed can be conditioned by society, so to claim primacy of any of them is bollocking bollocks designed to justify class society.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, pingtiao.

Just pointing out that there's a biological side to these things as well as the cultural side, and it's important to take both into account. Social conditioning can do a lot, but it does have limits.

Thanks mate.

p.s. want to get married?

I wish I was but I was too slow sorting myself out and it's a bit late now. Think I might be working that weekend. indeed, eh?!