I’ve never understood “anarchists.” What is their goal?
They can’t really want the breakdown of society, ‘cause none of them are suited to be anything more than parasites.
OPINION:
Generally speaking they are about chaos, terrorism, breaking things, hurting people... anarchists are about destroying and terrorism.
I've encountered a handful of anarchists when we were FReeping anti-war marches back in '03.
The impression I got as to what their goals are, since they tend to be mostly clueless individuals, was...
"I'm an anarchist because it makes me cool and so unique and rebellious and now all those people who laughed at me in school will be sooooo jealous of how cool I am."
Had an occasion to discuss the future with a self-proclaimed anarchist at a party. Knowing his leanings before hand (how could I not, he practically shouted them from the rooftops every chance he could) I waxed poetic about MY visions of an anarchic future which was something taken straight from all of the Mad Max films I'd seen. I ended my reverie with, "but all I know is, I'll finally get to kill people..."
The look on Anarchy boy's face was priceless. He said, "But that's not what's supposed to happen in Anarchy -- no one will be mean to each other..." he looked as if someone had just strangled his puppy. "That shouldn't happen in my anarchy."
I smiled, "It's what will happen in MY anarchy."
Honestly, I think a lot of these folks have this warm, fuzzy idea of just not having to follow rules. That we'll all share our raisins and our weed and it will be like some big Dead show. We'd all be happy and free if we just didn't have to follow those mean, nasty rules... or something. At least that's what my Anarchist thought, and he could have been just particularly stupid.
He's now married, the father of a beautiful toddler and an adjunct professor at some small college in Boston -- and I don't think he's so much of an anarchist these days.
Some think that social order is just a cultural artifact, and that absent the "cultural accident" that initiated societies, humans would wander in mating pairs plus young offspring. Don't ask me what these people want. Ignorant.
Some skip the thinking part and just want to sh*t on the floor. These people just want to break things, and most are either deranged or like to pretend to be. Some of these people may be drawn to criminality for a variety of reasons, but ultimately will blame their actions upon some ulterior lofty notions. Insane.
There is the anarcho-primitivist model, where rape and murder are approved social processes (or, at best ascribe something akin to 'street justice' to deal with any set of infractions against any set of rules that any individual respects), private property does not exist (beyond what one can defend), etc. Sometimes this model is intertwined with ecological arguments, arguments about the carrying capacity of habitats, and so on. Some put these flavors as distinct groups. Amoral, naive.
There is the anarcho-libertarian model, replete with all sorts of rosy assumptions about the good nature of man. These people generally start from a deeply flawed set of axioms and derive a perfectly logical theory of society.
Some think that "spontaneous order" will naturally form between humans as groups are formed and specialization is sought, and that our political impulses should be directed at minimizing the size and scope of these group interactions (involuntary especially, but some go as far as to dislike voluntary collaborations on large scales, for a variety of reasons). For some, one goal would be to suppress the formation of social groups beyond tribes (several hundred people). Idealistic.
The notion that the government is not the only entity capable of tyranny somehow escapes most in this set; though there is a sub-group of the above which accepts some limited government ("the night watchman state"), so are more aptly grouped together with the sane 'minarchists' but insist on clinging to the "anarchist" label. It is either semantics or I am not understanding something about their philosophy. Semantically confused.
I think the most common is the "angry rebel" model, which splits into two subgroups.
The first is composed of wealthy, bitter, guilt-ridden folks (mostly white youths, at least in the West) who want to establish that they are not personally responsible for some set of social ills - to absolve themselves of the 'crimes' of "their class". They blame the plight of the poor on their own wealth (a sort of zero-sum, self-flagellating fiction) and view the status quo (in its entirety) as something to blindly disrespect - sort of an anti-traditionalism more than being pro-anything. Targets of their ire are corporations, any authority figures, accumulated wealth in any form, private property, etc. Ecological themes are now commonly blended in, Marxism may or may not enter - this movement is distinctly NOT intellectual. The goal is to feel less guilty for their material wealth and privileged upbringing. Violence is not likely. Spoiled, immature.
Type-II anarchist rebels are either extremely poor or find themselves in some other unfavorable circumstances, and are uncommon (but not absent) in America (some in America like to envision themselves as being part of this group, but are most likely part of type-I). They blame their own plight on the prosperity of others, saying that they somehow must have been "exploited" for others to have benefited. These are the savages/ignorant masses used to bolster the ranks (and do the dirty work) of the Marxist intellectuals, and beyond all groups but the insane, are the most likely to resort to violence. Their goals are redistribution of wealth and the application of a penalty to the "exploiters" and/or "colonialists" - a Marxism without the philosophical underpinnings. Evil.
In summary, anarchists range from insane to evil to stupid to merely being confused about what to call themselves.
One of the great oxymorons of our time - an anarchist association...
They are against government protection of the private property of anybody whose wealth they want to take. They consider themselves the vanguard of the communist revolution. They aren't really against government -- they are against liberty.
“They can’t really want the breakdown of society, ‘cause none of them are suited to be anything more than parasites.”
They want to die but are too cowardly to kill themselves.
“I’ve never understood “anarchists.” What is their goal? They can’t really want the breakdown of society, ‘cause none of them are suited to be anything more than parasites.”
I’ve never really understood why so many anarchists show up at left wing events. I thought the basic tenant of anarchy is a complete total lack of government authority - sort of like libertarianism gone wild.
But then again, a lot of my libertarian friends vote Democrat, too.
...go figure.
the anarchists’ goals are:
1) not have to shower
2) unrelenting sex with anything and everyone
3) free tattoos
4) free drugs
5) no dress shirts or ties
6) free cable
7) better youtube posting skills
8) freedom to kill their parents
All in the name of personal choice to destroy oneself in a mindless manner, because,...well, they are disturbed.
I'm not sure, but I'll ask at our next United Anarchists meeting. That is, when we do have one. We just can't seem to ever get organized enough to decide on a time and place. /S
It depends. For instance, French and anarchist might be a redundancy of language.
I once were on a train in Germany and anarchists were descending to Berlin to protest Bush’s visit. All German anarchists had a train ticket and were quiet, aside from their bright shirts and funky hair dos.
Then there were 4 french guys, working at a bank with suit and ties, there, chatting around, and going to Berlin for business. They all got fined for having no tickets and protested loudly and rudely ...
Aside from that, anarchists have a love hate relation with tyranny. They mostly involve themselves in gratuitous acts, all supporting terrorism to various degrees, but they all also look for government handouts, gratuity and “free orders” of combat, if that makes any sense. It only has to feel gratuitous in their mind and they love it. A cop behaving badly is an act of anarchists to them and they will vet it if the cop uses his powers for rioting.
It basicaly a form of self-isolating fashion communist.
Yes, all of it, all institutions.
Few of these people ever bother looking ahead. I remember the Seattle riots years ago, and when they interviewed some of the perps, I laughed when I saw them wearing retail clothing instead of animal skins. Anarchists are usually fringe individuals who destroy stuff in big temper tantrums because the politics does not give them their way.