Are you an anarchist? | Page 2 | Vital Football

Are you an anarchist?

Exactly, jokerman!

markinkent - what on earth makes you think I'm advocating a world without rules? You're right, it would be bollox!

It might seem that because the word anarchy is so often used to mean chaos and disorder it follows that anarchists want to live in a world where there are no rules and no laws; a place where because people can do as they please - and as such it's plainly obvious that violence would ensue and only the toughest would survive!

But this is so far from our ideas it's tragically absurd. Anarchists have been seriously misrepresented (and I have thoughts on why that is so too, but I'll save them for now!). Anarchists' aim is to create a society where individuals freely co-operate with each other as equals. Anarchists don't think that there shouldn't be rules, they believe that hierarchical forms of power or control are harmful, unnecessary and should be destroyed.

You say yourself that:

"We instinctively know right from wrong and don't need to be told but there are many rules that we do follow becuase they make sense."

I completely agree. And so it follows that we can be trusted to behave decently, to work together, co-operate, and offer mutual aid and mutual support. It's not about there being no rules,it's about people being free. Free from hierarchical control. Free to organise and co-operate for our own benefit rather than others'. We don't need to be controlled; whether it be by a government, or a boss, or a landlord, or a policeman or a banker.

The vast majority of people are good, decent people. So often there are perfect examples of people putting anarchy into action without even knowing it or considering it as such. Think about how when there is some kind of a disaster people start helping each other and self-organising. Those people are just acting instinctively but this instinctive behaviour is what anarchism is all about.

I believe that most of us are, at least a bit, instinctively anarchist. Some people don't even realise they are. Others have properly thought about it and have, quite reasonably enough, rejected anarchism as a political philosophy. We don't like being told what to do and we, quite rightly, believe we can think for ourselves. I think the stupid quiz might show this a bit - yes, I know it's pretty shoite and the questions are loaded, etc. etc, but nobody has so far scored 0% anarchist....
 
Last edited:
A society where individuals freely co-operate with each other as equals is a decent and praiseworthy aspiration. Unfortunately, greed and selfishness abound and until such time as those characteristics are sufficiently diluted that fine aspiration will remain just that, an aspiration. We (currently) need rules to counter the greedy and selfish.
 
I completely agree that greed and selfishness are negative human characteristics. I think that the way society is currently organised (i.e. hierarchically and capitalist) means that these negative aspects are emphasised because we are set against one another and profit is king. There are a few winners but many more losers, and greed and selfishness abound.

But there are other human characteristics too, aside from greed and selfishness; positive characteristics such as compassion, generosity and altruism. I believe that when people live freely as equals, work together for each other, and make their own rules, these human traits are far more evident than those that are more prevalent when people are controlled and competing against each other.
 
To be fair Buddaha most definitions of anarchy that I have read generalize around there being no rules or rulers. On the survey it says "The term "ruler" implies those with that title have the right to force you to obey their orders or laws, regardless of what you may think."

I don't think that you are advocating anarchy as much as being a decent human being who looks out for people other than yourself. Doing the right thing not because you have to but because its right. Living an ethical life style maybe more apt ?

Problem is Humans are flawed, we are programmed to do whats right for us and not the for the greater good. Greed seems to be something that is in our DNA. People have thousands in the bank but won't buy a homeless person a meal. There are ten of thousands of homes standing empty (while the funds who own them wait to cash in on price rises) yet we have people living on the streets.

I remember watching Utopia many years ago and the longer it went on the more I found myself agreeing with the idea behind it !

You might get away with no rulers and everyone being equal in closed societies or communes where everyone is like minded.

Rulers are necessary in the wider society though otherwise nothing gets done - Brexit being a prime case.

Good luck with your aims but I am starting to see you as a person who wants to lead an ethical life rather than as an anarchist. That is a complement to avoid confusion :-)
 
Thanks for your reply, markinkent, it's full of kind words and gives the impression that you kind of agree with the aims and objectives of anarchism; you just don't equate those ideals with what you have been taught to believe an 'anarchist' represents. I reckon this is probably because the definitions of anarchy that you have heard or read before have come not from anarchists but from those who, for one reason or another, have a vested interest in not only opposing anarchism but actively discrediting anarchists.

First of all you say that you think anarchy is about having no rules or rulers. I've already explained how it doesn't equate to, 'no rules', but it does definitely equate to, 'no rulers', and also to, no rules being imposed upon others by a 'ruler'. Anarchists believe that all forms of hierarchical control should be abolished. This includes all forms of government, all forms of organised religion, and any form of political/economical system that imposes control from the top down (capitalism, communism, fascism, etc, etc.). In that sense we most definitely believe in, 'no rules' and 'no rulers'. In short, 'No Gods, No Masters'. It's only those who either don't understand us, or those who oppose us, who distort our message and make it sound unappealing.

Once that problem has become overcome, and one properly understands what anarchism is about, the next problem arises. Ok, you might say, so your ideals, aims and objectives are both decent and appealing, but are they realistic? Surely, although it sounds very nice in theory, it couldn't work in practice? I can understand people coming to this (false) conclusion because, on the face of it, people, as you say, are flawed. There is too much individual greed and self-interest for this idea to ever work. Or so they might say.

But as I said in my previous post, humans may be greedy and selfish but this is not all that they are. Humans are also compassionate, generous and altruistic. Yes, some people have thousands in the bank but wont buy a homeless person a meal, yet there countless others who have very little but still help homeless people whenever they can. I know this to be true and have first-hand experience of it because for several years I sold the Big Issue.

The same is true about what you say about thousands of properties standing empty whilst people are sleeping on the streets. Actually, this issue is very, very close to my heart. It makes me angry. And that is why I am (and have been for all my adult life) a squatter. Squatters take direct action and use the empty properties or unused land to make their own homes. Some anarchists use empty properties to provide shelter not just for themselves but for other homeless people too. I just typed these four words into Google - 'anarchist, squatters, homeless, shelter' - and this is the first result:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...chs-empty-london-property-as-homeless-shelter

You say:
"You might get away with no rulers and everyone being equal in closed societies or communes where everyone is like minded. "

I say, why limit it to closed societies or communes? I live in what you might describe as a 'closed society or community' (I wouldn't describe it as such but understand if others do) but I can tell you now that although in some respects we might be like-minded there are still very many disagreements of opinion. Each of us are, after all, individuals with our own opinions on what is important.

For instance, I consider Gillingham FC to be very fcking important, and think it's important for a community to have a football club. Most of my anarchist mates realise this is important to me but aren't interested in football in the slightest and consider it to be something associated with obscene amounts of money and right-wing meatheads. And they have some justification in thinking that - the television deals and multi-million pounds are undeniable. So too is the fact that the right-wing have often tried, and have had some success, at recruiting football supporters to their cause.

We all know that football is not just about money but most of us would agree that the money aspect is a bit obscene and that at the very least, the money isn't being shared fairly. This is why we moan that clubs outside the elite have no real chance anymore, why 30 or 40 year ago clubs like Watford and Wimbledon could rise through the divisions in a way that is impossible to imagine now. We also know that not all football supporters are right-wing meatheads. But we all know that they do exist. It is therefore understandable that people who don't really know about football get the wrong impression. Similar, I suppose, to what we're talking about in relation to anarchism.

I believe that despite all the differences of opinions people can still work together to achieve better results for all if the associations between people are based upon equality and freedom rather than hierarchy and control. Indeed, the differences between us are to be celebrated; we are all individuals with our own beliefs and our own priorities. This is why anarchists reject Communism/Socialism; it is just another system that imposes control from above. People are treated equally but there is no individual freedom. One of my favourite quotes is from the great Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. (You might not have heard of him but I bet you have heard of Karl Marx - maybe do some research on their relationship!). Anyway, the quote is this:

"Freedom without Socialism results in privilege and injustice. Socialism without Freedom results in brutality and slavery"

Us anarchists, we advocate a society that has both freedom and socialism. That society is the one we aspire to. If you're uneasy with the term, 'anarchist', think of what we're proposing as 'libertarian communism'. We believe that people are equal and should be free from control from above. If things were organised along horizontal rather than vertical structures people would be treated equally and would be free from control. Of course, there would still be a vast array of differences between people, and of course there would still be rules. It's just that the differences would be celebrated and the rules would be agreed upon rather than imposed upon.

Ok, that's quite enough now. Sorry if I have gone on.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately you need decision makers in life. Not dictators but leaders people who can take a group forward ideally collectively as you aspire but sometimes when the grouo can't agree someone has to take charge. Sometimes people need to make a decision and that needs someone to step up and say we are going to do this. Otherwise we don't progress.

There have to be rules in life and if there are going to be rules there has to be rulers to enforce this.

In our society we have a bit of a flawed democracy but in general if we don't like the government we get to boot them out after five years. Our system is a bit flawed but it should in theory make sure that decisions are made and implemented. Without them our society would be a bit more shit than it is now. There is plenty that is bad about it i.e. homelessness - we can agree that it is is a disgrace that we have people sleeping on the streets in a country as rich as ours.

Let me give you an example. The rule is people have to pay NI / Income tax when a certain level of income is reached. Lots of people don't agree with that. Without it we'd have no NHS, we'd have no doctors, surgeons and other medical professional who while we are having this little debate are making decisions based on rules that are saving lives. The rulers are the government who decide to spend that tax money including giving some of it to the NHS. Plenty will say (and I can't wait to see the back of this government) that they are making a hash of it. Perhaps so, but without the rules and the rulers the NHS wouldn't exist. Unless you are fortunate enough to know a medical professional who has access to the drugs and equipment needed then you'd probably be proper screwed without it at some point in your life.

The lifestyle freedom you aspire to is fantastic ( I really like the film the beach - although they had rules and rulers I think) until you realize that someone in your group doesn't have the skills or knowledge you need to survive. Then anarchist or not you come back to society and the help it provides- ever visited a doctor, hospital or pharmacy ? That help is there because some of us lived by the rules e.g. paid the tax society needed to function.

Everyone can choose their path and I would love to see a step change in our democracy but we still need the decision makers in life. We'd still be arguing at work which pub to go to last Friday otherwise - I decided in the end :-) - Proper little ruler sometimes :-)
 
Buddha, how would the football industry work in an anarchist utopia? Would there be managers / referees? Would we even play or watch football? Would it be free to get in? Would I finally get to make my Gills debut?
 
I dunno, nibbles. The people would decide.

I tend not to spend too much time thinking about an anarchist utopia.

Mates of mine who don't really understand my obsession with GFC say they'd understand it a little more if the Gills' players all came from the local area. I get where they're coming from,don't you? I tell them that originally it was like that. Then I start banging on about the great Glasgow Celtic side who became the first British club to win the European Cup, and how they did it with a team comprised of players all from Glasgow.

I take it from your comments that you're not expecting to turn out for the Gills any time soon. Why is that, are you too old or too shoite? Or both?! Perhaps you should consider AFLP's idea and be a mascot? YOu wouldn't get to play but you would get the chance to lead the team out onto the pitch, and we could all cheer you on. Imagine the scene, the entire RE chanting, 'Ni-balls, Ni-balls, Ni-balls'....
 
The list of players older than me to have played for us grows smaller by the day. In recent memory Hess and Claridge provide hope that it might still happen. I am shoite though, probably worse than McGammon.

The ‘ni-balls’ chant is more likely to happen due to an extraordinary half time buffet rather than anything I’ll ever do on the pitch unfortunately.
 
I thought you’d not only played in a Gills shirt at Priestfield Nibbles, but had scored a brace as well? Or am I getting confused?
 
My work computer won't let me be an anarchist :-(
Is it a quiz about the Sex Pistols? Seen them a couple of times, so does that make me an archaist or the antichrist?
Depends whether you like a holiday in the sun
 
Ultimately you need decision makers in life. Not dictators but leaders people who can take a group forward ideally collectively as you aspire but sometimes when the grouo can't agree someone has to take charge. Sometimes people need to make a decision and that needs someone to step up and say we are going to do this. Otherwise we don't progress.

There have to be rules in life and if there are going to be rules there has to be rulers to enforce this.

In our society we have a bit of a flawed democracy but in general if we don't like the government we get to boot them out after five years. Our system is a bit flawed but it should in theory make sure that decisions are made and implemented. Without them our society would be a bit more shit than it is now. There is plenty that is bad about it i.e. homelessness - we can agree that it is is a disgrace that we have people sleeping on the streets in a country as rich as ours.

Let me give you an example. The rule is people have to pay NI / Income tax when a certain level of income is reached. Lots of people don't agree with that. Without it we'd have no NHS, we'd have no doctors, surgeons and other medical professional who while we are having this little debate are making decisions based on rules that are saving lives. The rulers are the government who decide to spend that tax money including giving some of it to the NHS. Plenty will say (and I can't wait to see the back of this government) that they are making a hash of it. Perhaps so, but without the rules and the rulers the NHS wouldn't exist. Unless you are fortunate enough to know a medical professional who has access to the drugs and equipment needed then you'd probably be proper screwed without it at some point in your life.

The lifestyle freedom you aspire to is fantastic ( I really like the film the beach - although they had rules and rulers I think) until you realize that someone in your group doesn't have the skills or knowledge you need to survive. Then anarchist or not you come back to society and the help it provides- ever visited a doctor, hospital or pharmacy ? That help is there because some of us lived by the rules e.g. paid the tax society needed to function.

Everyone can choose their path and I would love to see a step change in our democracy but we still need the decision makers in life. We'd still be arguing at work which pub to go to last Friday otherwise - I decided in the end :-) - Proper little ruler sometimes :-)

Some people are natural leaders but the best ones are the ones who don't want to lead but are urged to by the group. Having leaders, and having rules, doesn't mean you have to have rulers.

The NHS is a wonderful thing. It was introduced by a socialist government. I don't understand why it, or something similar (better even) wouldn't exist in an a society organised without hierarchy. The NHS doesn't need hierarchy. In fact it could well be argued that it is because of the hierarchical and centralised structure that it is so inefficient. Do you think that if we organised society differently there would suddenly be no doctors and no medical knowledge?!

If you think that some shitty film (which incidentally was responsible for completely fcking up an actual beach in Thailand) is comparable to what I'm talking about, you're way off the mark.
 
If you think that some shitty film (which incidentally was responsible for completely fcking up an actual beach in Thailand) i.

They probably should have some rules to limit the number of tourist boats that were allowed each day rather than the, shall we say, anarchy of everyone trying get as many tourists there as possible.

Come on you walked into that one :-)

I guess a comprimise of somewhere between our two views would be the best outcome :-)