Christian Anarchism

[Crixus]

Having been asked to discuss my beliefs as an anarchist and a Christian, I think it most prudent to begin this topic by first establishing what anarchism is.

Most people think of anarchists as a group of bomb-throwing hooligans who just want to destroy all constructs of order and bring society to a crashing halt. That, however, is not an anarchist, people could easily be forgiven this belief however, because that is what most statists would like them to believe, and thus have furthered the idea that anarchism is wholly for the unintellectual looking to stir-up mischief. Anarchism, however, is very much a tradition of intellectuals, it's rather uncertain how the notion came to be, however most point to Bakunin as the Anarchist parallel to Marx. In the later portions of the 19th century and early 20th century anarchism was wide-spread, even so much as to build international institutions such as the anarchist black cross, an organization to support political prisoners, and the anarchist international. However, anarchists became an easy scapegoat in many instances for those wishing to discredit them, and anytime a bomb was put to ill-use, or any action was seen that might serve to undermine the word of the industrialist bosses a cry of "anarchists!" could be heard, much as communists would be later blamed for any disruption in the divine capitalist order.

It would be far to exhaustive to explain anarchism, here, in its entirety, in brief however it would be easiest to say that anarchism is a belief in community and equality amongst men and the end of hierarchical statism. Anarchy is witnessed everyday between friends, family, and neighbors. When one helps his neighbor it is not because of governmental compulsion, but his own volition. Anarchism is often wrongly portrayed as desiring no rules, which is not what anarchism is about; anarchists understand that a community has potential for bad elements and thus must be policed, but those rules would not be imposed upon the community by some patriarchal overlord or a few oligarchs in a senate building half-way across the world. Anarchism is about the people truly governing themselves.

Christian anarchism is derived from the notion that because man is fallible, and because his laws can often contradict the word of god, no government of man can be right for a Christian. While one king maybe good the next will likely not be. As I interpret the bible there is a clear message to the faithful that they should be beholden to no lord but God. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Matthew 6:24

As I said that many anarchists look to Bakunin as their progenitor he, like Marx, maintained a dogma of atheism, which is why many Christians despise anarchists and communists. However it is his contemporary Tolstoy who many Christian anarchists feel to have been a major influence in their politics. Though never using the term anarchism himself his ideas were certainly parallel, however they were inclusive of God. Many non-Christian anarchists feel his works are of great value to their cause as well. You would probably be surprised to find that the history of anarchism is actually populated with quite a few Christians.

For my part, since I understand my views, I would like to understand why any Christian would be pro-state, since this is a forum for debate, if anyone holds such views I think it would make for an enriching discourse if they would care to post about them.

[otseng]

I'm sceptical about it being realised any time soon, but it could happen some time in the future. The problem is that the government's duties and its service is inflating not decreasing. That is, we're inclining towards communism, not anarchism.

I'm highly sceptical about anarchism ever being realized on this planet on a large scale.

On the other hand, because governments naturally gravitate towards greater beaurocracy, there has to be an opposing force. And I can see anarchism being this opposing force.

If any real motion is going to be seen towards anarchy, then anarchists must make great strides to break through the notion that anarchy is chaos.

This will be quite a challenge in itself. I would dare say that 99% of people who hear the term anarchism would equate it with chaos.

Yet, I am actually optimistic, as I see in my town there are anarchist collectives that do just about everything from carpentry to soccer teams, there's even an anarchist cafe and a few publications, one just resurfacing after some 80 years.

What is an anarchist collective? Is it simply a group of people who believe in anarchism? Or do they actually practice anarchism? If so, how do they practice it?

Because unlike any other form of society, anarchy cannot be imposed by force, it must be born of and maintained by the will of the masses.

If anarchists can get some good PR and paint themselves as a peaceful people with a peaceful agenda, then it would greatly strengthen their cause.

[Crixus]

This will be quite a challenge in itself. I would dare say that 99% of people who hear the term anarchism would equate it with chaos.

Probably a realistic estimate, and that is what makes it such a chore. Because to educate so many people you would likely have to use some form of mass media outlet, and that option is not open at this time.

What is an anarchist collective? Is it simply a group of people who believe in anarchism? Or do they actually practice anarchism? If so, how do they practice it?

A collective is a group of people who work together toward some goal. Anarchist collectives of course believe in anarchism, and they do practice it by treating each other a equals. Often collectives form businesses sometimes referring to themselves as co-ops, but the essence is that each person is taking equal part and receives equal share of profits. There is no authoritarian system within a collective because they all work together toward mutual improvement.

If anarchists can get some good PR and paint themselves as a peaceful people with a peaceful agenda, then it would greatly strengthen their cause.

The difficulty lies in reaching the mainstream minds. Because to do that you must use mainstream methods of reaching them, or something so unorthodox that the mainstream hasn't already monopolized on it. The mainstream outlets however, being owned by businessmen, tend not to be friendly toward anti-authoritarian types and especially the anti-capitalists.

[adherent]

Do you think it would be good if we went back to the system of the 12 tribes of Israel?

[Quarkhead]

Do you think it would be good if we went back to the system of the 12 tribes of Israel?

adherent, you raise an interesting question, but as it is off-topic to this debate, perhaps you could start a new thread. Thank you.

[Crixus]

Do you think it would be good if we went back to the system of the 12 tribes of Israel?

Quarkhead is right this question does stray abit from the course of the debate. It would be an interesting topic to discuss if you would like to start it, but I cannot give a quick answer because I'm not sure that the operations of system are defined well enough to say.

[przemeknowicki]

Joined this forum after a long brake. Rules have changed. I am very interested in adding something to this topic but am a little discouraged with the rule of "not straying from the main topic". Need help how to continue.

Here is what interests me. Starting with the motto "Neither Master nor Slave", which I embrace and support, I have doubts if anarchism really helps in realization of this vision. Would like to share ideas what the better means might be.

[otseng]

Here is what interests me. Starting with the motto "Neither Master nor Slave", which I embrace and support, I have doubts if anarchism really helps in realization of this vision. Would like to share ideas what the better means might be.

Start up another topic for debate. The worst that can happen is it'll get moved to the Random Ramblings subforum. Or, if you have nothing specific to debate, but just want to discuss something, put it directly in Random Ramblings.

However, one problem might be that there won't be any religious element at all to the discussion. If that is the case, then that type of discussion doesn't really belong here in this forum. For purely political debates, I'd recommend America's Debate.

[Crixus]

Here is what interests me. Starting with the motto "Neither Master nor Slave", which I embrace and support, I have doubts if anarchism really helps in realization of this vision. Would like to share ideas what the better means might be.

Although otseng is correct, the primary topic is Christian Anarchism in this thread, I would still like to know what your thoughts on the topic of Anarchism in general are if you would like to begin a thread in Random Ramblings, General Chat or perhaps even the Philosphy forum, as it is generally my opinion that anarchism is a philosophy.

[przemeknowicki]

Well, I will try to continue within this thread. One thing that makes me question Anarchism as a philosophy, whether of the Christian or other flavor is the rejection of the government. This is not to praise any specific government. It is simply a matter of realizing that there is no alternative to the government. Every other option is scary. Be it mafia, communist revolution, warlords, or religious theocracy.
Now specifically for Christians I have another question. What about the private property. Does the Christian anarchism endorse private property or reject it? I know very little about anarchism and want to learn more. I asked those questions without really knowing the answers. However, whatever the answer I would like to point out that the entire morality of the Bible is build around private property as the cornerstone of all ethical judgments. I would find it therefore a little puzzling if not downright contradictory if Christian anarchists would reject the private property. On the other hand any social order based on respect for private property ensures that there will be masters and slaves. of whom an anarchist choose to be neither.
So, what are the answers?

- przemek

[Crixus]

Well, I will try to continue within this thread. One thing that makes me question Anarchism as a philosophy, whether of the Christian or other flavor is the rejection of the government. This is not to praise any specific government. It is simply a matter of realizing that there is no alternative to the government. Every other option is scary. Be it mafia, communist revolution, warlords, or religious theocracy.

Well, first it must be understood what anarchism is intending by the abolition of government. The common misconception is that anarchists desire to tear down all administrating bodies, letting people do as they will with no regulation. In truth, when referring to the abolition of government, anarchism seeks to replace the hierarchy of modern governments with egalitarian forms of administration. So it could be said of anarchy that it is "true democracy", but nothing like what we witness today, if you could even call what exists today democracy.

Now specifically for Christians I have another question. What about the private property. Does the Christian anarchism endorse private property or reject it? I know very little about anarchism and want to learn more. I asked those questions without really knowing the answers. However, whatever the answer I would like to point out that the entire morality of the Bible is build around private property as the cornerstone of all ethical judgments. I would find it therefore a little puzzling if not downright contradictory if Christian anarchists would reject the private property.

Well, Christian Anarchism would, at least in the case of what I am referring to, simply be anarchism as adhered to by a Christian, the method may be different but the goal is the same. So yes, the abolition of property, as it is held today, would be pivotal in the beliefs of an anarchist, Christian or otherwise. The reason behind the anarchist rejection of property is the belief that as you said, it creates masters and slaves. Though it does so in ways which are nigh invisible to most, it's not only the capitalist bosses by which property enslaves, but that the existence of property as it is today necessitates government. If we are to suppose as Madison asserted that, "the primary role of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority", the opulent being those who accumulate property in quantity, and juxtapose that with Proudhon's observation that "property is theft", then the government becomes the protector of the thieves against the majority. Under this premise the abolition of property becomes implicit in the liberation of the majority from all forms of tyranny.

I disagree with you though that property has any endorsement in the bible, I don't know what you mean by property being "the cornerstone of all ethical judgments", but as I read the bible, property often plays the part of the tempter, and those who seek it receive not reward but judgment. Consider that when a rich ruler came to Christ seeking entry into heaven in Matthew 19, He said to the rich man, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me". Being so enamoured by property the rich man left disappointed, prompting Christ to say, "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven". My interpretation of this was that property is a distraction from those things truly important. Christ says to be perfect we must forsake our property and follow him, which I feel is a compelling rebuke of property. However it seems that you hold a contrary view of the bible's message and I would be interested in hearing that.