Not sure how you can manage to shave a synchretic of the two when they are diametrically opposed each to the other.

c'mon Witch, that 's a little simplistic.  First of all, anarchists have traditionally taken their support from the conservative and a few befuddled liberals.  Secondly, in order for anarchism to work, the reality is that, at present the only economic system to support them is corporatism.  Corporatism can only maintain it's position through the use of arms, so it is that anarchism and fascism become bedfellows,  arguably uncomfortably, but no one else can co-exist with anarchist in the socio-economic structure. 

Point out to me in history where this has not been the case.

Anarchism, like Christianity, makes present its polar opposite simply by its appearing in history. Anarchists who seek the subordination of all alternative cross a frontier. What they provoke in fact stands contrary to what they maintain in principle.  These we may well call fascist. We cannot judge anarchists by the rhetoric or deportment of fascists.

While being an anarchist, I have no loyalties or commitments to anarchism. Taking on such loyalties and commitments would, as Witch has it, fatally compromise my anarchy.

We are now experiencing the emergence of a shadow realm noticed and articulated by the likes of Jung. Our repressions have gathered force and form. They rise in many guises to accomplish a singular end... consummation of the neurotic drive towards destruction; hubris.

Fine, Geofee but you skirt the issue.  Anarchism has been proven to be at least, inaccurate, if it can only act as a subordinate to any form of political venue.  And, it seems it is only truely supported by totalitarian governments and coporate economy.

In fact, no form of social-economy, democratic method  or egalitarianism can co-exist with anarchy, so what is your point?  You will always be tossed from feudalism to military gov't.

How do you substantiate this statement? How has it been proven and by whom has it been proven. It seems to me that radically free persons, who consider law an inadequate defense against chaos, because law is so easily co-opted by power as vested interest, have existed and even flourished under all forms of government.

I know of two historic personalities who could be considered anarchist. These are Socrates and Jesus. There may be more but these two will suffice as example. Each lived out of reasons incomprehensible to keepers and protectors of law. Each of these was silenced by appeal to law. If we consider these two apart from the structures raised on the foundations of their reputations and in their names, we may discover that anarchists are capable of exerting a modifying and corrective influence on the outcomes of government; whether aristocratic, oligarchic, tyrannical or democratic.

That said, let me reiterate... I have no interest in explaining, defending or justifying anarchism. I simply declare myself to be a political anarchist. What I mean by that can only be expressed in how I act in the light of my own insight.

So GeoFee, if I understand you correctly, you adopt anarchism as a way of life, rather than as a political programme?

I see no contradiction there.  Assuming that a personal way of life must be attached to a political programme simple because the two share a name is a common mistake, imo.

geofee.   Interesting ideas but idea do not exist without political realities, not really. 

and jesus was a socialist jew never ever an anarchist

Do you notice the difference between these two phrases? I suggest that Jesus could be considered anarchist. You state that Jesus was a socialist Jew. How are you able to make such a definitive statement? Anarchy may be literally translated 'without law' or 'outside the law'. This outsider relationship with the law at the very least admits the suggestion of an anarchist position. Still, you say Jesus was "never ever an anarchist". Is it possible that you misunderstand anarchy?

There is no doubt that, as an anarchist, I suffer the abuses of the law as well as enjoy its protections. This does not mean I give it any credence or allegiance. I am, in a manner of speaking, dead to the law. As such a one I bring into expression strong political implications. By resort to poetics, dramatics and other creative means I call into question status quo. This provokes or intrigues and others are called to realign political associations and commitments. An example would be available in my refusal of current political practice as democratic in any sense of the word. At best, we have a cult of personality established by proficiency in rhetoric and funded by capital interest. Even a basic reading of Plato will support this perspective.

There is a presence at the heart of my being in the world. Responsive to that presence I am led forward along the way of life. My action is predicated on the affirmation or negation given in the influence of that presence. It is deep internal and not at all external. It is this priority of the internal direction that sets me in a position of indifference specific to the law. Let me be clear... I am not a law breaker or a law keeper. I am an actor motivated by a presence prior to and apart from the law.

I think that is the point.... or rather the point is not that no form of social-economy, democratic method  or egalitarianism can co-exist with anarchy, but that anarchy cannot exist without almost instantly becoming something else.

Unfortunately the experience of history, and my experience as a peacekeeper, shows that anarchy usually only lasts for a matter of days, and is usually replaced by dictatorship.

In any situation where anarchy appears, the strong will immediately take control and subjugate the weak. This is most often a bad thing, and it is why real anarchy cannot exist in human society. Anarchy isn't a political system, it's a vacuum, and like any vacuum it will be immediately filled with the easiest.

The "anarchy" you see touted in protest marches isn't anarchy at all. It's nothing more than youthful rebellion against authority under the delusion of power. It's all the more sad when you see the anarchists buying bus tickets on public transit to get to the protest. People who promote anarchy as a political solution usually don't know much about politics, history, or human nature.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ”) (Matthew 22:21)

I am not sure what you intend by introducing this text. It does make clear that there are two realms in view. The one, which is governed by Caesar, is the realm of law. That is how Caesar maintains the social order which brings benefits to Caesar and those who serve the interests of Caesar. That social order has within its bounds persons who are loyal to God as the priority of their inclination and determination. I take it that the realm of God is prior to the realm of Caesar in all regards. Further, I take it that the realm of God is animated and governed by a principle prior to and binding on the realm of Caesar; Caesar is responsible before God.

Caesar's realm is autocratic and tyrannical with strong implications for those who hold fast to those things that belong to God. We see this in the crucifixion and throughout the professions and actions of those who hold fast to the way of God, thereby contradicting the absolute claims of Caesar. The same will hold with any form of government. It exists and must be accommodated. We will not want to forget that any form of government is provisional and limited; that is, accountable to the presence of God's realm as the final court of appeal.

It shows that Jesus was not an anarchist.

By advocating the "right" of both political and religious governances to colect their "due", Jesus is advocating a stance opposite that of anarchism.

It may imply or suggest that Jesus was not an anarchist. I cannot see how it shows that to be the case. The exact opposite position could also be entertained and elaborated. If Caesar signifies the rule of law, may we not take it that Christ shows us the rule of spirit, under the law but not of the law. Indeed, Christ is refused by the Law of both Rome and Jerusalem. He is considered an outlaw - one outside the jurisdiction of law by free choice. He pays a fairly heavy price for that free choice. This even though, animated by a voice only he heard, Jesus did nothing to contradict hope for personal and corporate well being. Indeed, some take it that by inviting persons to exit the realm of law to enter the realm of spirit, Jesus ultimately serves and makes possible hope for personal and corporate well being.  Further, some of us take it that there is a day in which the realm of Caesar will be finally and fully eclipsed by the realm of God to reveal a new creation ordered by the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit, by which any expectation or anticipation attributed to law is satisfied without constraint or coercion.

An interesting book by Nikolai Berdyaev, "The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar", offers some background for my thinking here.

Anarchism is not just being ouside the law, Ceasar was outside the law when he seized power from the Roman republic, but I doubt you could argue he was an anarchist.

Anarchy is a political philosophy which considers government (or "law") in any form to be a bad thing, ie coercive and undesireable.

Anarchist thought holds that Governments do not have the right to extract your money or resources, that government does not have it's "due". Anarchism holds that taxation is evil and coercive by it's very nature, and that government controlled money, as a mechanism of taxation, is also evil.

Jesus, by acknowledging that Ceasar has a due, and by further directing that people give Ceasar his due, is expressing a position that is diametrically opposed to anarchism.

The supposed coming "Kindom of God"  is also not anarchist, by nature of being a Kingdom. Unless you believe that we will be God's equal there, whether dissent is quashed by coercion, or simply removed by the influence of the Holy Spirit, it results in the same non-anarchist heaven. Jesus further requires that people obey God as a higher authority, which is also non-anarchist.

Satan tried to be an anarchist once, in heaven. Didn't work out too well for him, did it?

I think it is pushing context too much to claim either point _ Jesus was a socialist or anarchist....  Witch and Jlin are on to something in their posts - One cannot proof text to make Jesus an socialisdt or anarchist because it was which God do you worship - Ceaser of God?  that was at the core of Jesus message - now that does have political overtones and implications but those are what we work out.

Friends, I thank you for your provocative thoughts. It is leading me into terrain I am just as happy to leave untraveled; though I enjoy the company. As I have said above, I have no interest in explaining, defending or promoting anarchy or anarchism. Neither do I define Jesus as an anarchist. I simply suggest that Jesus may be considered as presenting aspects of anarchy in his stance relative to law.

Well I do thank you for your thoughts GeoFee. I suspect you actually do have some more points that I would find challenging to my POV, and I do enjoy a challenge from someone who is able to think outside the box.

However I respect your wish not to pursue it further. Although I'm amaenable to opening the conversation another time if you so desire.

Thanks. The process has encouraged and challenged my thinking. I have taken Jacques Ellul's "Anarchy and Christianity" off the shelf and put it into my travelling book bag. Will glance through it over coffee downtown and perhaps carry back some comment to this page.

Here is a bit of commentary on the the Caesar's/God's text:

This indicates the ground of refusal which gives rise to passive and active action intended to stifle and silence the radical word pronounced by Jesus. This was the problematic facing the leaders in Jerusalem. Though sensitive to the insight of Jesus, these are well aware of the political ramifications concerning a tenuous situation under Caesar's Herod.

Not quite. I call myself a political anarchist because I live my life out of a radical freedom, without appeal to the law or the means available to law; inclusive of politics. This does not mean I am not political - which would be, as others have noted, quite impossible.

What I mean by "a political programme" is the attempt to mould society in the image of one's ideology.  You seem not to have that goal.

I think you have it about right. I mostly want to be changed by my encounter with the resistance of the world. I have very little interest in changing the world. Still, by being present as an existential alternative, I make present a modifying influence. This by the practice of gentle persuasion. As the little ditty has it: "I in my small sphere and you in yours".

GeoFee

Thank you for your patience and attention and thanks to all who have not found a way to railroad the discussion.  I guess it prove the theory of grace, who knows.  Anyway, it may be good for the ferry-man to be an anarchist.   Far be it from any to push another along a path that can only bring them confusion and/or fear or blindness.

As for the insulting statement, "you don't understand what anarchy is?"  I have heard that from self-proclaimed anarchists for about 30years and by now, I can say very definitley, that  "yes, I really do get what anarchism is."  I understand many things that many defensive individuals would rather that I  not understand as well or as clearly or as   I do.

At any rate, I am not quibbling with your position or  believe that you shouldn't be who you are.  I think I even went though a process where I used your definition of anarchy to define myself.  I must have, because, I remember embroidering a large A as a patch on a pair of shorts that I used as a treeplanter.  I think that I also found an equation with the Christian dilemma as you state.  Very soon after, I left all  lsuch  ideology for good and took an "unbreakable vow" and sealed myself into a socialist-till death bond.   I also rejoined the UCC.  don't laugh or grimmace or believe I am being odd and affected. 

I mean, that I am utterly certain that to leave socialism behind me is the death not only of me but of the planet.  As certain as a chemist is who knows which combintions will poison and which are elixer. 

A small issue, perhaps. Why have you chosen to interpret my exploratory question as an insulting statement?  Do we not, in conversation, work at clarifying and seeking each to understand the other a little better?

What is my definition?

Anarchy is a polar opposite to passion (a different chaos/citi) where a person is lost in a disturbance of intellect ... consider Sheldon on Big Band ... a feeble attempt to define intelligence in a place that is too emotional.

Is there a medium between farce ID intelligence and the state we're in? This would have to be in Erse space ... a Celtic mysticality about a health care giver with cobalt I'z and dark haired ... ooo Aries ... are their lighter Eire'd ones? These would be jinns or gynes when found internally!

This might seem Cilacious ... but with the ankh-st we're under everybody deserves a hole in this space ... sweet release even if it's just bouels that old indian again ... primitive movement that allowed the first raspberry ... had to start somewhere in de loupe ... if it was blueberry it would have been connected to grunt ... and so 't was!

In metaphysical oppositions if you create a solid reality you must match that with a gross unreality that is ethereal ... and so it was ... a few knowit! They take reality to seriously as the lesser of the duality ... when God (nut'n) is accepted ... and from then on you can rationalize (logic) that something has to be missing from the balance ...

Now sit down and calculate what is actually solid space in the volume of an H aD'm ... an underlying and primitive form of le gassy! This is what the human form was all blown out of proportion from ... nothing left but pluralized pieces when some of those dark lasses are finished with yah ... G' brae'L? A blind bolt or was that a scro' piece ... cod part?

Pull yourself together man ecclesiasticize yourself or elasticise so you'll bounce when the bump comes ... an indian trait ... possibly from sleeping in onyx beds or propped on STIX ... these things are deeply hereditary ... the fallicy carries on ... as something we refuse to remember or think about denying ... you know the rest of it ... we as mortal men know little ... we burried such talents with women and thus the myth of psyche started with several name changes ... substitutionary grace ... a black rush at that I'm told ... NOSH-ite ... if you know logos ... the signs! Can be earth shaking ...