When ignorance reigns in society and disorder in the minds of men laws are multiplied, legislation is expected to do everything- and each fresh law is being a fresh miscalculation, men are continually led to demand from it what can proceed only from them themselves, from their education and their own morality.
Anarchy fails in large numbers, its a great idea, but it fails in practice just like communism. Though there has been great success with small anarchist communes.
I would love for anarchism to come out into the mainstream. It really is sad to see the concept of anarchism being hijacked and instead being utilized to convey feelings of disorder, chaos, civil unrest etc.
If you are an anarchist, I have an idea. Lets raise consciousness. If you hear someone in a conversation using the word "anarchy" to convey disorder, let them know and correct them! The feminists succeeded in raising consciousness this way in the 60s. We can do it too!
@mysweetverona. Well, Anarchism is the most democratic system ever devised. Representative" democacy", as it exists in some countries like the US, it is vry flawd and easy to corrupt into extrem versions of soft fascsism.
Far too often, those who criticize or complain against "the upper-classes sending off the working classes off to fight [wars] for them," are themselves "upper-class people who send working classes to fight wars for them." Some of these comentating are guilty of this. What a bunch of elitist phonies! And where they really lose credibility is that they're liberal Whites... the phoniest elitists of the elitist phonies.
one thing, aiming for anarchy is the main purpose yes, but advocating anarchist ideals in todays society is seemingly pointless.
The aim is there, yet how does one reach that goal with out (in britain anyway)
1st Esablishing a Republic
2nd Bringing in conventional 'laws' such as maximum wage and set about creating duel economy so a much fairer syndicalist/distributionist based economy can be built with in Britain yet this workers republic can still float in the free market and gain strength.
Government is necessary for organization, but only democratic non-hierarchical administrations are needed. We don't need some ultra-complex elitist bureaucracy, we need a say in our everyday lives.
- The administrative structure of a large or complex organization
We don't need a bureaucracy, we only need an administration capable of organization? Talk about ass-backwards.
All functioning societies require leadership and organization. For leadership and organization to be effective, there must be allocation of power enough to enforce the Laws created to provide that organization.
Anarchism suggests that, were we to disband government and Law, we would be left with some kind of utopian society where individuals would cooperate voluntarily, which is not only naive but provably false by simply witnessing any social group that lacks central governance and power to enforce law. Take a look at medieval Europe or modern-day Africa and see the result of a dissolved central Government.
@Apathyist Anarchism doesn't suggest that. People need to be educated, to learn how to live in a community. Just like if you grew up under the Taleban you wouldn't embrace human rights over night.
@Apathyist Anarchism does not proppose such arrangement. It simply asserts that all power is illigitimate and the burden of proof rests on those seeking power. Power must be justified to exist. Once it is justified, it can exist to acomplish a task then dissolved once that task has been completed. There is nothing farther from the truth as to say that Anarchism propposes "no laws" or a legal system. That is a myth, an ignorant myth, I may add. There is nthing utopic about it.
So. If I understand what you're saying.. power requires justification via individuals who require governance via laws that cannot exist without power.
Cool beans. Seems perfectly reasonable except for the whole circular bullshit part.
@Apathyist. No, that was not I said. All power is by definition illegitimate. Unless it has been democratically allowed to exist to accomplish an specific task. Anarchist theory does not oppose power, it opposes illigitimate hirearchical systems of exploitation of power. Free individals do not require "governance", nor do laws require power to exist.
Not really sure what part of it you have difficulty understang.
If you could skip the profanity, I would appreciate. Keep it civil, please?
There is no such thing as illegitimate power. There is power used for good and power used for bad. The outcome does not negate the validity of the source, it only dictates whether such a power should be opposed by other powers.
@Apathyist. Perhaps rearranging your words I can explain better.
Free individuals organized in voluntary systems of cooperation, democratically participating in the decision making process, and to collectivelly deciding on what rules should exist to organize the society leads to self governance and the consequevt elimination of illigitimate arrangements of power and therefore the abuse of it by special interest groups and in detriment to the collective wellbeing.
Again, there is no such thing as illegitimate power. And we have collectively decided which rules should exist. They're called morals and laws. We've also appointed governers and armed forces to police the laws we've deemed acceptable because the general populace (aka, "Free Individuals") are not qualified to do so. This is why we elect those among us who (hopefully) are less stupid, ignorant or bigoted, to represent us.
@Apathyist. So in assence you're saying that human beings are stupid and ignorant and they need leaders they can follow, but at the same time you say they are smart enough to "elect" those leaders. Quite an interesting argument. Morality and justice systems are so subjective that what may seem moral and just for the Taliban it is inconcivible to Mormons in America or the Khoisan in southern Africa and vice versa.
Which is sort of the point of humanity. There is no perfect system. We are flawed, so everything we create is flawed. There is good and bad in us all, there is power used for good and bad. Democracy is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
The reason Anarchism fails is not about whether it's ideally good or bad. It's about whether it's practical, which it is not.
@Apathyist Then why, after almost 70 years of amassing plenty of weapons to do it, haven't we nuked our planet into dust and echoes by now? Humanity, for all of it's flaws, is generally good. It is the system it is restraind to that turns it violent. When you put an animal into a small cage, while starving and beating it, are you shocked when it bites you? Anarchy is freedom from the starvation and slavery that the established order have forced the working class into for far too long.
@Apathyist. Furthermore, all systems of hierachical power that failed, both in Europe or Africa or anywhere on this plane of ours, was not because of lack of central government or democratic institucions. They did, because of it. Colonialism in Africa for instance, because human beings will reject all forms of illigitimate rule, it is human nature.
The only legal system I can think of that a true anarchist would oppose, would be those manipulated to serve one elite or another.
@Apathyist. Moreover, half of Spain functioned quite well on a pure anarchist system for 3 years, on half of the nation and was only distroyed by Franco's fascism and pseudo-comunists in backroom deals to , again, impose a system of illigitimate power.
One must understand power, first and foremost, to even delve into anything else without risking foolishness.
Unjustified hieararchical systems of power is at the very core of anarchist theory.
@TranshumanCyborg you cant equally distribute wealth in the workplace amongst your superiors .
that makes no sense. do u mean to raise the miners wages while taking some profit ofcourse from his higher ups?
capitolism is a free market system . so if u want a strong union influence get a government job i.e. teacher , cop excetra and just stay away from coporations.
u dont need a radical revolution when u have the freedom to choose your own career
This is a terrible documentary. I spent my years in college studying the mothers and fathers of anarchism so i have a little knowledge of her and berkman. If you want to know about Goldman READ HER WORKS.
if "people are naturally good" then why have the societies they've created all throughout history continuously promote "violence and competition" (I would add corruption, degradation and despair to that list)?
Its the fear that the government instills into our lives...That "Patriotism" is instilled into our lives...The idea that man is better that other man because of where he lives! THATS what creates violence...THATS what creates "Competition".
this bitch makes no sense she claims to be against government but comes off in the video like a communist in her veiws on labor and the upper class.
capitolism is not the enemy it is what little freedom we have. keep capitolism and free enterprise and get rid of government influence and taxes, THAT IS TRUE ANARCHY, NOT THIS COMME SHIT
Cappitolism rewards people for where they live...? Where they are born...? Money is power! Thats not what Anarchy is about...Anarchy is about freedom and equality for all man, no matter what sex, area, race they are from.
oh shut up. Humans are flawed, but you're overdoing it. If what you were saying was true, we would have been nuked into prehistory several decades ago. People are naturally good, its just that the society we live in promotes violence and competition. Thus, we must create a new society built on cooperation and love, as corny as that sounds.
@ramberghini i wouldnt by ne means call your idea corny i find it more so admirable and visionary than corny although its my opinion that all humans are evil just like the nature of whats around us what seperates us and them is merely ideaology us being ppl and them being pigs
social democracy is the only way to go now. keep the corporations and markets in check. capitalism&communisim are run by dictators & corporations not the people. true libertariens (not the right wingers you find in the states) but true liberals who are the anarchists of today dont have a chance against this.the powers that be will not give up what they have and they have propaganda machines that will see to it.
Your no different from a toothless hillbilly. Read some political science books. True Communisim can never be achived due to greedy,egotistic Chairmen/Strongmen. It has been perverted everytime by these kinds of dictators. Fuck Communisim and Fuck Capitalisim.
@CDHIgnorance communism doesnt work because a group of people can not plan the economy of one country and cannot do it efficiently. I would comment on the capitalism thing but i need to hear your definition of capitalism.
We should all be fighting for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
@Lamnont. Democracy and the state are 2 separate things. Popular democractic sytems can exist without a state burocracy. I say praise popular democracy, down with undemocratic systems of exploitation sustained by corruption.
its easy to take a stand online. but people fail to realize that revolution brings violence and death on a large scale. its hard to rally people especially americans to this cause because the middle class loves their position and would be willing to send their educated and well fed children to fight for their cause. middle class america is armed for a reason. its to protect an ideal.
We should all be fighting in the streets for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
Social Democrats ("menscheviks"), and Communists ("Bolscheviks"), both were efforts to solve these problems of oppression. Both have had various success & failure in human terms since. The problem today is that ROOTS of oppression are FUEL ITSELF! FUEL destroys the ecology of Earth on enormous levels. Yet we need Transport & Housing - how then? The Fuel-Less Point-of-production=point-of-use GREEN Change-over, is the PARAMOUNT MOVEMENT of HUMANITY TODAY! It will SUCCEED!
Historically Anarchist movements have had three problems: Central Military or local Police interventions (enforcing sometimes trumped-up "Laws"): Organizing large-scale production- though they have at times kept it operating: Penetration by secret police, they have had few defenses from this. On agrarian and other communities & communes with historical traditions, they have been very successful and still are! If NET links better, this may spread, eventually everywhere?
While you're at it, take an introduction to psychology in a community college. It's hard to type with limited words, so if you wish to know more about the subject, feel free to message me.
Continuation: monopolies that certain people set up. This is where welfare comes into play, but isn't it better to address root problems and give people what they need? A lot of the crimes in society is a result of SCARCITY, scarcity fuels people to do these things.
Look, you obviously don't know much about basic psychology/economics. Go look up how the federal reserve works, you know, how our money is made, and realize that our current system is set up to fail.
lorddesmodes, why are people stupid? Let me guess, because some of rape, murder and steal? If so, I ask you again, why do they do those things? Because it's human nature? There is no human nature, there is only human conditioning. A poor person steals because their needs aren't met, and no it's not because they're too lazy to work. It's because unfortunately our society is a free for all, we put a price tag on everything, even water! Some people just can't keep up because of the
oh btw, homosexuality is pointless, and it is a very primitive thing. Realize that ANIMALS do it, (and not all of them mind you), and REALIZE that animals roam around and are not the most intelligent species in the world. Utilize logic, don't run around after butts because you simply desire to do so for some sick reason, its pointless and im sure its painful, as well as it could lead to very bad consequences for society.
What are you, an idiot. We evolved from animals, animals also eat, sleep, react, and have sex with the opposite sex, very few do so with the same sex. How do you know it's painful, you haven't tried it. And what are those consequences you speak of? Freedom?
anarchists fail to see reality. the fact is people are stupid and anarchy doesn't work. Go ahead and make an anarchist society and find yourselves begging to come back into the real world that we live in that requires government. You can't escape government, and create a stable and just society.
Anarchists don't fail to see reality, they choose to create their own because they are IDEALISTS meaning that they are optimistic about a certain idea that is fucking radical. The fact is that there is hope for people and anarchy is possible. You can escape government by rebelling against it, no society is stable with government because although the apparent purpose of a government or governing authority may be to protect/serve it will always oppress and govern. For that is government.
no we just see what could be away from this horrible state that we are in presently we see the possibilities away from the need of war, banks, government
Anarchism leads to a power vacuum which will be filled by the unscrupulous. They have no qualms lying to the idealists.
Just look at the downfall of the US supported Shah in Iran. The revolution that happened was at first idealistic but was ripped to shreds by the unscrupulous thugs that made Iran into a theocracy. And by the time any idealist wanted to do anything they were too weak and the new status quo was in power and kept reinforcing that power.
Exactly how do you expect to be non-violent and an anarchist at the same time? Do you really think you can overthrow a government through peaceful methods? At best in a free country like the US or a country in the EU you're ignored and at worst you're tossed into some labor camp or executed.
Anarchy relies on the power of the people and the voice of the minority. Well, to be ignored doesn't prove that you're wrong, really. That's a terrible argument.
anarchists don't want government because they want liberty which can't be won through violence. authority = violence and anarchists are opposed to authority. trying to overthrow the government through violence is worthless anyways, with anarchists being such a small minority.
Liberty definitely can be won through violence. If you were attacked by someone, would fighting back using violence prevent you from achieving freedom from the abuse? Would remaining passive really help you at all?
You are also ignoring the history of anarchism which does indeed involve violence (propaganda of the deed and guerilla warfare). Anarchists can not defeat the state using brute force, but perhaps with some leverage and popular support, it may be possible.
The only true resistance is to switch off. If you challenge the system with violence then you acknowledge its existence which re-enforces its power. Take feminism as a classic example, its initial goal was equal rights for women. By doing that they acknowledge that subjectivity is being defined along lines of sex and they re-enforce those barriers by engaging with that discourse. True resistence would have been to ignore whether someone is male or female and live life treating people as people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Long Live Capitalism. Enough Jewish Whining. Look at the Jewish get even-ness that Lenin, Sverdlov, Kamenev, Zinoviev perpetrated on Russia. You people will do well to realize that yo are just another bozo on the bus. All this talk and bringing attention to yourself is nothing but a shrouded way of selling the idea that you are special.
The only issue I have with anarchy, or at least the circa 1800's anarchy, is that it fails to take into consideration human nature and relies on the optimistic belief that humans are inherently good. People are not good or bad by nature, instead they are just people, and in an anarchist state (or lack of one) people need to be good, for a society to flourish or even survive. Given an ounce of leniency an individual or party will take power, as the law of human nature dicatates.
jimmydadean - Human nature is not an innate condition. The social environment has an immense conditioning effect upon people. Thus the insular greed and arrogant apathy that underpins modern capitalist states has now created a neutered, mindless herd being led, subliminally, into Fascist domination. Turkeys voting for Christmas!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I stopped watching after the lies the anarchists tell about the soviet Union. Once the workers state was formed the anarchists tried to tear it down. Should Lenin have allowed the anarchists to destroy all they worked for and hand it over to the White armies?
i am happy to meet a fellow anarchist, how do you suppose life would be life in an anarchist driven political system, would it be a hunter gatherer life, or would it be something different?
You cannot be a democrat, and an anarchist... They cancel each other out, a democrat advocates democracy (which has rulers) Anarchy means NO RULERS. What exactly do you think Anarchy means?
I would say he can be at different levels and ideas of what democracy and liberal mean. Neither need have formal structures or controls. I don't believe any country in the world is a true democracy and you don't have to have a leader or political parties and laws to use democracy. You can have a vote on whether something is a good idea or a bad idea as long as the majority don't enforce the decision on the minority it fits with a notion of anarchy. It all depends on what is meant by democracy?
what is true about life is this: there are few thinkers, philosophers and artists that actually live for it, not by it, those people are usually the ones that ususally smarter, and "think" for the majority of the people, some do good things, some do bad, but all of them have the ability to guide or control others, there are really few people that can't be controled, or simply don't want to embrace those thoughts, and are themselves
I don't think anyone is smarter than anybody else and I don't think anyone has the right to think on behalf of another. I believe that the majority of ideas are pure luck of circumstance. There is many a time that I have come up with an idea by myself and then explained it to a colleague just to be told that someone has already wrote a book on that. The person who wrote the idea down first gets the credit but why? If you can come up with the same idea independently then it proves my point.
not like they have the right to do somethings for others, i think everyone should have the exact same rights, adn i agree with you, i have got to plenty of ideas by myself, some have been written before, some have not, some were horribly wrong, but what i'm speaking about is not rights, im speaking of nature, remember no matter how far we want to be from it, we're part of natue, and we're like everyother mamal that lives in comunity, we have a leader in every group
I think in the current society it goes beyond the same rights. Currently, I think everyone should have the same opportunities. In a utopian world there would be no rights or opportunities because we would all act with respect of one another and help each other - a pure anarchical system. But then in such a society how would you deal with the want-a-be dictator? Would such a society not be imposing its own set of rules on the people that are born into it?
not necesiraly a wanna be dictator, but rather a deputy, usually one that thinks of things that people like, or that people prefer over other options, but not a dictator, as s/he doesn't tells people what to do, mahatma ghandi is one example
another diguised as one of them is charles manson, but he said "if you really love me, you do what i want you to do", that is not freedom, besides he controled them with drugs, you get me?
ghandi was actually quite bad. Eventhough he never followed his own caste, he insisted that people should follow the caste system rigidly. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism to try and escape this problem and his arguments on this issue with Gandhi are well documented. Gandhi believed that there should be no social movement eventhough he was extremely hypocritical when applying his ideas to himself. Is it alright to dictate what the poor do once you are not one of them?
BUT, as free beings, we can choose to accept their ideologies or not, maybe like a minority group between other mamals (not just us) there is democracy, the leader can propose, but everyone must say if they agree or not
but we are never free to choose anything because I choice is always limited by something or someone. For example, say you are going into a shop to buy some beer. You think you have freedom of choice to choose the brand and type of beer you want. The reality is that the shop keeper has already made the choice for you by the range of brands they stock. Your choice is already limited beyond your control. Next, the positioning of brands and price will make you choose unconsciously what they want.
you are right, but, like i said, there are really few people who really think for themselves, without anyone else, for instance, when you go to buy a beer, you don't go to buy it in that exact place, so if you want something you go and search for it other place, like me with alcohol-free beer, i dont go and buy it exactly there, when i want it, i want it no matter where it comes from
but you only want to buy it because someone made it. If it did not exist you would not want to buy it. Its existence is influencing your ability to choose. There is no real choice unless you make it yourself because you want it. Even then you are limited to the materials available to you. There is never true freedom, only an illusion of freedom.
are you talking about a DIY? so i wan't a shirt, and i want a desing, but there are no shirts with that desing, only then if i make it, its real freedom?
hmm but whose idea is the shirt? Are you able to produce some clothing without being restricted by current fashion and trends? Is there something better than clothing? Do we need clothing at all?
Foucault appears to hint at this also but in a different book - the ideas are not important, it is the limitations within society that prevent certain ideas formulating. As said elsewhere it is difficult to talk about Foucault. If I say 'my reading' it suggests subjectivity which is a problem too.
This is very true. But you would not label yourself a Democrat. You would label yourself an Anarcho-Syndicalists or some other form which uses a democratic way of doing things. Maybe Democratic-Anarchist I suppose. But most the Anarchist theories function democratically so its kind of a reiteration.
proof you're nothing but a poser, democrat and anarchist? gosh emo kid? i couldn't say that you aren't but for the thing you said up there i could say you are as aware of anarchism as you are of emocore I could say is that i am: health freak Anarchist Hardcore Straight edge Christian (Catholic) I think i don't go agaisn't myself with that
Christian and anarchism don't really mix because you have a set of religious moral laws. However, people belong to different groups and identify with those groups at different levels of involvement. It is only when you are refused a group and pidgeon holed into another group against your will that you will accept the discourse of the group you find yourself in a feeble attempt of resistance but in doing so you accept the power structures that put you there and re-enforce the oppression.
maybe you're right, but when those rules are not against my thought, what is wrong? in the end i am the one who decides my creed, i think its part of freedom choosing what to belive, isn't it?
Nobody is denying your right to believe what you want. I just mentioned it in passing that Christianity has a set of moral rules based upon a hierarchical form of government. All Abrahamic faiths lead to dictatorship governments because when you die you goto heaven or hell. The reason hell exists is because God does not support the notion of anyone challenging his rule of heaven as a dictator, and the Devil isn't going to allow the same in hell. If you don't follow the rules you get punished.
you should notice that (at least in my creed, catholisism) god is not a dictator, is rather a mercyful father, basically what jesus was brought to the earth
but is not a father like a dictator that is why people refer to dictators as the father. If you break the rules in your house or if you do not do what your father tells you, do you not receive some sort of punishment whether it be a hit or denial of something you want. The punishment might not be as severe as a political dictator but it is there and perhaps that is why people accept dictatorships so easily is because the 'functional' family works the same. It's why rightwingers family values.
Have you ever read Foucault's history of sexuality? It might be enlightening for you. He who hears your confession has power over you and you do confession willingly.
Catholicism is full of rules.
I think punishment does not work. My sister used to behave badly and break the rules and when threatened with a hit, she would invite it - it took away the purpose of the punishment and she was liberated.
Far better to sit with the person and explain why you don't approve of their action.
i think i get you, like me, i didn't worked at school and i was always getting punished, so i stopped talkign to my parents, i only recive from them food and shelter, everything i get it on my own, i feel a lot happier, and i think i have evolved as a person too
but god is a mercyful deity, not a punishing deity that rules with iron fist, but we don't really know what is actually in the afterlife, for all i know, i have never died
is that a book, an article or something? i want to read it
ambitious to try and say it in short terms - basically the bit that I am referring to of interest to yourself is the power relations at play with the concepts of confession and how the notion of confession has become embedded into society to such a degree that we are not always aware of when we are empowering others. Well that is just one interpretation. Foucault is pretty clever in that it is difficult to talk about him without becoming part of the problem.
i think i get what you mean, you're speaking about people not doing what they want, but instead what others want, and you want me to read that book, so i now want to read it, so, if it was the problem, you did become part of the problem
that is kind of on the right track. The fact that you have engaged in discourse with me makes you part of the discourse. You can choose not to read me which would be real resistence but by engaging in the text you are implented within its power structures. It is not so much me wanting you to read a book, but the fact that a book exists and you realise that it is for reading When you asked what is a book? you have placed the power with the person you are asking by allowing them to speak...
but then Foucault can be clever but he is forgeting about the other ones, he is forgeting about nature rules, and nature of humans and humanity themselves, he is then trying to defy mankind democratic thinking (not in a way of government, but in another sense, refering that we do what others do and we like to do it, because we are not different worlds, we might be different persons, but we are not that diferent from each other)
I am not really trying to make a Foucault style argument here. I just thought you might be interested in one of his books.
By talking about the rules of nature you are implying that they exist. But there will always be exceptions - do we sweep the exceptions under the carpet? Whose interpretation of those laws is being listened to? What and who supports those claims? Why do we not accept alternative ideas? What about the ideas nobody has yet had?
i'm still going to read it, even if in the first place it wasn't my first idea, i think there can be exceptions, because in the end we don't live in a natural place, why not unatural exceptions?
Sorry if this gets posted twice- For example, there are those who assume that homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of nature based on a notion of reproduction (same claims are made about sexual pleasure). However, there are many examples of homosexuality and sex for pleasure in the animal world. But the belief that it is unnatural persists. Who is it that is saying homosexuality is unnatural, under what authority are they defining the laws of nature?
but all the homosexual animals i've read of (with the only exception of bonos and dolphins) that are homosexual all of them live in an unatural place, even if its a good imitation of nature
but you gotta notice that sex was made in nature for one thing: reproduction, to animals from the same gender cannot reproduce between them
BUT once someone told me that homosexuality was natures way to avoid overpopulations... it's not working quite well
BUT who is telling you that and with what authority? Who is saying that sex is solely for reproduction and not pleasure. Taking your argument for a moment, why do we feel pleasure when we have sex if sex was not for the purpose of pleasure?
Incidently there are more cases in the wild of homosexuality than the ones you list.
Also what is unnatural? Who is to suggest what is natural and unnatural? These are all rules and power that influence us and prevent us being free to decided ourself
i can't name no one unfortunately, but what is unatural has been used for things that are normaly not found in nature alone, like plastic
but i know something, if it wasn't pleasure then maybe animals would find no reason to have sex, it's like eating: its necesary (so as reproduction), but it's also pleasant
the difference, sex is not necesary for the animal to live, but for the species instead, so it's gotta have "extra" pleasant for the animals to do it
my central argument is that we allow these things to be said without challenging them or realising who is saying them and under what authority they are making their claims.
That a social structure exists that we often take for granted but sets out rules that we follow blindly.
By challenging these norms we engage in the discourse and re-enforce what is there. It is only by not engaging in the discourse that we can be truly free but that requires beginning everything again from scratch.
so i should study bioligy and sociology myeslf to see if everything they have told me is true?
if you are saying that i agree with you there
but many of the things i've said have been for things i observed myself in society, both livin inside and outside (in the antisocial sense, not that i lived alone in the trees) of it and have been helped by the things i know (or i think i know) about comunity mamals
speaking in terms of natural and unnatural enforce the American concept that we live in bi-polar world of them and us, republican or democrat, democracy or communism. But do we not live in a multiple of conditions? Can we not belong to more than once concept of identity? Who is it that is making us bracket ourselves in the 'you are with us or against us' bi-polarity of Good and Evil? These notions create barriers that prevent us from ever being equal and this empowers people over us.
your English comes across very well and more impressive considering it is not your first language.
Which brings me to my last point before I switch my computer off. Language has a set of rules and concepts that we take for granted but by being taught it, we accept many of its fundamental rules (although we can change many in inventing slang and dialect). Only by creating our own language can we break free of this - but can there exist a language where only one person knows it? I think 'yes'
Liberty, equality and practical human sympathy are the only effectual barriers we can oppose to the antisocial instincts of certain among us.
MJL6390 1 month ago
When ignorance reigns in society and disorder in the minds of men laws are multiplied, legislation is expected to do everything- and each fresh law is being a fresh miscalculation, men are continually led to demand from it what can proceed only from them themselves, from their education and their own morality.
MJL6390 1 month ago
where is this film from? someone please let me know, thank you :)
NegiandNodoka 2 months ago
Anarchy is pure freedom in its true form
MJL6390 2 months ago
Anarchy fails in large numbers, its a great idea, but it fails in practice just like communism. Though there has been great success with small anarchist communes.
BrutalFates 3 months ago
@BrutalFates Anarchy is no idea.
MJL6390 2 months ago
@MJL6390 For me it is, maybe for you it isn't its all perspective. I enjoy learning about everyone's views they are all interesting.
BrutalFates 2 months ago
@BrutalFates How do you know ?
MJL6390 2 months ago
@MJL6390 :-D
BrutalFates 2 months ago
Theres no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated.
skulldrix 8 months ago 3
Democracy and freedom needs to go beyond cheap bullshit talk. People need to live and practice it, not just talk it.
connerjd 8 months ago
The difference between a representative democracy and a dictatorship is that the president can say "You guys f'kin chose me!" When he fucks up.
hesteaeble 10 months ago 2
I would love for anarchism to come out into the mainstream. It really is sad to see the concept of anarchism being hijacked and instead being utilized to convey feelings of disorder, chaos, civil unrest etc.
If you are an anarchist, I have an idea. Lets raise consciousness. If you hear someone in a conversation using the word "anarchy" to convey disorder, let them know and correct them! The feminists succeeded in raising consciousness this way in the 60s. We can do it too!
mojorhythm 11 months ago 9
@mojorhythm You sir or mam are a genius.
mrpoghunter 2 months ago
what happened to the Romanov family in Russia was just disgusting violence is never the answer to a problem
kakarot138 1 year ago
Thanks again for uploading this tribute to Emma, as a part of the feminist and anti-war movement of her time. I admire her!
"Liberty will not descend to the people, people must raise themselves to Liberty!"
She left behind her ideas, therefore she never dies.
Ilkamy 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Do what thou wilt and no other shall say nay, love is the law, love under will
compositesoul 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These people are MASSIVE supporters of the State. They are Socialists!
Everything should be Voluntary, the EXACT opposite of Communism/Fascism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Anarchists just can't get a break, hated by everyone.
TheForwardGaze 1 year ago
@mysweetverona. Well, Anarchism is the most democratic system ever devised. Representative" democacy", as it exists in some countries like the US, it is vry flawd and easy to corrupt into extrem versions of soft fascsism.
lapwiz 1 year ago
Far too often, those who criticize or complain against "the upper-classes sending off the working classes off to fight [wars] for them," are themselves "upper-class people who send working classes to fight wars for them." Some of these comentating are guilty of this. What a bunch of elitist phonies! And where they really lose credibility is that they're liberal Whites... the phoniest elitists of the elitist phonies.
SouLoveReal 1 year ago
one thing, aiming for anarchy is the main purpose yes, but advocating anarchist ideals in todays society is seemingly pointless.
The aim is there, yet how does one reach that goal with out (in britain anyway)
1st Esablishing a Republic
2nd Bringing in conventional 'laws' such as maximum wage and set about creating duel economy so a much fairer syndicalist/distributionist based economy can be built with in Britain yet this workers republic can still float in the free market and gain strength.
skinheadbabsi1969 1 year ago
Government is necessary for organization, but only democratic non-hierarchical administrations are needed. We don't need some ultra-complex elitist bureaucracy, we need a say in our everyday lives.
ramberghini 1 year ago
@ramberghini
Beurocracy (noun)
- The administrative structure of a large or complex organization
We don't need a bureaucracy, we only need an administration capable of organization? Talk about ass-backwards.
All functioning societies require leadership and organization. For leadership and organization to be effective, there must be allocation of power enough to enforce the Laws created to provide that organization.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@ramberghini
Anarchism suggests that, were we to disband government and Law, we would be left with some kind of utopian society where individuals would cooperate voluntarily, which is not only naive but provably false by simply witnessing any social group that lacks central governance and power to enforce law. Take a look at medieval Europe or modern-day Africa and see the result of a dissolved central Government.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist Anarchism doesn't suggest that. People need to be educated, to learn how to live in a community. Just like if you grew up under the Taleban you wouldn't embrace human rights over night.
lumaix 1 year ago
@Apathyist Also medieval europe wasn't anarchist. It was feudalist- the precursor to capitalism.
lumaix 1 year ago 2
@Apathyist Anarchism does not proppose such arrangement. It simply asserts that all power is illigitimate and the burden of proof rests on those seeking power. Power must be justified to exist. Once it is justified, it can exist to acomplish a task then dissolved once that task has been completed. There is nothing farther from the truth as to say that Anarchism propposes "no laws" or a legal system. That is a myth, an ignorant myth, I may add. There is nthing utopic about it.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@lapwiz
So. If I understand what you're saying.. power requires justification via individuals who require governance via laws that cannot exist without power.
Cool beans. Seems perfectly reasonable except for the whole circular bullshit part.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist. No, that was not I said. All power is by definition illegitimate. Unless it has been democratically allowed to exist to accomplish an specific task. Anarchist theory does not oppose power, it opposes illigitimate hirearchical systems of exploitation of power. Free individals do not require "governance", nor do laws require power to exist.
Not really sure what part of it you have difficulty understang.
If you could skip the profanity, I would appreciate. Keep it civil, please?
lapwiz 1 year ago
@lapwiz
There is no such thing as illegitimate power. There is power used for good and power used for bad. The outcome does not negate the validity of the source, it only dictates whether such a power should be opposed by other powers.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist. Power has to be gained in one form or another. It doesn't exist out of thin air.
Strugle takes place in aquiring and maintaining power. I hope you can get past this simple
point before moving to "good and evil".
lapwiz 1 year ago
@Apathyist. Perhaps rearranging your words I can explain better.
Free individuals organized in voluntary systems of cooperation, democratically participating in the decision making process, and to collectivelly deciding on what rules should exist to organize the society leads to self governance and the consequevt elimination of illigitimate arrangements of power and therefore the abuse of it by special interest groups and in detriment to the collective wellbeing.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@lapwiz
Again, there is no such thing as illegitimate power. And we have collectively decided which rules should exist. They're called morals and laws. We've also appointed governers and armed forces to police the laws we've deemed acceptable because the general populace (aka, "Free Individuals") are not qualified to do so. This is why we elect those among us who (hopefully) are less stupid, ignorant or bigoted, to represent us.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist Well, you said the same thing 3 times, it must magically become true now.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@Apathyist. So in assence you're saying that human beings are stupid and ignorant and they need leaders they can follow, but at the same time you say they are smart enough to "elect" those leaders. Quite an interesting argument. Morality and justice systems are so subjective that what may seem moral and just for the Taliban it is inconcivible to Mormons in America or the Khoisan in southern Africa and vice versa.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@lapwiz
Which is sort of the point of humanity. There is no perfect system. We are flawed, so everything we create is flawed. There is good and bad in us all, there is power used for good and bad. Democracy is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
The reason Anarchism fails is not about whether it's ideally good or bad. It's about whether it's practical, which it is not.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@lapwiz
And, yes, the majority of humanity is stupid, ignorant, bigoted, violent or otherwise flawed.
Apathyist 1 year ago
@Apathyist Then why, after almost 70 years of amassing plenty of weapons to do it, haven't we nuked our planet into dust and echoes by now? Humanity, for all of it's flaws, is generally good. It is the system it is restraind to that turns it violent. When you put an animal into a small cage, while starving and beating it, are you shocked when it bites you? Anarchy is freedom from the starvation and slavery that the established order have forced the working class into for far too long.
theoneandonlygrod 1 year ago
@Apathyist. Furthermore, all systems of hierachical power that failed, both in Europe or Africa or anywhere on this plane of ours, was not because of lack of central government or democratic institucions. They did, because of it. Colonialism in Africa for instance, because human beings will reject all forms of illigitimate rule, it is human nature.
The only legal system I can think of that a true anarchist would oppose, would be those manipulated to serve one elite or another.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@Apathyist. Moreover, half of Spain functioned quite well on a pure anarchist system for 3 years, on half of the nation and was only distroyed by Franco's fascism and pseudo-comunists in backroom deals to , again, impose a system of illigitimate power.
One must understand power, first and foremost, to even delve into anything else without risking foolishness.
Unjustified hieararchical systems of power is at the very core of anarchist theory.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@TranshumanCyborg you cant equally distribute wealth in the workplace amongst your superiors .
that makes no sense. do u mean to raise the miners wages while taking some profit ofcourse from his higher ups?
capitolism is a free market system . so if u want a strong union influence get a government job i.e. teacher , cop excetra and just stay away from coporations.
u dont need a radical revolution when u have the freedom to choose your own career
RedEyePergo 1 year ago
How do I support the anarchist movement? I can't find anything anywhere about meetings.
TheKenTerry 1 year ago
This is a terrible documentary. I spent my years in college studying the mothers and fathers of anarchism so i have a little knowledge of her and berkman. If you want to know about Goldman READ HER WORKS.
MulchDavis 1 year ago
if "people are naturally good" then why have the societies they've created all throughout history continuously promote "violence and competition" (I would add corruption, degradation and despair to that list)?
salmagnum 1 year ago
Its the fear that the government instills into our lives...That "Patriotism" is instilled into our lives...The idea that man is better that other man because of where he lives! THATS what creates violence...THATS what creates "Competition".
AnarchysSoldier 1 year ago
this bitch makes no sense she claims to be against government but comes off in the video like a communist in her veiws on labor and the upper class.
capitolism is not the enemy it is what little freedom we have. keep capitolism and free enterprise and get rid of government influence and taxes, THAT IS TRUE ANARCHY, NOT THIS COMME SHIT
RedEyePergo 1 year ago
Cappitolism rewards people for where they live...? Where they are born...? Money is power! Thats not what Anarchy is about...Anarchy is about freedom and equality for all man, no matter what sex, area, race they are from.
AnarchysSoldier 1 year ago
sampleNote 4:37 a time when both anarchists and marxists put partisan differences aside, innit...?
TrollCatcher2010 1 year ago
so inspiring
FOIIAD 1 year ago
this seems to have a BIG hole...i feel like there is more...anyone know where i can find it?
dosuloveshinata 1 year ago
Read her works, this documentary is very different from her life...Its advertising the Governemnt as good, which means its Corrupt
AnarchysSoldier 1 year ago
Anarchists and Marxists? That's a false dichotomy. There are Anarchists that are Marxists.
IconoclastWanderlust 1 year ago 2
That's my kind of woman!
beatchewup 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Humans can never be free because we have too many weaknesses. We need too many things and we are slaves to these needs. (Food, water, sex, etc.)
Anarchy does not solve the problem of human weakness. Therefore it does not solve the problem of human freedom.
A truly free man is independent from societal order because he is doesn't need it to survive... because he is perfect.
Because such a being is impossible, we can conclude that existence implies slavery. Death is freedom.
deadbutmoving 2 years ago
oh shut up. Humans are flawed, but you're overdoing it. If what you were saying was true, we would have been nuked into prehistory several decades ago. People are naturally good, its just that the society we live in promotes violence and competition. Thus, we must create a new society built on cooperation and love, as corny as that sounds.
ramberghini 2 years ago 33
@ramberghini cooperation and mutual respect sounds less corny.
mythified 1 year ago
@ramberghini doesnt sound very corny to me! you hit the nail on the head!
Youngroe1 1 year ago
@ramberghini if humans are so flawed then government cant be trusted, but if humans are good government is not needed.
nomoreyou1212 1 year ago
@ramberghini i wouldnt by ne means call your idea corny i find it more so admirable and visionary than corny although its my opinion that all humans are evil just like the nature of whats around us what seperates us and them is merely ideaology us being ppl and them being pigs
geogeyboy219 1 year ago
WTF?
lol...freedom is possible, not absolute, but it is.
Forkroute 2 years ago
did you know that ireland was an anarchist society for 1000 years????
jesselakerr 1 year ago
all wars that are not revolutionary are idiocy at its finest.
ramberghini 2 years ago 2
Yep, especially considering the toll it takes on the human being. PTSD is hell.
Antiks72 2 years ago
@ramberghini all wars are stupid the way to revolt is to disobey and to educate. a war implies the violation of natural law and that is no good
t2491tom 2 years ago
isn't there a part missing?o.O
4JaCkTheJoKeR9 2 years ago
No system can ever cage the boundless edges of the human soul.
Capitalism = The eroding sugar on an already rotting tooth.
Communism = Too many teeth, not enough mouths.
kayozz13 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com awrrg
kodykodyoneill 2 years ago
a true communist state os where its at no state work for what u need i am a firm supporter of marxism
stantheman42069 2 years ago
Oh shut up!
xms32 2 years ago
social democracy is the only way to go now. keep the corporations and markets in check. capitalism&communisim are run by dictators & corporations not the people. true libertariens (not the right wingers you find in the states) but true liberals who are the anarchists of today dont have a chance against this.the powers that be will not give up what they have and they have propaganda machines that will see to it.
CDHIgnorance 2 years ago
Right on. That's why we should all organize as a whole and take direct action! NEVER GIVE UP!
ika8931 2 years ago
...what can I say, its really hard to promote complete human liberty when a gun is pointed at you and fired.
Boxmanboxman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anarchy is not the diferent from capitalism.
Lamnont 2 years ago
It is.
Nederlandac 2 years ago
You're not diferent from communist!
Lamnont 2 years ago
Fuck you.
Nederlandac 2 years ago
Your no different from a toothless hillbilly. Read some political science books. True Communisim can never be achived due to greedy,egotistic Chairmen/Strongmen. It has been perverted everytime by these kinds of dictators. Fuck Communisim and Fuck Capitalisim.
CDHIgnorance 2 years ago
Well theories are for ivory tower social experimenters, think about real life.
Lamnont 2 years ago
At one time, all systems were ivory tower ideas.
Antiks72 2 years ago
@CDHIgnorance communism doesnt work because a group of people can not plan the economy of one country and cannot do it efficiently. I would comment on the capitalism thing but i need to hear your definition of capitalism.
t2491tom 2 years ago
We should all be fighting for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
Fuck democracy! The state is a tumor, and an addiction! It is not an organ, or a need!
Lamnont 2 years ago 11
@Lamnont. Democracy and the state are 2 separate things. Popular democractic sytems can exist without a state burocracy. I say praise popular democracy, down with undemocratic systems of exploitation sustained by corruption.
lapwiz 1 year ago
@Lamnont democracy has to go far beyond a 'democratic state'
oviatb 9 months ago
@Lamnont
Anarchy is the ultimate form of democracy
Onepretentiousdude 5 months ago 2
Humanity walks a fine line between socialism and freedom.
MikePresents 2 years ago
Hi. You don't know what socialism means. Go away.
spleenblender 2 years ago
@spleenblender
Don't judge, educate.
blahdelablah 2 years ago
You're right. I should have. Forgive my slip.
spleenblender 2 years ago
HELLO, you don't know what freedom is!
Lamnont 2 years ago
I dont think YOU know what true freedom is ...
ika8931 2 years ago
it is chaos.
fatherprime 2 years ago
its easy to take a stand online. but people fail to realize that revolution brings violence and death on a large scale. its hard to rally people especially americans to this cause because the middle class loves their position and would be willing to send their educated and well fed children to fight for their cause. middle class america is armed for a reason. its to protect an ideal.
tukthedestroyer 2 years ago
We should all be fighting in the streets for democracy, against illegitimate authority rooted in domination and greed. Abolish pyramids, the ruling class, the system of top down control which restricts opportunities to fully develop as a human beings, which denies self-determination, which imposes false choices, mandates conformity, muzzles dissent, creates false enemies, rewards destruction, propagates ignorance and shackles truth.
LegalizedTheft 2 years ago
Social Democrats ("menscheviks"), and Communists ("Bolscheviks"), both were efforts to solve these problems of oppression. Both have had various success & failure in human terms since. The problem today is that ROOTS of oppression are FUEL ITSELF! FUEL destroys the ecology of Earth on enormous levels. Yet we need Transport & Housing - how then? The Fuel-Less Point-of-production=point-of-use GREEN Change-over, is the PARAMOUNT MOVEMENT of HUMANITY TODAY! It will SUCCEED!
PhotonDrive 2 years ago
huh
Spalg 2 years ago
Historically Anarchist movements have had three problems: Central Military or local Police interventions (enforcing sometimes trumped-up "Laws"): Organizing large-scale production- though they have at times kept it operating: Penetration by secret police, they have had few defenses from this. On agrarian and other communities & communes with historical traditions, they have been very successful and still are! If NET links better, this may spread, eventually everywhere?
PhotonDrive 2 years ago
While you're at it, take an introduction to psychology in a community college. It's hard to type with limited words, so if you wish to know more about the subject, feel free to message me.
applepieNpolicestate 2 years ago
Continuation: monopolies that certain people set up. This is where welfare comes into play, but isn't it better to address root problems and give people what they need? A lot of the crimes in society is a result of SCARCITY, scarcity fuels people to do these things.
Look, you obviously don't know much about basic psychology/economics. Go look up how the federal reserve works, you know, how our money is made, and realize that our current system is set up to fail.
applepieNpolicestate 2 years ago
lorddesmodes, why are people stupid? Let me guess, because some of rape, murder and steal? If so, I ask you again, why do they do those things? Because it's human nature? There is no human nature, there is only human conditioning. A poor person steals because their needs aren't met, and no it's not because they're too lazy to work. It's because unfortunately our society is a free for all, we put a price tag on everything, even water! Some people just can't keep up because of the
applepieNpolicestate 2 years ago
oh btw, homosexuality is pointless, and it is a very primitive thing. Realize that ANIMALS do it, (and not all of them mind you), and REALIZE that animals roam around and are not the most intelligent species in the world. Utilize logic, don't run around after butts because you simply desire to do so for some sick reason, its pointless and im sure its painful, as well as it could lead to very bad consequences for society.
lorddesmordes 2 years ago
What are you, an idiot. We evolved from animals, animals also eat, sleep, react, and have sex with the opposite sex, very few do so with the same sex. How do you know it's painful, you haven't tried it. And what are those consequences you speak of? Freedom?
Poizon67 2 years ago
anarchists fail to see reality. the fact is people are stupid and anarchy doesn't work. Go ahead and make an anarchist society and find yourselves begging to come back into the real world that we live in that requires government. You can't escape government, and create a stable and just society.
lorddesmordes 2 years ago
Anarchists don't fail to see reality, they choose to create their own because they are IDEALISTS meaning that they are optimistic about a certain idea that is fucking radical. The fact is that there is hope for people and anarchy is possible. You can escape government by rebelling against it, no society is stable with government because although the apparent purpose of a government or governing authority may be to protect/serve it will always oppress and govern. For that is government.
Poizon67 2 years ago 4
no we just see what could be away from this horrible state that we are in presently we see the possibilities away from the need of war, banks, government
rozz669 2 years ago
Anarchism leads to a power vacuum which will be filled by the unscrupulous. They have no qualms lying to the idealists.
Just look at the downfall of the US supported Shah in Iran. The revolution that happened was at first idealistic but was ripped to shreds by the unscrupulous thugs that made Iran into a theocracy. And by the time any idealist wanted to do anything they were too weak and the new status quo was in power and kept reinforcing that power.
spleenblender 2 years ago
Both socialism & freedom are vague terms that can be applied to any number specific instances.
Once you take full command of your own self-being, you'll find that it's an unnecessary burden to try to control others.
MikePresents 2 years ago
5*****
Kurkcaj 3 years ago
Lincoln a great president???
adriansrfr 3 years ago 3
any president that suspends the writ of habeus corpus (right to fair trial and to defend yourself) is an enemy of free humanity to me..
xmattycorex 2 years ago 2
Exactly how do you expect to be non-violent and an anarchist at the same time? Do you really think you can overthrow a government through peaceful methods? At best in a free country like the US or a country in the EU you're ignored and at worst you're tossed into some labor camp or executed.
Yerzriknot 3 years ago
Anarchy relies on the power of the people and the voice of the minority. Well, to be ignored doesn't prove that you're wrong, really. That's a terrible argument.
Bejdabi 3 years ago
anarchists don't want government because they want liberty which can't be won through violence. authority = violence and anarchists are opposed to authority. trying to overthrow the government through violence is worthless anyways, with anarchists being such a small minority.
Sean2046 2 years ago
Liberty definitely can be won through violence. If you were attacked by someone, would fighting back using violence prevent you from achieving freedom from the abuse? Would remaining passive really help you at all?
You are also ignoring the history of anarchism which does indeed involve violence (propaganda of the deed and guerilla warfare). Anarchists can not defeat the state using brute force, but perhaps with some leverage and popular support, it may be possible.
jortylbro 2 years ago
The only true resistance is to switch off. If you challenge the system with violence then you acknowledge its existence which re-enforces its power. Take feminism as a classic example, its initial goal was equal rights for women. By doing that they acknowledge that subjectivity is being defined along lines of sex and they re-enforce those barriers by engaging with that discourse. True resistence would have been to ignore whether someone is male or female and live life treating people as people.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
There is one thing that I will remember from this:
We believe that the militarism of America is an evil that far outweighs any good that may come from America's participation in the war.
BeckaMc 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Long Live Capitalism. Enough Jewish Whining. Look at the Jewish get even-ness that Lenin, Sverdlov, Kamenev, Zinoviev perpetrated on Russia. You people will do well to realize that yo are just another bozo on the bus. All this talk and bringing attention to yourself is nothing but a shrouded way of selling the idea that you are special.
yaknbo 3 years ago
Choke on your wine.
ckyfan969696 3 years ago 2
The only issue I have with anarchy, or at least the circa 1800's anarchy, is that it fails to take into consideration human nature and relies on the optimistic belief that humans are inherently good. People are not good or bad by nature, instead they are just people, and in an anarchist state (or lack of one) people need to be good, for a society to flourish or even survive. Given an ounce of leniency an individual or party will take power, as the law of human nature dicatates.
jimmydadean 3 years ago 4
jimmydadean - Human nature is not an innate condition. The social environment has an immense conditioning effect upon people. Thus the insular greed and arrogant apathy that underpins modern capitalist states has now created a neutered, mindless herd being led, subliminally, into Fascist domination. Turkeys voting for Christmas!
catinger 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I stopped watching after the lies the anarchists tell about the soviet Union. Once the workers state was formed the anarchists tried to tear it down. Should Lenin have allowed the anarchists to destroy all they worked for and hand it over to the White armies?
spusaiww 3 years ago
you cannot eat ideas one bad thing about all ideolagies
cory1246 3 years ago
ANARCHYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fuck yeah
emofrogmusic 3 years ago
i am happy to meet a fellow anarchist, how do you suppose life would be life in an anarchist driven political system, would it be a hunter gatherer life, or would it be something different?
theannrkee 3 years ago
it would be way different
since its making a statement about how things need to change
i am an:
anarchist
athiest
democrat
liberal
and emo kid
so yeah shit in this country needs to change
emofrogmusic 3 years ago
You cannot be a democrat, and an anarchist... They cancel each other out, a democrat advocates democracy (which has rulers) Anarchy means NO RULERS. What exactly do you think Anarchy means?
joinedcusimbored 3 years ago
I would say he can be at different levels and ideas of what democracy and liberal mean. Neither need have formal structures or controls. I don't believe any country in the world is a true democracy and you don't have to have a leader or political parties and laws to use democracy. You can have a vote on whether something is a good idea or a bad idea as long as the majority don't enforce the decision on the minority it fits with a notion of anarchy. It all depends on what is meant by democracy?
jazzbunny 3 years ago
what is true about life is this: there are few thinkers, philosophers and artists that actually live for it, not by it, those people are usually the ones that ususally smarter, and "think" for the majority of the people, some do good things, some do bad, but all of them have the ability to guide or control others, there are really few people that can't be controled, or simply don't want to embrace those thoughts, and are themselves
AlexLococo 3 years ago
I don't think anyone is smarter than anybody else and I don't think anyone has the right to think on behalf of another. I believe that the majority of ideas are pure luck of circumstance. There is many a time that I have come up with an idea by myself and then explained it to a colleague just to be told that someone has already wrote a book on that. The person who wrote the idea down first gets the credit but why? If you can come up with the same idea independently then it proves my point.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
not like they have the right to do somethings for others, i think everyone should have the exact same rights, adn i agree with you, i have got to plenty of ideas by myself, some have been written before, some have not, some were horribly wrong, but what i'm speaking about is not rights, im speaking of nature, remember no matter how far we want to be from it, we're part of natue, and we're like everyother mamal that lives in comunity, we have a leader in every group
AlexLococo 3 years ago
some things*
AlexLococo 3 years ago
I think in the current society it goes beyond the same rights. Currently, I think everyone should have the same opportunities. In a utopian world there would be no rights or opportunities because we would all act with respect of one another and help each other - a pure anarchical system. But then in such a society how would you deal with the want-a-be dictator? Would such a society not be imposing its own set of rules on the people that are born into it?
jazzbunny 3 years ago
not necesiraly a wanna be dictator, but rather a deputy, usually one that thinks of things that people like, or that people prefer over other options, but not a dictator, as s/he doesn't tells people what to do, mahatma ghandi is one example
another diguised as one of them is charles manson, but he said "if you really love me, you do what i want you to do", that is not freedom, besides he controled them with drugs, you get me?
AlexLococo 3 years ago
ghandi was actually quite bad. Eventhough he never followed his own caste, he insisted that people should follow the caste system rigidly. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism to try and escape this problem and his arguments on this issue with Gandhi are well documented. Gandhi believed that there should be no social movement eventhough he was extremely hypocritical when applying his ideas to himself. Is it alright to dictate what the poor do once you are not one of them?
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i didn't knew that
but i think i remember something like that when i was readding something about john lennon
AlexLococo 3 years ago
BUT, as free beings, we can choose to accept their ideologies or not, maybe like a minority group between other mamals (not just us) there is democracy, the leader can propose, but everyone must say if they agree or not
AlexLococo 3 years ago
but we are never free to choose anything because I choice is always limited by something or someone. For example, say you are going into a shop to buy some beer. You think you have freedom of choice to choose the brand and type of beer you want. The reality is that the shop keeper has already made the choice for you by the range of brands they stock. Your choice is already limited beyond your control. Next, the positioning of brands and price will make you choose unconsciously what they want.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
you are right, but, like i said, there are really few people who really think for themselves, without anyone else, for instance, when you go to buy a beer, you don't go to buy it in that exact place, so if you want something you go and search for it other place, like me with alcohol-free beer, i dont go and buy it exactly there, when i want it, i want it no matter where it comes from
AlexLococo 3 years ago
but you only want to buy it because someone made it. If it did not exist you would not want to buy it. Its existence is influencing your ability to choose. There is no real choice unless you make it yourself because you want it. Even then you are limited to the materials available to you. There is never true freedom, only an illusion of freedom.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
are you talking about a DIY? so i wan't a shirt, and i want a desing, but there are no shirts with that desing, only then if i make it, its real freedom?
AlexLococo 3 years ago
hmm but whose idea is the shirt? Are you able to produce some clothing without being restricted by current fashion and trends? Is there something better than clothing? Do we need clothing at all?
Foucault appears to hint at this also but in a different book - the ideas are not important, it is the limitations within society that prevent certain ideas formulating. As said elsewhere it is difficult to talk about Foucault. If I say 'my reading' it suggests subjectivity which is a problem too.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
mine, yes, what about a plate of food, yes: we don't have enough hair, it's for protection the reason i wear colthing
AlexLococo 3 years ago
This is very true. But you would not label yourself a Democrat. You would label yourself an Anarcho-Syndicalists or some other form which uses a democratic way of doing things. Maybe Democratic-Anarchist I suppose. But most the Anarchist theories function democratically so its kind of a reiteration.
joinedcusimbored 3 years ago
AlexLococo 3 years ago
i aint an emo i am a free thinker
cory1246 3 years ago
in that one i was talking to emofrogmusic
xD
AlexLococo 3 years ago
Christian and anarchism don't really mix because you have a set of religious moral laws. However, people belong to different groups and identify with those groups at different levels of involvement. It is only when you are refused a group and pidgeon holed into another group against your will that you will accept the discourse of the group you find yourself in a feeble attempt of resistance but in doing so you accept the power structures that put you there and re-enforce the oppression.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
maybe you're right, but when those rules are not against my thought, what is wrong? in the end i am the one who decides my creed, i think its part of freedom choosing what to belive, isn't it?
AlexLococo 3 years ago
Nobody is denying your right to believe what you want. I just mentioned it in passing that Christianity has a set of moral rules based upon a hierarchical form of government. All Abrahamic faiths lead to dictatorship governments because when you die you goto heaven or hell. The reason hell exists is because God does not support the notion of anyone challenging his rule of heaven as a dictator, and the Devil isn't going to allow the same in hell. If you don't follow the rules you get punished.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
you should notice that (at least in my creed, catholisism) god is not a dictator, is rather a mercyful father, basically what jesus was brought to the earth
AlexLococo 3 years ago
but is not a father like a dictator that is why people refer to dictators as the father. If you break the rules in your house or if you do not do what your father tells you, do you not receive some sort of punishment whether it be a hit or denial of something you want. The punishment might not be as severe as a political dictator but it is there and perhaps that is why people accept dictatorships so easily is because the 'functional' family works the same. It's why rightwingers family values.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
you say there should be no one to punish the ones that do bad things?
basically what catholisism preaches is like a hippie message of "make love, not war", and to respect each others as equals
AlexLococo 3 years ago
Have you ever read Foucault's history of sexuality? It might be enlightening for you. He who hears your confession has power over you and you do confession willingly.
Catholicism is full of rules.
I think punishment does not work. My sister used to behave badly and break the rules and when threatened with a hit, she would invite it - it took away the purpose of the punishment and she was liberated.
Far better to sit with the person and explain why you don't approve of their action.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i think i get you, like me, i didn't worked at school and i was always getting punished, so i stopped talkign to my parents, i only recive from them food and shelter, everything i get it on my own, i feel a lot happier, and i think i have evolved as a person too
but god is a mercyful deity, not a punishing deity that rules with iron fist, but we don't really know what is actually in the afterlife, for all i know, i have never died
is that a book, an article or something? i want to read it
AlexLococo 3 years ago
it is a book
jazzbunny 3 years ago
foucault's history of sexuality... what is it about, in short terms?
AlexLococo 3 years ago
ambitious to try and say it in short terms - basically the bit that I am referring to of interest to yourself is the power relations at play with the concepts of confession and how the notion of confession has become embedded into society to such a degree that we are not always aware of when we are empowering others. Well that is just one interpretation. Foucault is pretty clever in that it is difficult to talk about him without becoming part of the problem.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
o.O
i think i get what you mean, you're speaking about people not doing what they want, but instead what others want, and you want me to read that book, so i now want to read it, so, if it was the problem, you did become part of the problem
AlexLococo 3 years ago
that is kind of on the right track. The fact that you have engaged in discourse with me makes you part of the discourse. You can choose not to read me which would be real resistence but by engaging in the text you are implented within its power structures. It is not so much me wanting you to read a book, but the fact that a book exists and you realise that it is for reading When you asked what is a book? you have placed the power with the person you are asking by allowing them to speak...
jazzbunny 3 years ago
but then Foucault can be clever but he is forgeting about the other ones, he is forgeting about nature rules, and nature of humans and humanity themselves, he is then trying to defy mankind democratic thinking (not in a way of government, but in another sense, refering that we do what others do and we like to do it, because we are not different worlds, we might be different persons, but we are not that diferent from each other)
AlexLococo 3 years ago
I am not really trying to make a Foucault style argument here. I just thought you might be interested in one of his books.
By talking about the rules of nature you are implying that they exist. But there will always be exceptions - do we sweep the exceptions under the carpet? Whose interpretation of those laws is being listened to? What and who supports those claims? Why do we not accept alternative ideas? What about the ideas nobody has yet had?
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i think you're right about that
i'm still going to read it, even if in the first place it wasn't my first idea, i think there can be exceptions, because in the end we don't live in a natural place, why not unatural exceptions?
AlexLococo 3 years ago
Sorry if this gets posted twice- For example, there are those who assume that homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of nature based on a notion of reproduction (same claims are made about sexual pleasure). However, there are many examples of homosexuality and sex for pleasure in the animal world. But the belief that it is unnatural persists. Who is it that is saying homosexuality is unnatural, under what authority are they defining the laws of nature?
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i was about to talk about the same topic xD
but all the homosexual animals i've read of (with the only exception of bonos and dolphins) that are homosexual all of them live in an unatural place, even if its a good imitation of nature
but you gotta notice that sex was made in nature for one thing: reproduction, to animals from the same gender cannot reproduce between them
BUT once someone told me that homosexuality was natures way to avoid overpopulations... it's not working quite well
AlexLococo 3 years ago
BUT who is telling you that and with what authority? Who is saying that sex is solely for reproduction and not pleasure. Taking your argument for a moment, why do we feel pleasure when we have sex if sex was not for the purpose of pleasure?
Incidently there are more cases in the wild of homosexuality than the ones you list.
Also what is unnatural? Who is to suggest what is natural and unnatural? These are all rules and power that influence us and prevent us being free to decided ourself
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i can't name no one unfortunately, but what is unatural has been used for things that are normaly not found in nature alone, like plastic
but i know something, if it wasn't pleasure then maybe animals would find no reason to have sex, it's like eating: its necesary (so as reproduction), but it's also pleasant
the difference, sex is not necesary for the animal to live, but for the species instead, so it's gotta have "extra" pleasant for the animals to do it
(that sounded awful)
AlexLococo 3 years ago
my central argument is that we allow these things to be said without challenging them or realising who is saying them and under what authority they are making their claims.
That a social structure exists that we often take for granted but sets out rules that we follow blindly.
By challenging these norms we engage in the discourse and re-enforce what is there. It is only by not engaging in the discourse that we can be truly free but that requires beginning everything again from scratch.
jazzbunny 3 years ago 3
so i should study bioligy and sociology myeslf to see if everything they have told me is true?
if you are saying that i agree with you there
but many of the things i've said have been for things i observed myself in society, both livin inside and outside (in the antisocial sense, not that i lived alone in the trees) of it and have been helped by the things i know (or i think i know) about comunity mamals
AlexLococo 3 years ago
speaking in terms of natural and unnatural enforce the American concept that we live in bi-polar world of them and us, republican or democrat, democracy or communism. But do we not live in a multiple of conditions? Can we not belong to more than once concept of identity? Who is it that is making us bracket ourselves in the 'you are with us or against us' bi-polarity of Good and Evil? These notions create barriers that prevent us from ever being equal and this empowers people over us.
jazzbunny 3 years ago
i know, i have also questiones the same, they see things black and white, they don't realize things can be gery, or pink
or even colourless
i got one question
is it hard co understand my comments?
english is not my firs language, and i see you get them quite well, but i wanna know if its hard for you
AlexLococo 3 years ago
your English comes across very well and more impressive considering it is not your first language.
Which brings me to my last point before I switch my computer off. Language has a set of rules and concepts that we take for granted but by being taught it, we accept many of its fundamental rules (although we can change many in inventing slang and dialect). Only by creating our own language can we break free of this - but can there exist a language where only one person knows it? I think 'yes'
jazzbunny 3 years ago