I'm not an anarchist, but an arsonist. How about we just burn it all down and start over....I'll bring the marshmellows. Who wants to bring the chocolate and the grahams?
Discussions of "ism"s lead to collectivist thought.
I am sovereign. I swear by my life, & my love of it, I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.
Hang whichever label upon me you may wish; although I will not bear the yoke, nor care to encumber myself with one for the sake of another's understanding. I am me. A=A. 2+2=4. I am.
For any who would force-encumber me with their life, they will find war or futility in seeking my consent.
I am an anarchist to much like ParticleMan. We are for no governments or really for leaders. We are against war, but we will protect ourselves if needed. We stress the production for need only and emancipation from state. Most of us are equalitarians.
Well, Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism are all deeply related because all of which aim to improve the relationship between the worker and the means of production (institutions such as factories or places that produce a commodity). Many democratic socialists want to bring about this by election and litigation, communists want to do this by hijacking the state and using it to destroy capitalism, and anarchists want to do it by destroying the state and capitalism and authoritarian forces.
A great way to "say no to politics" is to just ignore it, stay home, eat mushrooms, and play video games. That will probably satisfy you a lot more. "Ending politics" means ending civilization... not gonna happen oh you advocates of extinction.
After the destruction of a system comes anarchy, the strong rise to the top and you have tyranny.
It's no good only eating butter, dying of a heart attack and saying "destroy all butter!". Why not demand different food? Educate your friends so they can eat better?
I'm from England and can see that Ron Paul has the answers you need. The system you hate, hates him, their biggest threat. His ideas will literally set the US and then the world free. HELP him. Direct your energy for the good.
If there were no government, what plan would you idiots have in place??? You protest just to protest. You have no agenda and have not thought things through. No more government, destroy everything, anarchy......fucking stupid.
Right because those in power are doing SUCH a splendid job of running our lives aren't they? Oh...that's right...running OUR lives. Apparently you don't mind living in a cage so long as it's gilded.
I'm all for freedom. Both the democrats and republicans sold us out a long time ago. But douch is right. Anarchy always leads to tyrany. A revolution is needed. To hell with both McCain and Obama.
Anarchy, in its purist form means no government and no laws. Sounds great perhaps until someone decides to use their strength to take what they will. bands of thieves, rapist, and murders are created in these societies sending the society into chaos. Enevitably the people get fed up with the lawlessness and give their power to another to deal with the problem. At that moment Anarchy ends and tyrany at one level or another begins. Real anarchy has never been able to last due to human nature.
nope, Anarchism simply means "without archons" or rulers. Under this definition, there are a number of cultures and societies that have and do currently exist under anarchism. Among these people are the Tiv, various amazonian tribes, and to a slightly lesser extent the Zapatistas of Chiapas and the nation of Madagascar exhibit many anarchistic behaviors.
Anarchism exists as a communitarian society that practices direct democracy, worker-self management, and mutual aid. Read some Emma Goldman.
Most are follow their good nature, but even if it is an extreme few that follow their darker evil side, that few end up destroying the hope, work, and dreams of the majority good unless the good forms a way to protect itself, thus enters a form of government at some level.
Additionally, when the coercive forces (The government and capitalism) collapse, most crimes of necessity (which make up the majority of all crime) sharply decrease due to the communal use of mutual aid.Being greedy in an anarchist society would be illogical, because if one takes something that isn't theirs, they would destroy any chance they have at building interactions and services that would aide their own survival. Thus, the richest are those that are most generous and hard working.
Then by your definition, America is an Anarchy as we have no "rulers" but "elected officials" who constitutionaly are to be seen as "servants", not rulers. However, we have been ignoring the constition for decades now. In an ideal world, I think you idea of anarchy would be a good thing. But lets get realistic. Look what happened in New Orleans when there was a fallout rule and law. Chaos ruled, and it wasn't only for necessity. (flat screen tvs, computers, etc, stolen)
Of course there was chaos, because all the people in power failed the citizens of New Orleans.But what you fail to mention is the remarkable cases of human solidarity and self-sacrifice that took place during Katrina. Such behavior and communitarian responsibility are corner stones of the anarchist philosophy.
Thats partly my point. The people in power failed. Basically, there was no leadership which led to the chaos. Perhaps my understanding of Anarchy isn't quite right or aligned with your perception of it. In your idea of anarchy, is there any leadership positions? (president, chief, etc...) Perhaps we need to understand each others definition before we can really discuss this in greater detail.
I am an anarchist of the social persuasion. I see Anarchism as the only method to bring about socialism, or an environment in which one has the ability to control the world that they are part of. This control ranges from the conditions that they work in to the human interactions in which they choose to take part in. Thus, I am an advocate of communal autonomy, in which the community practices methods of direct democracy for problem solving.
With that being said, If a community decides to be represented by a leader, they should have the power to remove the leader from office at any point in time, provided that it is the result of popular consensus.
But more or less, I believe that people have the power to make decisions for themselves,and don't need to elect others to make decisions for them.
As I see it, anarchy and socialism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Anarchy having limited to no governmental control, where socialism has huge governmental control (Example: Nazism, Communism, etc.) How do you mix the two? The only way I see it possible is if the people on an individual and voluntary basis contribute to social programs. Otherwise, the government/community would require it through taxes on an involuntary basis.
Ha, I made a previous comment about this, but I don't know if it posted (my internet is being annoying).
However, I am currently undergoing a huge workload, so if my views have interested you in the least, please visit infoshop(dot)org, they have a very extensive FAQ on Anarchism. Sorry if this is a cop out, but I think that will be much more clear and concise. Thanks for listening.
In the mid 1800s to early 1900s most Socialists believed in decentralized workman's counsels. When Lenin and what we call the 3rd Internation came in they twisted the idea of worker's cousels and took power for themselves.
capitalism then socialism then communism...in the end...anarchy
easyskanin69 1 year ago
I'm not an anarchist, but an arsonist. How about we just burn it all down and start over....I'll bring the marshmellows. Who wants to bring the chocolate and the grahams?
papasimian 2 years ago
Discussions of "ism"s lead to collectivist thought.
I am sovereign. I swear by my life, & my love of it, I shall never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.
Hang whichever label upon me you may wish; although I will not bear the yoke, nor care to encumber myself with one for the sake of another's understanding. I am me. A=A. 2+2=4. I am.
For any who would force-encumber me with their life, they will find war or futility in seeking my consent.
Viva le' Sovereign!
brockal 2 years ago
I ride a fine line between a true liberal and anarchist.. For now I think I'll stick with gun toting anarcholiberal! Viva la resistance!
EthanSurbaugh 3 years ago
I am an anarchist to much like ParticleMan. We are for no governments or really for leaders. We are against war, but we will protect ourselves if needed. We stress the production for need only and emancipation from state. Most of us are equalitarians.
kittiest34 3 years ago 2
Well, Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism are all deeply related because all of which aim to improve the relationship between the worker and the means of production (institutions such as factories or places that produce a commodity). Many democratic socialists want to bring about this by election and litigation, communists want to do this by hijacking the state and using it to destroy capitalism, and anarchists want to do it by destroying the state and capitalism and authoritarian forces.
ParticleMan 3 years ago 2
A great way to "say no to politics" is to just ignore it, stay home, eat mushrooms, and play video games. That will probably satisfy you a lot more. "Ending politics" means ending civilization... not gonna happen oh you advocates of extinction.
monroesq 3 years ago
After the destruction of a system comes anarchy, the strong rise to the top and you have tyranny.
It's no good only eating butter, dying of a heart attack and saying "destroy all butter!". Why not demand different food? Educate your friends so they can eat better?
I'm from England and can see that Ron Paul has the answers you need. The system you hate, hates him, their biggest threat. His ideas will literally set the US and then the world free. HELP him. Direct your energy for the good.
thebrokenchessboard 3 years ago
If there were no government, what plan would you idiots have in place??? You protest just to protest. You have no agenda and have not thought things through. No more government, destroy everything, anarchy......fucking stupid.
douche117 3 years ago
Right because those in power are doing SUCH a splendid job of running our lives aren't they? Oh...that's right...running OUR lives. Apparently you don't mind living in a cage so long as it's gilded.
upthebikez 3 years ago
I'm all for freedom. Both the democrats and republicans sold us out a long time ago. But douch is right. Anarchy always leads to tyrany. A revolution is needed. To hell with both McCain and Obama.
Captain077 3 years ago
See my reply to douche. (fitting name for him lol)
evilmick66 3 years ago
Anarchy exists now and has existed for thousands of years without tyranny. Try again, oh Captain, my Captain.
ParticleMan 3 years ago
Anarchy, in its purist form means no government and no laws. Sounds great perhaps until someone decides to use their strength to take what they will. bands of thieves, rapist, and murders are created in these societies sending the society into chaos. Enevitably the people get fed up with the lawlessness and give their power to another to deal with the problem. At that moment Anarchy ends and tyrany at one level or another begins. Real anarchy has never been able to last due to human nature.
Captain077 3 years ago
nope, Anarchism simply means "without archons" or rulers. Under this definition, there are a number of cultures and societies that have and do currently exist under anarchism. Among these people are the Tiv, various amazonian tribes, and to a slightly lesser extent the Zapatistas of Chiapas and the nation of Madagascar exhibit many anarchistic behaviors.
Anarchism exists as a communitarian society that practices direct democracy, worker-self management, and mutual aid. Read some Emma Goldman.
ParticleMan 3 years ago
Most are follow their good nature, but even if it is an extreme few that follow their darker evil side, that few end up destroying the hope, work, and dreams of the majority good unless the good forms a way to protect itself, thus enters a form of government at some level.
Captain077 3 years ago
Additionally, when the coercive forces (The government and capitalism) collapse, most crimes of necessity (which make up the majority of all crime) sharply decrease due to the communal use of mutual aid.Being greedy in an anarchist society would be illogical, because if one takes something that isn't theirs, they would destroy any chance they have at building interactions and services that would aide their own survival. Thus, the richest are those that are most generous and hard working.
ParticleMan 3 years ago 2
Then by your definition, America is an Anarchy as we have no "rulers" but "elected officials" who constitutionaly are to be seen as "servants", not rulers. However, we have been ignoring the constition for decades now. In an ideal world, I think you idea of anarchy would be a good thing. But lets get realistic. Look what happened in New Orleans when there was a fallout rule and law. Chaos ruled, and it wasn't only for necessity. (flat screen tvs, computers, etc, stolen)
Captain077 3 years ago
Of course there was chaos, because all the people in power failed the citizens of New Orleans.But what you fail to mention is the remarkable cases of human solidarity and self-sacrifice that took place during Katrina. Such behavior and communitarian responsibility are corner stones of the anarchist philosophy.
ParticleMan 3 years ago 2
Thats partly my point. The people in power failed. Basically, there was no leadership which led to the chaos. Perhaps my understanding of Anarchy isn't quite right or aligned with your perception of it. In your idea of anarchy, is there any leadership positions? (president, chief, etc...) Perhaps we need to understand each others definition before we can really discuss this in greater detail.
Captain077 3 years ago
I am an anarchist of the social persuasion. I see Anarchism as the only method to bring about socialism, or an environment in which one has the ability to control the world that they are part of. This control ranges from the conditions that they work in to the human interactions in which they choose to take part in. Thus, I am an advocate of communal autonomy, in which the community practices methods of direct democracy for problem solving.
ParticleMan 3 years ago
With that being said, If a community decides to be represented by a leader, they should have the power to remove the leader from office at any point in time, provided that it is the result of popular consensus.
But more or less, I believe that people have the power to make decisions for themselves,and don't need to elect others to make decisions for them.
ParticleMan 3 years ago
As I see it, anarchy and socialism are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Anarchy having limited to no governmental control, where socialism has huge governmental control (Example: Nazism, Communism, etc.) How do you mix the two? The only way I see it possible is if the people on an individual and voluntary basis contribute to social programs. Otherwise, the government/community would require it through taxes on an involuntary basis.
Captain077 3 years ago
Ha, I made a previous comment about this, but I don't know if it posted (my internet is being annoying).
However, I am currently undergoing a huge workload, so if my views have interested you in the least, please visit infoshop(dot)org, they have a very extensive FAQ on Anarchism. Sorry if this is a cop out, but I think that will be much more clear and concise. Thanks for listening.
ParticleMan 3 years ago
In the mid 1800s to early 1900s most Socialists believed in decentralized workman's counsels. When Lenin and what we call the 3rd Internation came in they twisted the idea of worker's cousels and took power for themselves.
kittiest34 3 years ago
We DO have a plan! Type in youtube(DOT)com and slash, then add: watch?v=0KECcfKViog
evilmick66 3 years ago
chumbawamba?
wombo2 3 years ago
Absolutely
upthebikez 3 years ago
this is awesome!
Dylanpetrohilos 3 years ago