What's a "Ron Paul/Alex Jones" type of person? Someone who "obsessed over bankers/FED". If so, why not just say that?? Seems a bit foolish to label something A just to associate it with B. I'm a big fan of Ron Pauls character, yet I don't subscribe to any of the bankers/FED obsession.
odd that you put that caveat in about the Fed. The Fed is a price control on the interest rates, Most economists agree that price controls are a bad thing. IOW, it is a real situation, not a conspiracy.
@pooptickler1337 Capitalism is the destruction of the soul and a detrimental changing of the essential nature of Man. I'd rather die than be transformed into a creature that is fundamentally subhuman.
Human civilization is built upon the family model, the parent-child relationship.
There are always going to be leaders. And when you enter into that Anarcho-fantasy, you will realize that everything starts to revolve around whoever has more authority, the administration or police; and eventually, your society will become a dominated by certain people who shouldn't have power.
@pooptickler1337 I can't tell if you're nihilistic or just find the slave/master conception of society preferable to one were individual freedom is placed at the fore (at the very least you seem to feel it's inevitable)
There is no slave/master conception of society anymore. Have you seen local industry lately? We import billions of products from China each year, while America only exports nothing except for soldiers and weapons. Kids these days expect to be hired at a restaurant or a grocery store. No kid ever thinks of working in a factory. This communist bullshit propaganda they've been hearing on tv is rotting their mind, and now America is nothing but whiny little spoiled brats.
No, it's more like saying "there will always be a human language, because language can't end".
As long as we have a society, there will be people in charge. The original constitution was written to decrease the amount of power that one person could have, because "absolute power corrupts absolutely". If we gave the responsibilities of war to the general public, 1/10 the troops would go, while 9/10 of them stay, bloodshed; democracy has no wisdom, but leadership does.
@pooptickler1337: There will always be people in charge in what way? In charge of their own lives, or in charge of other people's lives? For the sake of argument I will assume that you mean in charge of other people's lives. I don't think there will always be people in charge of other people's lives. In a anarchistic society, there might be people who will try and they ought to be stricken down.
@pooptickler1337: If we gave the responsibility of war to the public, I think many troops would deploy in wars were there are committing obvious genocide. In fact I think there might be none or less bullshit wars being fought. Democracy imo is the best decision making process, and by democracy I mean participatory democracy. So imo democracy is wise.
Anarchism is a wonderful concept, but unfortunately humans are pack-style animals that have always been in groups from the very beginning. And while examples of humans going against their nature is seen all the time, I think going it alone and breaking away from at least some form of group would be hard to do for many people, myself included. There's a real fear that everything will descend into total chaos, being the ruler of your own fate is simultaneously wonderful and terrifying.
The understanding of Anarchism is not just that the individual ought to be in control of their own fate, it is also coupled with the recognition that the individual is very much an active part of society.
Human beings are social creatures, but we are also unique individuals. To deny either aspect of our nature limits our full potential. (A) is about individual liberty as well as co-operation and mutual aid. You're right, groups are very important.
If you want a concrete demonstration of an anarchist society that was able to increase economic efficiency, look up the Spanish Civil War. George Orwell even went to fight the Fascists in the belief of this type of decentralized social organization. If you doubt that this could work, check out the Free Software movement, which powers much of your internet.
what makes people think that anarchy would allow people to be their own leader? people will still need money, which means if anything the corporate powers that be would become only stronger and more powerful, and would have no regulation. People would not be 'free'
Social anarchism however is about building a different and freer system of coordination and administration in terms of polity and economy without a "monopoly on the use of force" (a state) as it's main component.
It's not about getting rid of the state then leaving a vacuum; but rather constructing alternative institutions that don't utilize hierarchy and operate through direct-democracy and self-management.
@MsSexySocialist Yup. I consider myself more of a communist than an anarchists (though one could argue the end goal of a communist system is in fact anarchism), but as I understand it under anarchism people would organize in small, self-sufficient groups that make decisions through direct democratic means, and when necessary will coordinate with other groups (without stepping on eachother's toes)
I wouldn't say that each community need be self-sufficient. After all, how do you get bananas if you live in a climate that can't grow them?
Although you're correct in the basic outline of an anarchist society. Each local community is autonomous and governs its own affairs while being part of a larger confederation which can coordinate things on wider geographical scale.
free village anarchy:a society of self sufficient free villages(how much of disease
and crippling accidents are a product of industrial society)hillbillies do it third world countries do it mountain men did it hippies did it squatters do it and homesteaders do it
@crazylawstudent: Full autonomy for other countries is exactly what those Ron Paul/Alex Jones type people advocate with a non-interventionist foreign policy coupled with a complete disregard for the UN. To say that the super rich or the top .000001% don't benefit from the inflationary policies of the fed when the dollar is such a huge part of the international economy is showing a misunderstanding of how inflation works.
@stephenabm Except that Russia had a Communist revolution, not an anarchist revolution. They wanted a communist system. This was also the case in Cuba, the Castro revolution was a revolution for communism not against it.
@AlicexMarilyn It went from Anarchy to Communist with both of these countries. I agree the plan was for a creation of a Marxist / Communist state, but initially it was Anarchy.
@stephenabm It was never really any ideological anarchism in the way that Moore describes it or even anarchy in the way one would imagine some kind of "total anarchist state". whatever that could possible be since it will never really happen as few states will rarely if ever come to be like the ideal of what one might like to think of an ideal state. Since the point of that revolution was to overthrow the ruling state and establish communism it has very little to do with this video.
For all those that keep saying that anarchism is unworkable. Check in Vimeo "living the Utopia". a Documentary about anarchism in practice during the Spanish civil war.
Anarchy requires self control. Which is why it'll never work in reality. Those with self control can only be individual anarchists. The majority of people in this world would rather be slaves, to be disciplined if they fall out of line.
"Why should we? Why can't we rely upon ourselves for safety? Why do the people who kill our family members get to be killed by government officials whom have nothing to do with it?"
Because people would fucking kill each other without government. Survival of the fittest. Anyone could burn your house, shoot you, torture you, and nobody except your family would give a fuck.
@EnLugal PEOPLE ALREADY DO KILL EACH OTHER. People burn down other's houses, people shoot others, and people torture others. The government doesn't stop this! The government only seeks revenge!
Oh, plenty of people care when others are murdered. Do you think everyone just shrugs it off when there's a serial killer in their area? People feel sorry for their fellow man. It's not the right of a prison guard to electrify a murderer. It's the right of the father or mother to seek revenge.
@MedievalAmbient "People feel sorry for their fellow man" About that....only if it happens to people they care about or have a sense of connection to.
@HybridD91 That's basically what I said. "Someone in their area". If someone in my neighborhood lost their son, you'd bet my neighbors and I would go over and try to talk to them and help them feel better. It's how many people are. However, I recognize that there are exceptions. Some people just don't give a fuck and would do whatever they want. The only difference would be that justice would be in the hands of the victims, not the law enforcement who just butt in to a crime.
If the only thing stopping you from killing other people is government and/or law, then you are an incredibly sick individual. Believe it or not, the rest of us aren't refraining from killing each other out of fear of being locked in a cage. We're refraining from killing each other because it's the wrong thing to do. I recommend you get some professional help to find out why you feel a compulsive need to kill people and why you think everyone else has the same need.
Lies, lies and lies again. Without government our soiety would sink into dark ages and eventually a ne government would form. No one would benefit from it.
@EnLugal do you have any historical evidence of this? what makes politicians and cops so magical that they can somehow run someone else's life better then they can? they're people, they are subject to flaws just like the layman
@allwittynamestaken Because without them you would be lost...anyone could murder you in the blink of an eye. Without laws, without order anyone could do whatever he wants, but your freedom would in fact decrease...wou would be afraid to go out because anyone could murder you. Eventually new states would form, because people would need protection. Do you finally unerstand?
@EnLugal what if I had a VOLUNTARY neighborhood watch program? or maybe a gun? finally, do you really need someone to tell you to NOT murder to keep you from doing it? do you need a cop every 100 feet to prevent you from raping and pillaging or from getting raped and pillaged? Cops aren't in the business of crime prevention, they're in the business of revenge
@allwittynamestaken That means that it would be a form of rule, eventually such "neighborhood watch programmes" would turn into microstates or gangs that would fight against each other for control. Haha, gun wouldn't help you if some sniper decided to kill you and then rob you.
@EnLugal I think sniper rifles are more expensive then anything I can carry, it is impossible to "control" anything if it is voluntary. they can't tax us if we don't want to be, besides on the smallest scale (community) society and your own destiny is MUCH easier to control and much easier to live in
@allwittynamestaken Sniper rifle can be used many times and so effectively used for profit = killing people. You're babbling about taxes, but you have no idea about anarchy.
@EnLugal living without a leader isn't evil XD slaves have the same false mindset. "if master wasn't here to feed and clothe us, we would die and run wild!"
@allwittynamestaken No, but I would kill anyone with enough money without hesitation. If anyone would have guaranteed impunity, can you imagine what would follow?
@EnLugal Not everyone is an idiot like you. Oh and don't worry about crime in an anarchy, people would not let themselves get killed. And even if a murder were committed, the carrier of the deed would most likely be thrown out of the community.
@EnLugal Don't Mexico and Brazil have cops? Oh and don't come with under-development bullshit. Marseille is an example of a city in a rich country with lots of crime. A kid got shot at by a gang a week or so ago. That's just an example. When London was being pillaged citizens formed in groups to prevent shit from happening, the police was powerless until they doubled their numbers.
@mainmenu895 In Marseille there are muslims, while in London there are niggers. For them, crime is natural, so don't come up with this nonsense. You can't imagine what is anarchy, it's 100 times worse than Detroit, you can get killed at any moment.
@EnLugal And now you've taken it to a whole new level of irrationality. Visibly, muslims are better able to get rid of useless governments than us whites can.
@EnLugal People are killed all the time! Laws don't stop people from being "immoral"! People will do what they want, and the only consequence is to hang around in a free home for the rest of your life. People wouldn't have to be sneaky or have to kill people if there wasn't law, because people would be too busy enjoying life under their own management. I'm tired of paying the government money for them to basically screw up the country! Why should one group of people boss everyone else around?
@EnLugal The law enforcement doesn't stop people, or else we wouldn't need prisons.
I don't feel too safe. The police have never saved me from danger before. They arrest people for no reason. Police brutality is quite common. They're there to do the government's bidding, not to keep us safe.
@EnLugal Um, how about here in the US? Look at the OWS movement. People are being arrested left and right FOR PROTESTING PEACEFULLY! Also I was once arrested for petting a neighbor's dog! The police officer said I was practicing "unusual behavior" and threw me in the back of a police car. The neighbor was sitting there talking to me and this cop just comes up and arrests me! Things like that happen all the time! Police officers are corrupt and are not our "friends".
@MedievalAmbient I'm not from the U.S and while the police may be corrupt, they don't arrest people for no reason. That bullshit with your neighbor's dog is utterly ridiculous.
@EnLugal Well I guess you have to actually be here to see all the shit they do for no reason. Another example; when I was in high school a lot of people wore red bandanas. There wasn't really any reason; it was just a trend. One day a kid was arrested for wearing one because our ex-military VP thought it was a gang symbol. He tackled the kid, whose ankle was broken from the way he was hit. The officer then smashed him in the face with a nightstick. I knew him, and he wasn't involved with a gang.
@EnLugal Because a lot of police officers and other school and government officials like to have power over their people. They overreact to something that could threaten their hold of power, like a gang. A gang could ruin a town because it would cause the people to begin complaining and to doubt the leader's strength. It's all about controlling people and keeping everyone under the leader's control. That's why I believe anarchism makes sense. Though there are problems, it's better than this.
@MedievalAmbient So you would like to live under the rule of some gang? In my country, there are no gangs, no niggers, and police do what they have to do, but they don't bully people.
@EnLugal No, I'd like to be under the rule of myself. Without government, gangs have no purpose. They don't need to ship drugs across the country illegally or anything like that. There's no point in gangs, so they would cease to exist.
What country do you live in? And for a Christian you seem to have an odd hatred for other people created by God.
@MedievalAmbient That's nonsense. Gangs would grow extremely without government! They would have a simple purpose - to have power and fight for it. Muhahaha, that would be 1000 times worse than the government. You're so stupid and immature...
I'm from a country called Czech Republic, where most people don't believe in god, including me. I don't hate anyone, but you well know that niggers account for most of the problems with gangs and street crime.
@EnLugal Gangs function on avoiding the law, bribing cops, and dealing drugs. If the law didn't exist, there would be no point. People could grow pot or make meth in their homes, taking away the need for police. If someone was klled, the family of the deceased could track down the killer and kill them. We don't need cops punishing people. The people who should deal punishment should be those that are actually afflicted by a crime, not people who have nothing to do with it.
@EnLugal I'm immature? You're the one who believes in following someone else to be safe. We should rely on ourselves for safety! And you're calling me stupid and you don't even know how corrupt law enforcement and government as a whole is!
If you wouldn't kill someone when it's illegal, why should you kill someone when you can't be punished? Do you think it's right to take a life, whether or not its illegal?
@MedievalAmbient Right? Who can determine what is or what is not "right"? I would kill a person, yes, and you would do it too if you could gain a large amount of money.
@EnLugal I'm of the same mindset. I don't believe in any true morals. However, I do respect people's right to live. That's one moral that I do believe in, at least for me. It's a moral value that most everyone holds, for whatever reason. And no, I wouldn't kill for money. That's called being a hitman, and you could become one if you want. I wouldn't; there's no price I'd take for destroying another life. Money isn't important to me. I believe in thought and happiness, which can't be bought.
@MedievalAmbient Well, all people aren't as deviant as you. If you're saying that money isn't important to you, you're a hypocrite. Pretty much anyone would kill a person, if they could get 1 million dollars and undertake no risk.
@EnLugal You seem to be a product of the decadence of man, I suppose. Most people wouldn't kill for a million dollars. I seriously don't care about money or the risk (despite the fact that I'd probably be killed by that person's family if I killed them). I care about destroying a valuable human life, destroying someone's son, husband, or best friend. Pulling that person out of the world.
If you would do that for money, I don't even know what to say to you.
@EnLugal And if you are of this mindset, that man can't determine what is "right" because there is no such thing as right, then it would make more sense for you to be an anarchist. The government makes laws based on what they say is right and wrong. And we must all follow them as members of the human race. Why should we? Why can't we rely upon ourselves for safety? Why do the people who kill our family members get to be killed by government officials whom have nothing to do with it?
@Watchdawg The only functional type of property system possible in an Anarchist society falls under the category of Possession and Use. meaning, you own what you directly can control. Eliminating anything recognizable as a credit/banking system, as well as standardized money, which is replaced by intra community trade both on the individual and social level. This should (as it did for 1000's of years humans existed before the invention of god, the church, kings and rulers!) eliminate rent.
@Watchdawg loans taxes and interest. bringing the price of housing down to nearly free. Only then can every man truly own his home, and thus be the king of his own castle. without the multiple usuries of private (absentee) property, each man can truly be his own leader!
1930s Catalonia is actually a good example of anarchism working and isn't an example of anarchism existing as you said it has. (crumbling and submitting to authoritarianism from within) rather they were violently coerced by fascists and Franco. If your point is that it can never exist because nation states will always devour any attempts, well that can and has been refuted easily, and if anything it just reflects poorly on a nation states ability to control itself rather than anarchism.
@thenoorys Catalonia is neither a good example of anarchism as Moore described it nor a good example of a system working. They had leaders, laws produced and enforced by a monopoly power etc. The "anarchists" started coercing people from the moment it was possible and didn't stop until stalinists and fascists put bullets in their head.
@newperve Who specifically had leaders? They were largely syndicalists at that point and they did use coercive measures to get their rights. Provide examples of "anarchist leaders making laws and coercing".
There no doubt that it was imperfect, but leagues better than the alternatives of the day and even today.
@thenoorys Well they openly had a committee running things including a minister of defence and others and specifically joined the other republicans in government. They used coercive measures to do things like kill people they thought didn't agree with them and prohibit smoking. As for making laws are you serious? You have no idea what the "anarchists" did if you claim they didn't make laws. At least most modern leaders don't routinely execute without trial or even use conscription.
@newperve You don't mention that before the Stalinists forced them into formal militarization,the members of the Anarchist militias were a complete volunteers, and could (and often did) refuse to execute his duties at any time. It was not the same for any of the Fascist or Stalinist armies. Every militia member, then by fulfilling his role, sanctioned the decisions of the various councils. and was personally liable for his actions.. I think if you go through
@slackmason I didn't mention it because it wasn't fucking true. You are simply making this shit up. The Stalinists didn't force them into anything, they willingly formed government and indeed tried to get into government at the slightest chance.
@newperve I think, if you really want to look into it, though they weren't perfect human beings, the Anarchist militias where FAAAARRRR less prone to the kinds of abuses that the formally militarized militias often committed. Also, by the time the Anarchists were forced into the government, the war was basically lost.
I don't know what books you've read (since I'm sure you weren't there) But I've never heard mention of a ban on smoking, Orwell smokes through out Homage.
@newperve My understanding of the Spanish Civil War is based on the books I've read about it, which include Homage to Catalonia, Durruti in the Spanish Civil War and Sabate as well as the documentary Living Utopia. and a TON of other minor articles and research papers. The Stalinists DID in deed force the Anarchists into formal hierarchal militaries, which was counter to their ethics. That isn't even a disputed fact. And joining the government was contentious to say the least.
The remaining commandments I suppose are to do with industrially booting Orientals and Indians out of the West wholesale. Thats the problem with multiculturalism, its a suicidal method of society. Everyone wants to subvert it and when there is nothing left to subvert everyone will turn violent. Well, or hide. Best bet would be to put a few CEO's and Yakuza bosses heads on spikes, parade them round the city, that would save the trouble of much worse (not much) further down the road.
Lol its a compelling argument and it is true. However the way things have gone there does have to be some readjustment. Expertise in craft, metalwork, design is something that has been completely overshadowed by art and creativity. I think there needs to be a very loose framework, like a ten commandments how to live. 1. Belief in something greater than yourself. 2. Belief in craft 3. Belief in monogamy 4. Citizen defence force of computer science guys to protect against the godman.
While I believe in the principles of not having a governing body in a nation I do think that many Anarchists do themselves a disservice in the way they behave.
i've met several Anarchists in my time but it's really disheartens me that most express their dissatisfaction with government but doing things like refusing to vote or behave badly.
If you want to change thing, don't attack it from the outside, work within the system.
Support government which advocate less control and work from there.
he says it's the only way and most moral. maybe most moral, but to have a functional anarchy you have to have enormous trust in everyone, and that everyone will have a very strong sense of ethics, contentiousness, respect, love, empathy, critical thought... which would be very good qualities to have abundantly in a society, but for the moment, unlikely to hold throughout the masses... only a handful of people are like that... you need education, stable families and society, it's a hard thing...
@GingerAtheist Everyone makes their own roads! But only if they want to! Cause like the bearded guy said; we don't want people bossing us around--so we might just make *patches* of roads outside our driveway. Then, if we all live in a clustered environment, we can turn all our driveways into a massive road that leads us to everybody else's houses - thereby making travel easier for everybody!
Geez. It's not like it's hard to figure out, dude!
@jaieet Actually people can't just build roads (unless gravel) because there is a reason why we have professionals build roads. There is an actual science to city development also there is no reason that a person couldn't make you pay for going on his road. In an anarchical society policeman become mobsters and citizens become thugs.
@GingerAtheist I have no idea how you took what I said as a serious comment; but I congratulate you on finding it within yourself to argue with me nonetheless. :P
@steeroy Depends what kind of power your talking about. The type of power they have now is to use the force of the state by having a monopoly on the currency, having a central bank to take care of them and steal money from the people through inflation. Not to mention bail outs and all that BS. Communist anarchism makes no sense to me. How do you get rid of market trading without using violence?
The values and social mores of the society would induce the understanding that if I guy says runs his own shop as single-trader just himself in a shop he should receive a bill for services he uses. The bill would explain the real costs to the collective and leave him to decide based upon his sense of communal duty & personal generosity & determined by his current phase of financial wellbeing ...how much he is going to pay. This is also an incentive for collective members to shop there.
His definition lacks the collectivist dimension of anarchism people working together in co-operative federation that is anarchism. His I am an island crap is a wrong understanding.
Of course people need their space and privacy but in order to get the big things done
@sanacore2011 Anarchism is a way of thinking where you do not desire to control other people. If some guy wants to go live alone in a hut in the forest, no anarchist will have any problem. If other people want to go live in a cooperative federation, then no one would stop them. If other people want only to be left to their lives without taxes, legal tender laws and such it's fine too. It opposition to violence and control that binds anarchists, not a particular way of life.
Well one needs to think in practical terms not abstractions. In an anarchist society those people who opt-out of the co-operative lifestyle would need to pay a tax for their use of the services and infrastructure providing by the
@sanacore2011 Do you mean that people have to pay for the services they use directly, as in pay when they actually use the roads built by a collective, or the food a collective grows? Then yes, of course, anything else would be quite horrible. If you mean actual taxes, as in values collected by threat of violence by the collective, for the act of living and interacting with their society and therefore using its "infrastructure", then I guess by your standards we have anarchy today :p
@mortalisk I've heard many anarchists promote the practical idea of different theories about anarchism existing side-by-side in their actual establishment. Anarcho-communist federations beside market anarchist villages beside voluntaryist assocations beside primitivist loners, that sort of thing.
@nocturnezero Yes, as free market anarchist, I would have no problem with any other anarchist ways of organizing as long as people voluntary join(otherwise it wouldn't really be anarchist). It is just that I think most people would choose to use the market for the most part. As long as it is not coercive(by human violence), it's all good. For example I believe in respecting property rights, but I do not believe prison is any way to punish people for anything.
Anarchism is a period of intentional destruction, disruption, disobedience, non-compliance with the aim of demolishing or modifying a system of government.
In this case the system of government stems from the banker's control over everything, through debt repayment, interest, USURY.
History is full of people who recognised the evil of Usury.
In WW2, the Nazis persecuted the Usurs (but still held on to the idea of Usury).
Even the Vatican lost investments during the economic crisis.
"Anarchism is a period of intentional destruction, disruption, disobedience, non-compliance with the aim of demolishing or modifying a system of government."
According to you and you alone. That isn't the definition of anarchy at all. You just described the chaos surrounding regime change and labelled it anarchy.
Anarchy:
An-against
Archy- rulership, government or hierarchy depending on what you believe.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist which means only voluntary interaction with innocent people.
@CO2TROL Well I espouse anarcho-capitalism and I inform people about how the inherently monopolistic government is nothing more then a criminal gang, but I'm not throwing bombs or assasinating people if thats what you mean by "actively".
You should check ou anarcho-capitalism, epsecially Walter Block, Robert Murphy and Stefan Molyneux.
@Hashishin13 You have correctly clarified the definition of anarchy. Without rules there would be no civilization and therefore no refinement or intellectual advancement, Intelligence is by brains not brawn which differs us from mere animals. Capitalism is the right to own and sell property or your own time for what the market will bear. In this sense a government's function is to supply police to stop others taking by force and a court system to stop others taking by fraud.
@ What you just described is the other flavour of the political system I believe in, Libertarian minarchism. According to that belief the government is just supposed to protect us from each other and from enemies while providing a court and punishment system to deal with suspected criminals.
I believe in no government at all as governemnts claim a monopoly on courts, police and army functions, which leaves them open to corruption. Also these governments still claim the right to tax
the term anarchy obviously needs to be defined by this man because people are under the assumption that it is simply an absence of a formal government
@evilsqurrel420 I don't know what you're saying. Could you repeat what you typed, with the inclusion of punctuation, so I can understand which side of the fence you're sat on? I can then decide, for myself, whether I agree with you, or not..
Anarchy doesn't mean neglecting common sense in favour of argument.. Does it?
@dtsmucker "The term anarchy obviously needs to be defined by this man because people are under the assumption that it is simply an absence of a formal government."
Sorry for the lack of punctuation and order, now the chaos has subsided, you can decide to agree or not agree. :)
There will always be bullies, they operate under the law, above the law and within the law or without any law at all. The creative aspect of the intelligent human verses the competitive nature of the animal, we are both.
@GrumpSkull Which is why anarcho-capitalists want competing firms for all of societies needs, if assholes take over one institution anyone is free to start a competitor.
anarchism has been tried. the problem is some asshole ends up accumulating power and then installs a hegemony. hence the the rise of ancient empires like Egypt, Babylon etc.
as much you might not want to admit it, we do need some form of government to prevent monopoly in all its forms.
@zazenzach Well i dunno about that. I visited some shamans and they both told me people are getting more and more active in permaculture. However, you are right with your funny statement about some asshole always seem to become to "powerfull". Dissolving of ego is important. I've seen communes in the world which are highly anarchistic and peaceful. I think it can be done, but yeah... not for everyone sad to say. And also, these communes which i'm speaking of always seem to become a threat...
@zazenzach That's not anarchism then. anarchism is the idea of anti-authority it's more of a philosophy than policy, however most anarchist are libertarian communist or socialists. no one person would be able to "accumulate" power all by himself. in fact, those types need governments to protect and enforce their wealth accumulation like private property and intellectual property rights. anarcho-communism has never happened ona large scale. mostly because power brokers fear it deathly.
im familiar with the concept of anarchism, i dont need a lecture. i have a masters in sociology.
my simple point is that anarchism is doomed to failure because someone inevitably comes along and ends up accumulating power.
you can sit around all you want and say were all equal and that none of us will bow to an authoritarian power, but the truth is it always happens. sooner or later.
first off, not to sound abrasive but fuck your masters in sociology.
my simple point was that anarchism has never existed as you said it has and you've failed to give an example. in a true anarchist society (not market anarchism) there would be no incentive to "bow to authoritarian power".
if anything is doomed to failure it's capitalism and the fiat money economic system. unless you consider permanent security for the rich at the cost of everyone else as a success.
yes anarchism has existed. furthermore, it still exists today in some areas (for example the zapatistas in southern mexico or in catelonia during the spanish civil war). how do those examples work for you?
im not advocating capitalism or any other socio-economic/political system. im simply exhibiting human nature and historical evidence.
furthermore, are you telling me that anarchism can work with the way society has already developed? in a world of weapons of mass destruction?
Anarchism in itself is above all a philosophy (no masters, no archons) it becomes something more when paired with a political ideology
How does this add or detract from the worlds current state of instability and welfare due to weapons of mass destruction?
I'm guess that under a (libertarian, socialist, communist, anarchist) society that weapons of mass destruction would be viewed as tools of nationalist coercion and properly disposed of for the benefit and liberty of mankind.
you really think weapons of mass destruction would be collectively disposed of? LOL?
whats to stop some lunatic from creating his own home made bombs or making plutonium and nuclear weapons and shit and then threatening people that if they dont pay him a tax or give him shit that hell just kill them all?
the cats out of the bag, modernity and technology is here and its here to stay. anarchism cannot work in a world like this.
You should realize the elite currently in charge are lunatics. If you don't you, then you have succumbed to the delusional view of humanity that they want you to believe.
@trexdegenerate How are they lunatics? They're getting everything they want and we're paying for it. Now that's breaking down due to the sheer impossibility and irrationality of the system, but while it lasts it gives great benefit to the elite.
the banker conspiracy is very real. however they are just an example of leaders. they are products of a fucked up society that breeds greedy people that continue on a cycle of hatred. pass on good vibes, create art, laugh, shroom, spread awareness, and negativity stands no chance.
Sounds logical. So does communism, the JFK conspiracy, Nietzsche, and using your the number one draft pick to select the Heisman Trophy winner in the NFL Draft.
Anarchism is where you're left after you've exhausted all of the bullshit possibilities. It's the political equivalent of Atheism. I am responsible for my life, and for creating and abiding my values, that's not an ideal, it's a fact.
Anarchy is no more logical and unfeasible than democracy, which has shown itself to, logically, just be a means of irrationally outlawing shit.
@Jcolinsol I think modern civilization by and large has rejected anarchy. You are welcome to live your life in a shack in the west "off the grid," but don't expect any barring a few, naive social rejects (sorry but it's true based on my observations) to follow you.
You are right about creating and abiding by your own values as being an admirable trait, assuming they are not violent; unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not capable doing that and simply don't want to.
I don't think that society has rejected Anarchism, so much as it is reactionary towards it. Just as Atheism is on the rise, I think Anarchism will get there too, when people are emotionally mature enough to understand it. I don't think that human attitudes are static, they evolve.
In the end, I don't think that you can orchestrate society, it's going to evolve, and I'd like to see it evolve into a less coercive organism. So that's how I try to live.
What's a "Ron Paul/Alex Jones" type of person? Someone who "obsessed over bankers/FED". If so, why not just say that?? Seems a bit foolish to label something A just to associate it with B. I'm a big fan of Ron Pauls character, yet I don't subscribe to any of the bankers/FED obsession.
Iamfatbrain 1 week ago
great clip.
odd that you put that caveat in about the Fed. The Fed is a price control on the interest rates, Most economists agree that price controls are a bad thing. IOW, it is a real situation, not a conspiracy.
adhocrat1 1 week ago
Anarchism is death. The only cure for Anarchism, is a bullet to the head.
pooptickler1337 1 week ago
@pooptickler1337 Capitalism is the destruction of the soul and a detrimental changing of the essential nature of Man. I'd rather die than be transformed into a creature that is fundamentally subhuman.
michealdark 1 week ago
@michealdark
Human civilization is built upon the family model, the parent-child relationship.
There are always going to be leaders. And when you enter into that Anarcho-fantasy, you will realize that everything starts to revolve around whoever has more authority, the administration or police; and eventually, your society will become a dominated by certain people who shouldn't have power.
pooptickler1337 1 week ago
@pooptickler1337 I can't tell if you're nihilistic or just find the slave/master conception of society preferable to one were individual freedom is placed at the fore (at the very least you seem to feel it's inevitable)
michealdark 1 week ago
@michealdark
There is no slave/master conception of society anymore. Have you seen local industry lately? We import billions of products from China each year, while America only exports nothing except for soldiers and weapons. Kids these days expect to be hired at a restaurant or a grocery store. No kid ever thinks of working in a factory. This communist bullshit propaganda they've been hearing on tv is rotting their mind, and now America is nothing but whiny little spoiled brats.
pooptickler1337 1 week ago
@pooptickler1337 "There are always going to be leaders."
So... "X should be the status quo because it is the status quo"
That's like defending slavery by declaring that there will always be slavery. It's completely circular reasoning and a bald assertion.
lordthawkeye 1 week ago
@lordthawkeye
No, it's more like saying "there will always be a human language, because language can't end".
As long as we have a society, there will be people in charge. The original constitution was written to decrease the amount of power that one person could have, because "absolute power corrupts absolutely". If we gave the responsibilities of war to the general public, 1/10 the troops would go, while 9/10 of them stay, bloodshed; democracy has no wisdom, but leadership does.
pooptickler1337 1 week ago
@pooptickler1337: There will always be people in charge in what way? In charge of their own lives, or in charge of other people's lives? For the sake of argument I will assume that you mean in charge of other people's lives. I don't think there will always be people in charge of other people's lives. In a anarchistic society, there might be people who will try and they ought to be stricken down.
HispanicIsNotARace1 2 days ago
@pooptickler1337: If we gave the responsibility of war to the public, I think many troops would deploy in wars were there are committing obvious genocide. In fact I think there might be none or less bullshit wars being fought. Democracy imo is the best decision making process, and by democracy I mean participatory democracy. So imo democracy is wise.
HispanicIsNotARace1 2 days ago
Anarchism is a wonderful concept, but unfortunately humans are pack-style animals that have always been in groups from the very beginning. And while examples of humans going against their nature is seen all the time, I think going it alone and breaking away from at least some form of group would be hard to do for many people, myself included. There's a real fear that everything will descend into total chaos, being the ruler of your own fate is simultaneously wonderful and terrifying.
Insaneagram 3 weeks ago
@Insaneagram
The understanding of Anarchism is not just that the individual ought to be in control of their own fate, it is also coupled with the recognition that the individual is very much an active part of society.
Human beings are social creatures, but we are also unique individuals. To deny either aspect of our nature limits our full potential. (A) is about individual liberty as well as co-operation and mutual aid. You're right, groups are very important.
Mars2O84 3 weeks ago
@Mars2O84 Exactly. Putting the ultra-individualists like Stirner and Tucker aside, most anarchist thinkers would consider themselves socialists.
michealdark 1 week ago
he'd be a great politician :/
MegaLeyl 1 month ago
If you want a concrete demonstration of an anarchist society that was able to increase economic efficiency, look up the Spanish Civil War. George Orwell even went to fight the Fascists in the belief of this type of decentralized social organization. If you doubt that this could work, check out the Free Software movement, which powers much of your internet.
jasondelauro 1 month ago
what makes people think that anarchy would allow people to be their own leader? people will still need money, which means if anything the corporate powers that be would become only stronger and more powerful, and would have no regulation. People would not be 'free'
takenbitesobacon 1 month ago
@takenbitesobacon
In anarcho-capitalism, yes, that would happen.
Social anarchism however is about building a different and freer system of coordination and administration in terms of polity and economy without a "monopoly on the use of force" (a state) as it's main component.
It's not about getting rid of the state then leaving a vacuum; but rather constructing alternative institutions that don't utilize hierarchy and operate through direct-democracy and self-management.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@MsSexySocialist Yup. I consider myself more of a communist than an anarchists (though one could argue the end goal of a communist system is in fact anarchism), but as I understand it under anarchism people would organize in small, self-sufficient groups that make decisions through direct democratic means, and when necessary will coordinate with other groups (without stepping on eachother's toes)
michealdark 1 week ago
@michealdark
I wouldn't say that each community need be self-sufficient. After all, how do you get bananas if you live in a climate that can't grow them?
Although you're correct in the basic outline of an anarchist society. Each local community is autonomous and governs its own affairs while being part of a larger confederation which can coordinate things on wider geographical scale.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist I meant to say autonomous, but I had a brain fart and just wrote the thing that seemed closest to autonomy at the time. :blush:
michealdark 1 week ago
@takenbitesobacon Corporate powers come FROM regulation. Lobby governments to pass regulations that benefit you at the expense of others.
Not to mention corporations themselves are a legal entity created BY the government. Look it up.
None of this would be possible were there no government for the immoral to seek to gain control of.
lordthawkeye 1 month ago
@takenbitesobacon Communal sharing of surplus and a bartering system would replace the monetary system. DUH!
michealdark 1 week ago
free village anarchy:a society of self sufficient free villages(how much of disease
and crippling accidents are a product of industrial society)hillbillies do it third world countries do it mountain men did it hippies did it squatters do it and homesteaders do it
spazzhashberry 2 months ago
@crazylawstudent: Full autonomy for other countries is exactly what those Ron Paul/Alex Jones type people advocate with a non-interventionist foreign policy coupled with a complete disregard for the UN. To say that the super rich or the top .000001% don't benefit from the inflationary policies of the fed when the dollar is such a huge part of the international economy is showing a misunderstanding of how inflation works.
tucosargent 2 months ago
Comment removed
tucosargent 2 months ago
NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!
SROplayer114 2 months ago 2
Anarchy has never survived as a political force, generally leads to a dictatorship. It went that way in Russia and Cuba and ended up with Communism.
stephenabm 3 months ago
@stephenabm Except that Russia had a Communist revolution, not an anarchist revolution. They wanted a communist system. This was also the case in Cuba, the Castro revolution was a revolution for communism not against it.
AlicexMarilyn 2 months ago
@AlicexMarilyn It went from Anarchy to Communist with both of these countries. I agree the plan was for a creation of a Marxist / Communist state, but initially it was Anarchy.
stephenabm 2 months ago
@stephenabm It was never really any ideological anarchism in the way that Moore describes it or even anarchy in the way one would imagine some kind of "total anarchist state". whatever that could possible be since it will never really happen as few states will rarely if ever come to be like the ideal of what one might like to think of an ideal state. Since the point of that revolution was to overthrow the ruling state and establish communism it has very little to do with this video.
AzaleaZoeliz 1 month ago
the annotation at 1:03 is so wrong
shordyinabox 3 months ago
For all those that keep saying that anarchism is unworkable. Check in Vimeo "living the Utopia". a Documentary about anarchism in practice during the Spanish civil war.
Ⓐ
panzerfausto 3 months ago 5
Anarchy requires self control. Which is why it'll never work in reality. Those with self control can only be individual anarchists. The majority of people in this world would rather be slaves, to be disciplined if they fall out of line.
mykebulvai 3 months ago
"Why should we? Why can't we rely upon ourselves for safety? Why do the people who kill our family members get to be killed by government officials whom have nothing to do with it?"
Because people would fucking kill each other without government. Survival of the fittest. Anyone could burn your house, shoot you, torture you, and nobody except your family would give a fuck.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal PEOPLE ALREADY DO KILL EACH OTHER. People burn down other's houses, people shoot others, and people torture others. The government doesn't stop this! The government only seeks revenge!
Oh, plenty of people care when others are murdered. Do you think everyone just shrugs it off when there's a serial killer in their area? People feel sorry for their fellow man. It's not the right of a prison guard to electrify a murderer. It's the right of the father or mother to seek revenge.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient "People feel sorry for their fellow man" About that....only if it happens to people they care about or have a sense of connection to.
HybridD91 3 months ago
@HybridD91 That's basically what I said. "Someone in their area". If someone in my neighborhood lost their son, you'd bet my neighbors and I would go over and try to talk to them and help them feel better. It's how many people are. However, I recognize that there are exceptions. Some people just don't give a fuck and would do whatever they want. The only difference would be that justice would be in the hands of the victims, not the law enforcement who just butt in to a crime.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnLugal
If the only thing stopping you from killing other people is government and/or law, then you are an incredibly sick individual. Believe it or not, the rest of us aren't refraining from killing each other out of fear of being locked in a cage. We're refraining from killing each other because it's the wrong thing to do. I recommend you get some professional help to find out why you feel a compulsive need to kill people and why you think everyone else has the same need.
TheCeejReturns 2 months ago
".oooo1% causing 99.9999% of the world's problems!" ....think about how better off this world if Barbara Bush had aborted Dubya's fetus?
wisdomtrek 3 months ago
Check out Tommy Saxondale's dad.
elwood180 4 months ago
Lies, lies and lies again. Without government our soiety would sink into dark ages and eventually a ne government would form. No one would benefit from it.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal do you have any historical evidence of this? what makes politicians and cops so magical that they can somehow run someone else's life better then they can? they're people, they are subject to flaws just like the layman
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago 12
@allwittynamestaken Hmm...let me guess. They have power...? :D
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal so power makes them wiser?
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken No, it makes them powerful, but at the same time the rest of society benefits from it.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal once again how does the increase in power make them more suitable to rule me then me?
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken Because without them you would be lost...anyone could murder you in the blink of an eye. Without laws, without order anyone could do whatever he wants, but your freedom would in fact decrease...wou would be afraid to go out because anyone could murder you. Eventually new states would form, because people would need protection. Do you finally unerstand?
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal what if I had a VOLUNTARY neighborhood watch program? or maybe a gun? finally, do you really need someone to tell you to NOT murder to keep you from doing it? do you need a cop every 100 feet to prevent you from raping and pillaging or from getting raped and pillaged? Cops aren't in the business of crime prevention, they're in the business of revenge
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago 16
@allwittynamestaken That means that it would be a form of rule, eventually such "neighborhood watch programmes" would turn into microstates or gangs that would fight against each other for control. Haha, gun wouldn't help you if some sniper decided to kill you and then rob you.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal I think sniper rifles are more expensive then anything I can carry, it is impossible to "control" anything if it is voluntary. they can't tax us if we don't want to be, besides on the smallest scale (community) society and your own destiny is MUCH easier to control and much easier to live in
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken Sniper rifle can be used many times and so effectively used for profit = killing people. You're babbling about taxes, but you have no idea about anarchy.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal I have no idea? please educate a member of the Alliance of the Libertarian Left what exactly is anarchism.
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken If you know what is anarchism, then why do you promote it? Because anarchy is inherently bad and evil.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal living without a leader isn't evil XD slaves have the same false mindset. "if master wasn't here to feed and clothe us, we would die and run wild!"
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken living without a leader = anarchy = chaos = evil.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal so you need someone to tell you to NOT kill just to keep you from slashing your mothers throat?
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken No, but I would kill anyone with enough money without hesitation. If anyone would have guaranteed impunity, can you imagine what would follow?
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal most people aren't ammoral monsters. you have a religion' don't you?
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken Of course I don't. I'm not bound by any morals whatsoever, the only thing that discourages me from doing it is the punishment.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal then your an exceptional being
allwittynamestaken 5 months ago
@allwittynamestaken Hahahahahaha you're such an idealist...I'm far from being exceptional.
EnLugal 5 months ago
@EnLugal Not everyone is an idiot like you. Oh and don't worry about crime in an anarchy, people would not let themselves get killed. And even if a murder were committed, the carrier of the deed would most likely be thrown out of the community.
mainmenu895 4 months ago
@mainmenu895 Tell that to Somalians, you fucking idiot.
EnLugal 4 months ago
@EnLugal Don't Mexico and Brazil have cops? Oh and don't come with under-development bullshit. Marseille is an example of a city in a rich country with lots of crime. A kid got shot at by a gang a week or so ago. That's just an example. When London was being pillaged citizens formed in groups to prevent shit from happening, the police was powerless until they doubled their numbers.
mainmenu895 4 months ago
@mainmenu895 In Marseille there are muslims, while in London there are niggers. For them, crime is natural, so don't come up with this nonsense. You can't imagine what is anarchy, it's 100 times worse than Detroit, you can get killed at any moment.
EnLugal 4 months ago
@EnLugal And now you've taken it to a whole new level of irrationality. Visibly, muslims are better able to get rid of useless governments than us whites can.
mainmenu895 4 months ago
@mainmenu895 This is pointless. Muslims in Europe commit much more crimes and are members of the gangs. Muslims are only able to protest and riot.
EnLugal 4 months ago
@EnLugal People are killed all the time! Laws don't stop people from being "immoral"! People will do what they want, and the only consequence is to hang around in a free home for the rest of your life. People wouldn't have to be sneaky or have to kill people if there wasn't law, because people would be too busy enjoying life under their own management. I'm tired of paying the government money for them to basically screw up the country! Why should one group of people boss everyone else around?
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient Laws don't stop people from being immoral, it's the law enforcement. You pay your governemment money for your own safety.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal The law enforcement doesn't stop people, or else we wouldn't need prisons.
I don't feel too safe. The police have never saved me from danger before. They arrest people for no reason. Police brutality is quite common. They're there to do the government's bidding, not to keep us safe.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient Hahaha, why would they arrest people for no reason? Maybe somewhere in Afghanistan or Congo.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal Um, how about here in the US? Look at the OWS movement. People are being arrested left and right FOR PROTESTING PEACEFULLY! Also I was once arrested for petting a neighbor's dog! The police officer said I was practicing "unusual behavior" and threw me in the back of a police car. The neighbor was sitting there talking to me and this cop just comes up and arrests me! Things like that happen all the time! Police officers are corrupt and are not our "friends".
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient I'm not from the U.S and while the police may be corrupt, they don't arrest people for no reason. That bullshit with your neighbor's dog is utterly ridiculous.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal Well I guess you have to actually be here to see all the shit they do for no reason. Another example; when I was in high school a lot of people wore red bandanas. There wasn't really any reason; it was just a trend. One day a kid was arrested for wearing one because our ex-military VP thought it was a gang symbol. He tackled the kid, whose ankle was broken from the way he was hit. The officer then smashed him in the face with a nightstick. I knew him, and he wasn't involved with a gang.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@EnLugal And that actually is still going on at that school. I read that it happened again only a week ago with a different kid.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient But why would they do that? Why?
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal Because a lot of police officers and other school and government officials like to have power over their people. They overreact to something that could threaten their hold of power, like a gang. A gang could ruin a town because it would cause the people to begin complaining and to doubt the leader's strength. It's all about controlling people and keeping everyone under the leader's control. That's why I believe anarchism makes sense. Though there are problems, it's better than this.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient So you would like to live under the rule of some gang? In my country, there are no gangs, no niggers, and police do what they have to do, but they don't bully people.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal No, I'd like to be under the rule of myself. Without government, gangs have no purpose. They don't need to ship drugs across the country illegally or anything like that. There's no point in gangs, so they would cease to exist.
What country do you live in? And for a Christian you seem to have an odd hatred for other people created by God.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient That's nonsense. Gangs would grow extremely without government! They would have a simple purpose - to have power and fight for it. Muhahaha, that would be 1000 times worse than the government. You're so stupid and immature...
I'm from a country called Czech Republic, where most people don't believe in god, including me. I don't hate anyone, but you well know that niggers account for most of the problems with gangs and street crime.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal Gangs function on avoiding the law, bribing cops, and dealing drugs. If the law didn't exist, there would be no point. People could grow pot or make meth in their homes, taking away the need for police. If someone was klled, the family of the deceased could track down the killer and kill them. We don't need cops punishing people. The people who should deal punishment should be those that are actually afflicted by a crime, not people who have nothing to do with it.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@EnLugal I'm immature? You're the one who believes in following someone else to be safe. We should rely on ourselves for safety! And you're calling me stupid and you don't even know how corrupt law enforcement and government as a whole is!
If you wouldn't kill someone when it's illegal, why should you kill someone when you can't be punished? Do you think it's right to take a life, whether or not its illegal?
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient Right? Who can determine what is or what is not "right"? I would kill a person, yes, and you would do it too if you could gain a large amount of money.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal I'm of the same mindset. I don't believe in any true morals. However, I do respect people's right to live. That's one moral that I do believe in, at least for me. It's a moral value that most everyone holds, for whatever reason. And no, I wouldn't kill for money. That's called being a hitman, and you could become one if you want. I wouldn't; there's no price I'd take for destroying another life. Money isn't important to me. I believe in thought and happiness, which can't be bought.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@MedievalAmbient Well, all people aren't as deviant as you. If you're saying that money isn't important to you, you're a hypocrite. Pretty much anyone would kill a person, if they could get 1 million dollars and undertake no risk.
EnLugal 3 months ago
@EnLugal You seem to be a product of the decadence of man, I suppose. Most people wouldn't kill for a million dollars. I seriously don't care about money or the risk (despite the fact that I'd probably be killed by that person's family if I killed them). I care about destroying a valuable human life, destroying someone's son, husband, or best friend. Pulling that person out of the world.
If you would do that for money, I don't even know what to say to you.
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
@EnLugal And if you are of this mindset, that man can't determine what is "right" because there is no such thing as right, then it would make more sense for you to be an anarchist. The government makes laws based on what they say is right and wrong. And we must all follow them as members of the human race. Why should we? Why can't we rely upon ourselves for safety? Why do the people who kill our family members get to be killed by government officials whom have nothing to do with it?
MedievalAmbient 3 months ago
Comment removed
yinzjagoffs 5 months ago
I don't understand how people are to become their own leaders when people with most money will have the most power...
Watchdawg 5 months ago
@Watchdawg The only functional type of property system possible in an Anarchist society falls under the category of Possession and Use. meaning, you own what you directly can control. Eliminating anything recognizable as a credit/banking system, as well as standardized money, which is replaced by intra community trade both on the individual and social level. This should (as it did for 1000's of years humans existed before the invention of god, the church, kings and rulers!) eliminate rent.
slackmason 5 months ago
@Watchdawg loans taxes and interest. bringing the price of housing down to nearly free. Only then can every man truly own his home, and thus be the king of his own castle. without the multiple usuries of private (absentee) property, each man can truly be his own leader!
slackmason 5 months ago
i'd say Alan Moore for king of the world but that would be totally missing the point ;)
dannyofthededd 5 months ago
Alan Moore is the Anarchist Disney
Nowheremandc 6 months ago
1930s Catalonia is actually a good example of anarchism working and isn't an example of anarchism existing as you said it has. (crumbling and submitting to authoritarianism from within) rather they were violently coerced by fascists and Franco. If your point is that it can never exist because nation states will always devour any attempts, well that can and has been refuted easily, and if anything it just reflects poorly on a nation states ability to control itself rather than anarchism.
thenoorys 6 months ago
@thenoorys Catalonia is neither a good example of anarchism as Moore described it nor a good example of a system working. They had leaders, laws produced and enforced by a monopoly power etc. The "anarchists" started coercing people from the moment it was possible and didn't stop until stalinists and fascists put bullets in their head.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve Who specifically had leaders? They were largely syndicalists at that point and they did use coercive measures to get their rights. Provide examples of "anarchist leaders making laws and coercing".
There no doubt that it was imperfect, but leagues better than the alternatives of the day and even today.
thenoorys 5 months ago
@thenoorys Well they openly had a committee running things including a minister of defence and others and specifically joined the other republicans in government. They used coercive measures to do things like kill people they thought didn't agree with them and prohibit smoking. As for making laws are you serious? You have no idea what the "anarchists" did if you claim they didn't make laws. At least most modern leaders don't routinely execute without trial or even use conscription.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve You don't mention that before the Stalinists forced them into formal militarization,the members of the Anarchist militias were a complete volunteers, and could (and often did) refuse to execute his duties at any time. It was not the same for any of the Fascist or Stalinist armies. Every militia member, then by fulfilling his role, sanctioned the decisions of the various councils. and was personally liable for his actions.. I think if you go through
slackmason 5 months ago
@slackmason I didn't mention it because it wasn't fucking true. You are simply making this shit up. The Stalinists didn't force them into anything, they willingly formed government and indeed tried to get into government at the slightest chance.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve I think, if you really want to look into it, though they weren't perfect human beings, the Anarchist militias where FAAAARRRR less prone to the kinds of abuses that the formally militarized militias often committed. Also, by the time the Anarchists were forced into the government, the war was basically lost.
I don't know what books you've read (since I'm sure you weren't there) But I've never heard mention of a ban on smoking, Orwell smokes through out Homage.
slackmason 5 months ago
@slackmason Again, what are you basing this on? They started out simply shooting anyone they suspected of being fascist, and they never stopped.
newperve 5 months ago
@newperve My understanding of the Spanish Civil War is based on the books I've read about it, which include Homage to Catalonia, Durruti in the Spanish Civil War and Sabate as well as the documentary Living Utopia. and a TON of other minor articles and research papers. The Stalinists DID in deed force the Anarchists into formal hierarchal militaries, which was counter to their ethics. That isn't even a disputed fact. And joining the government was contentious to say the least.
slackmason 5 months ago
The remaining commandments I suppose are to do with industrially booting Orientals and Indians out of the West wholesale. Thats the problem with multiculturalism, its a suicidal method of society. Everyone wants to subvert it and when there is nothing left to subvert everyone will turn violent. Well, or hide. Best bet would be to put a few CEO's and Yakuza bosses heads on spikes, parade them round the city, that would save the trouble of much worse (not much) further down the road.
wiredboy27 6 months ago
Lol its a compelling argument and it is true. However the way things have gone there does have to be some readjustment. Expertise in craft, metalwork, design is something that has been completely overshadowed by art and creativity. I think there needs to be a very loose framework, like a ten commandments how to live. 1. Belief in something greater than yourself. 2. Belief in craft 3. Belief in monogamy 4. Citizen defence force of computer science guys to protect against the godman.
wiredboy27 6 months ago
While I believe in the principles of not having a governing body in a nation I do think that many Anarchists do themselves a disservice in the way they behave.
i've met several Anarchists in my time but it's really disheartens me that most express their dissatisfaction with government but doing things like refusing to vote or behave badly.
If you want to change thing, don't attack it from the outside, work within the system.
Support government which advocate less control and work from there.
TheJboy88 6 months ago
@TheJboy88
That's why you're not an anarchist.
The real system is life, not the legal system.
If you live like a slave, you will continue to be a slave.
If you live like there are no rules, well, you're no longer dependent on the rules.
I am not an anarchist per se, I just understand this.
yzeerkd 6 months ago
he says it's the only way and most moral. maybe most moral, but to have a functional anarchy you have to have enormous trust in everyone, and that everyone will have a very strong sense of ethics, contentiousness, respect, love, empathy, critical thought... which would be very good qualities to have abundantly in a society, but for the moment, unlikely to hold throughout the masses... only a handful of people are like that... you need education, stable families and society, it's a hard thing...
UnitedNewThinkers 6 months ago
I think I just fell in love with this romantic anarchist...yeh baby, we are the revoloution! Peace and LOVE from NZ
NZmozzeegirl 7 months ago
ninety-noin point noin noin noin noin noin percent
venturae 7 months ago 36
@venturae Ninety-Nyan point nyan nyan nyan nyan nyan percent.
Hanpantheflyingman8D 5 months ago
Sounds like objectivism...
dusk1234567890 7 months ago
We have anarchy,there is nothing else,but it involves conversation..
GavinS1965 7 months ago
I think the human race needs to evolve a great deal before we are ready for anarchism
randomsamno9 7 months ago
We already live in anarchy. A dysfunctional anarchy where the "mob" (goverment) has convinced people and already taken over.
zzzzJAGJEETzzzz 7 months ago
How is one supposed to get roads and highways in an anarchical program?
GingerAtheist 8 months ago
@GingerAtheist Everyone makes their own roads! But only if they want to! Cause like the bearded guy said; we don't want people bossing us around--so we might just make *patches* of roads outside our driveway. Then, if we all live in a clustered environment, we can turn all our driveways into a massive road that leads us to everybody else's houses - thereby making travel easier for everybody!
Geez. It's not like it's hard to figure out, dude!
=P
jaieet 8 months ago
@jaieet Actually people can't just build roads (unless gravel) because there is a reason why we have professionals build roads. There is an actual science to city development also there is no reason that a person couldn't make you pay for going on his road. In an anarchical society policeman become mobsters and citizens become thugs.
GingerAtheist 8 months ago
@GingerAtheist I have no idea how you took what I said as a serious comment; but I congratulate you on finding it within yourself to argue with me nonetheless. :P
jaieet 8 months ago
@GingerAtheist Retard
OldWalter 8 months ago
@OldWalter Shit for brains?
GingerAtheist 8 months ago
@GingerAtheist How are they built? By people. We just need to change the power into our hands. We know what we want, not politicans.
HybridD91 7 months ago
@HybridD91 No, people cannot just build roads. There are actually trained professionals whose jobs it is to build roads.
GingerAtheist 7 months ago
@steeroy communist anarchism? last time I checked communism is still a form of government. perhaps, humanistic anarchy is what you're looking for.
streetz23 8 months ago
@streetz23 that's where the anarcho bit comes into play- anarcho-communism, communism without the state.
davevad9 7 months ago
@steeroy Depends what kind of power your talking about. The type of power they have now is to use the force of the state by having a monopoly on the currency, having a central bank to take care of them and steal money from the people through inflation. Not to mention bail outs and all that BS. Communist anarchism makes no sense to me. How do you get rid of market trading without using violence?
19TEC85 8 months ago
Noinety noine point noine noine noine noine noine percent.
In all seriousness, Alan Moore is a great man and possibly the most famous non-intellectual Anarchist at the moment, with good reason.
nocturnezero 9 months ago
we will never have anarchism as long as these greedy bastards exist
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 9 months ago
The values and social mores of the society would induce the understanding that if I guy says runs his own shop as single-trader just himself in a shop he should receive a bill for services he uses. The bill would explain the real costs to the collective and leave him to decide based upon his sense of communal duty & personal generosity & determined by his current phase of financial wellbeing ...how much he is going to pay. This is also an incentive for collective members to shop there.
sanacore2011 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out Broken Dialect - 'Song from the Heart' (by globalfaction)
It was filmed at the massive protest in London on 26/03/11
Make sure you tune in & share, its amazing
kingmonkey69 9 months ago
His definition lacks the collectivist dimension of anarchism people working together in co-operative federation that is anarchism. His I am an island crap is a wrong understanding.
Of course people need their space and privacy but in order to get the big things done
people need to work together.
sanacore2011 9 months ago
@sanacore2011 Anarchism is a way of thinking where you do not desire to control other people. If some guy wants to go live alone in a hut in the forest, no anarchist will have any problem. If other people want to go live in a cooperative federation, then no one would stop them. If other people want only to be left to their lives without taxes, legal tender laws and such it's fine too. It opposition to violence and control that binds anarchists, not a particular way of life.
mortalisk 9 months ago
@mortalisk
Well one needs to think in practical terms not abstractions. In an anarchist society those people who opt-out of the co-operative lifestyle would need to pay a tax for their use of the services and infrastructure providing by the
collectives and federations.
sanacore2011 9 months ago
@sanacore2011 Do you mean that people have to pay for the services they use directly, as in pay when they actually use the roads built by a collective, or the food a collective grows? Then yes, of course, anything else would be quite horrible. If you mean actual taxes, as in values collected by threat of violence by the collective, for the act of living and interacting with their society and therefore using its "infrastructure", then I guess by your standards we have anarchy today :p
leafwiz83 9 months ago
@mortalisk I've heard many anarchists promote the practical idea of different theories about anarchism existing side-by-side in their actual establishment. Anarcho-communist federations beside market anarchist villages beside voluntaryist assocations beside primitivist loners, that sort of thing.
nocturnezero 9 months ago
@nocturnezero Yes, as free market anarchist, I would have no problem with any other anarchist ways of organizing as long as people voluntary join(otherwise it wouldn't really be anarchist). It is just that I think most people would choose to use the market for the most part. As long as it is not coercive(by human violence), it's all good. For example I believe in respecting property rights, but I do not believe prison is any way to punish people for anything.
mortalisk 9 months ago
Zitat Biohazard: " Goverment is not the Solution to our Problems. Goverment is the Problem"...
....and it makes more Problems than to take Problems away....
soilentmichi 9 months ago
Anarchism is a period of intentional destruction, disruption, disobedience, non-compliance with the aim of demolishing or modifying a system of government.
In this case the system of government stems from the banker's control over everything, through debt repayment, interest, USURY.
History is full of people who recognised the evil of Usury.
In WW2, the Nazis persecuted the Usurs (but still held on to the idea of Usury).
Even the Vatican lost investments during the economic crisis.
CO2TROL 10 months ago
"Anarchism is a period of intentional destruction, disruption, disobedience, non-compliance with the aim of demolishing or modifying a system of government."
According to you and you alone. That isn't the definition of anarchy at all. You just described the chaos surrounding regime change and labelled it anarchy.
Anarchy:
An-against
Archy- rulership, government or hierarchy depending on what you believe.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist which means only voluntary interaction with innocent people.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
Comment removed
CO2TROL 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 *So you are morally "against", but not really actively against?
CO2TROL 10 months ago
@CO2TROL Well I espouse anarcho-capitalism and I inform people about how the inherently monopolistic government is nothing more then a criminal gang, but I'm not throwing bombs or assasinating people if thats what you mean by "actively".
You should check ou anarcho-capitalism, epsecially Walter Block, Robert Murphy and Stefan Molyneux.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
@Hashishin13 You have correctly clarified the definition of anarchy. Without rules there would be no civilization and therefore no refinement or intellectual advancement, Intelligence is by brains not brawn which differs us from mere animals. Capitalism is the right to own and sell property or your own time for what the market will bear. In this sense a government's function is to supply police to stop others taking by force and a court system to stop others taking by fraud.
GrumpSkull 10 months ago
@ What you just described is the other flavour of the political system I believe in, Libertarian minarchism. According to that belief the government is just supposed to protect us from each other and from enemies while providing a court and punishment system to deal with suspected criminals.
I believe in no government at all as governemnts claim a monopoly on courts, police and army functions, which leaves them open to corruption. Also these governments still claim the right to tax
tax=theft
Hashishin13 10 months ago
the term anarchy obviously needs to be defined by this man because people are under the assumption that it is simply an absence of a formal government
evilsqurrel420 10 months ago
@evilsqurrel420 I don't know what you're saying. Could you repeat what you typed, with the inclusion of punctuation, so I can understand which side of the fence you're sat on? I can then decide, for myself, whether I agree with you, or not..
Anarchy doesn't mean neglecting common sense in favour of argument.. Does it?
dtsmucker 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dtsmucker "The term anarchy obviously needs to be defined by this man because people are under the assumption that it is simply an absence of a formal government."
Sorry for the lack of punctuation and order, now the chaos has subsided, you can decide to agree or not agree. :)
evilsqurrel420 10 months ago
There will always be bullies, they operate under the law, above the law and within the law or without any law at all. The creative aspect of the intelligent human verses the competitive nature of the animal, we are both.
GrumpSkull 10 months ago
@GrumpSkull Which is why anarcho-capitalists want competing firms for all of societies needs, if assholes take over one institution anyone is free to start a competitor.
Hashishin13 10 months ago
Anarchism and permaculture: 2 things which are highly intelligent and haven't even been tried... yet.
texasB666 10 months ago 15
@texasB666
anarchism has been tried. the problem is some asshole ends up accumulating power and then installs a hegemony. hence the the rise of ancient empires like Egypt, Babylon etc.
as much you might not want to admit it, we do need some form of government to prevent monopoly in all its forms.
zazenzach 6 months ago
@zazenzach Well i dunno about that. I visited some shamans and they both told me people are getting more and more active in permaculture. However, you are right with your funny statement about some asshole always seem to become to "powerfull". Dissolving of ego is important. I've seen communes in the world which are highly anarchistic and peaceful. I think it can be done, but yeah... not for everyone sad to say. And also, these communes which i'm speaking of always seem to become a threat...
texasB666 6 months ago
@zazenzach That's not anarchism then. anarchism is the idea of anti-authority it's more of a philosophy than policy, however most anarchist are libertarian communist or socialists. no one person would be able to "accumulate" power all by himself. in fact, those types need governments to protect and enforce their wealth accumulation like private property and intellectual property rights. anarcho-communism has never happened ona large scale. mostly because power brokers fear it deathly.
thenoorys 6 months ago
@thenoorys
im familiar with the concept of anarchism, i dont need a lecture. i have a masters in sociology.
my simple point is that anarchism is doomed to failure because someone inevitably comes along and ends up accumulating power.
you can sit around all you want and say were all equal and that none of us will bow to an authoritarian power, but the truth is it always happens. sooner or later.
zazenzach 6 months ago
@zazenzach
first off, not to sound abrasive but fuck your masters in sociology.
my simple point was that anarchism has never existed as you said it has and you've failed to give an example. in a true anarchist society (not market anarchism) there would be no incentive to "bow to authoritarian power".
if anything is doomed to failure it's capitalism and the fiat money economic system. unless you consider permanent security for the rich at the cost of everyone else as a success.
thenoorys 6 months ago
@thenoorys
yes anarchism has existed. furthermore, it still exists today in some areas (for example the zapatistas in southern mexico or in catelonia during the spanish civil war). how do those examples work for you?
im not advocating capitalism or any other socio-economic/political system. im simply exhibiting human nature and historical evidence.
furthermore, are you telling me that anarchism can work with the way society has already developed? in a world of weapons of mass destruction?
zazenzach 6 months ago
@zazenzach
Anarchism in itself is above all a philosophy (no masters, no archons) it becomes something more when paired with a political ideology
How does this add or detract from the worlds current state of instability and welfare due to weapons of mass destruction?
I'm guess that under a (libertarian, socialist, communist, anarchist) society that weapons of mass destruction would be viewed as tools of nationalist coercion and properly disposed of for the benefit and liberty of mankind.
thenoorys 6 months ago
@thenoorys
you really think weapons of mass destruction would be collectively disposed of? LOL?
whats to stop some lunatic from creating his own home made bombs or making plutonium and nuclear weapons and shit and then threatening people that if they dont pay him a tax or give him shit that hell just kill them all?
the cats out of the bag, modernity and technology is here and its here to stay. anarchism cannot work in a world like this.
zazenzach 6 months ago
@zazenzach
You should realize the elite currently in charge are lunatics. If you don't you, then you have succumbed to the delusional view of humanity that they want you to believe.
trexdegenerate 6 months ago
@trexdegenerate
i totally agree that the people in charge are self serving lunatics.
you keep bringing up things as if i think the modern world is perfect when i know it is not.
capitalism is fucked up. democracy is easilly controlled by people with money. theres a lot of fucked up shit in this world.
that does not however mean we should all become anarchists. some regulatory control is far better than no or complete control
everything in moderation dude. extremes never work
zazenzach 6 months ago
@trexdegenerate How are they lunatics? They're getting everything they want and we're paying for it. Now that's breaking down due to the sheer impossibility and irrationality of the system, but while it lasts it gives great benefit to the elite.
newperve 5 months ago
Anarchism is the best way for the world to live. But what people don't understand is, in order for it to work people have to respect one another.
tdhtv 10 months ago
the banker conspiracy is very real. however they are just an example of leaders. they are products of a fucked up society that breeds greedy people that continue on a cycle of hatred. pass on good vibes, create art, laugh, shroom, spread awareness, and negativity stands no chance.
AtheistAnarchoRudi 10 months ago
Sounds logical. So does communism, the JFK conspiracy, Nietzsche, and using your the number one draft pick to select the Heisman Trophy winner in the NFL Draft.
marlboroman1985 10 months ago
@marlboroman1985
Anarchism is where you're left after you've exhausted all of the bullshit possibilities. It's the political equivalent of Atheism. I am responsible for my life, and for creating and abiding my values, that's not an ideal, it's a fact.
Anarchy is no more logical and unfeasible than democracy, which has shown itself to, logically, just be a means of irrationally outlawing shit.
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
@Jcolinsol I think modern civilization by and large has rejected anarchy. You are welcome to live your life in a shack in the west "off the grid," but don't expect any barring a few, naive social rejects (sorry but it's true based on my observations) to follow you.
You are right about creating and abiding by your own values as being an admirable trait, assuming they are not violent; unfortunately, the vast majority of people are not capable doing that and simply don't want to.
marlboroman1985 10 months ago
@marlboroman1985
I don't think that society has rejected Anarchism, so much as it is reactionary towards it. Just as Atheism is on the rise, I think Anarchism will get there too, when people are emotionally mature enough to understand it. I don't think that human attitudes are static, they evolve.
In the end, I don't think that you can orchestrate society, it's going to evolve, and I'd like to see it evolve into a less coercive organism. So that's how I try to live.
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
@marlboroman1985 WOAH! You know the vast majority of people!?! Awesome!
DicSionDafydd 10 months ago
anarchy is fertile ground for dictators
GrumpSkull 10 months ago