What is property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Chapter 1/5 p1/7

[ExquisiteDoom]

@Bedlam1918 Oh was a mutualist? Okay. I thought he pretty much despised property. Perhaps i should've read more. Also, doesn't mutualism tend to lead to syndicalism?

[ExquisiteDoom]

Ahh, the good old anarchists. Failing to grasp production as usual. Without properly defined property, forget about capital investment as it would mean you don't know where your money is going which also leads us to forget about capital growth in a private manner anyway. Generally these ideas lead to goods being priced at zero, causing overconsumption meanwhile we've got no clue who's actually taking losses as we have no way to cut them. Anarchists tend to overuse emotional language as well.

[BobbyMercy1]

property?

[HumansAreAnimals]

Throw your hands in the air cause PROPERTY is ROBBERY!

[hesteaeble]

I thought the voice was a little too annoying. :(

[rachelgolem]

I admit it, we are just bad people.

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

I had no idea Microsoft Sam was an anarchist. Haha.

But that's besides the point. Love this book.

[BRYAN351]

This guy should take out his butt-plug before he recites collectivist nonsense.

[evilmick66]

There doesn't have to be anything collectivist about it! Under anarchy, we are all selfish pricks (individualists). So in that sense property is impossible because the individual won't respect another's claim to property.

"I do not step shyly back from your property, but look upon it always as my property, in which I respect nothing. Pray do the like with what you call my property!" -- Max Stirner

If your anti-collectivist then as an individualist, you should think about this.

[BRYAN351]

evilmick, the false notion that serving one's self interest makes you a "selfish prick" is what collectivists believe, or at least preach.

The Stirner quote reveals his fucked up view of the world. That's the motto of a thief, thinking that he has the right to take anything he wishes. If everyone did unto others what they wouldn't want to happen to themselves, (constantly steal each others stuff) then the world would be a shitty place.

[evilmick66]

Still, serving your self-interest makes you an individualist or egoist. But when I use the term "selfish prick," I don't mean anything behind that, I'm just trying to sound uncivilised and blue-collar. :)

Also, your confusing "property" with "possession". We need to differentiate the terms: "Property" is land and rivers, "Possession" is a watch or TV set. Under Proudhon's beleifs, one can keep the right of possession but not property. Stirner concurs, as possession can be defended by might.

[tonygmilan7]

he did believe in property in land. read "theory of property"

[evilmick66]

@tonygmilan7 Okay, so it was a work that he wrote towards the end of his life. If we're able to take no heed of Proudhon's racism, then we should be able to choose which stage of his thoughts we find most agreeable. There are Marxists who choose to focus more on Marx's early writings than his later. Why can't we do the same with Proudhon?

[tonygmilan7]

@evilmick66 ya and i agree with proudhon in his later "laissez faire" individualist stage.

[tonygmilan7]

@evilmick66 "principal function of private property within the political system will be to act as a counterweight to the power of the State, and by so doing to insure the liberty of the individual." -P.J Proudhon

[evilmick66]

@tonygmilan7 I asked where that quote was from but nevermind, I saw your other comment.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 How can you not defend property with might? Do you know what a country is?

[evilmick66]

@pureaggression So you think every facet of society should be "might is right"? Anarchism is against force and the use of force. It takes force for you to pull the shirt off my back (possession). It takes no force for me to up camp in your multi-acre "property," but it does take force for you to boot me out.

If ever seem to contradict the comments that your responding to, it's because they are 3 years old: I've had more time for these ideas to settle in me.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 In no way am I justifying force. I believe the initiation of force is evil also. And this comment better clarifies the difference between possession and property. So my point is, which you missed in my last comment is, you claim that only possession can be " defended by might ", and all Im saying is that so can property, and it takes force to invade someones property, say one's house. Your comment also suggests there should be a arbitrary limit onto the size of ones property

[evilmick66]

@pureaggression Techincally, there's nothing arbitrary about it: as I stated continously in these long threads, "property" (in Proudhonian theory) constitutes elements alien to the individual's capability of production and/or conveyance (i.e., land, large bodies of water, etc.), whereas "possessions" are produceable objects that can or can't carried on one's person (clothes, jewelry, automotives, and dwellings). Under Proudhonian theory, a house constitutes as a possession.

cont'd

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 "Defense through might" is ethically acceptable when one is having force used upon them. So yes, breaking into one's house is using force upon another, in which case that other's use of violence is commendable. However, hording more land than what is workable by a single person and violently warding others off is use of force against others. All those private golf courses can shelter the homeless, but a single hobo is arrested once he steps foot there: That is unethical use of force.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 I don't see how a golf course qualifies as shelter. How about actual unused shelter? Imagine how many homeless people we could ACTUALLY house if we forced people with castle like mansions with hundreds of rooms to take in the homeless. That man who constructed that golf course came to that property by peacful means, why should we initiate force and say no this isn't a golfcourse, this is now a homeless shelter? Whats the difference between that and the small family in the mansion?

[pureaggression]

@pureaggression Both the golfcourse owner and mansion owner are covering "property" that could be potentially used for more people and more so called productive purposes. So are people justified in inhabitating these places against the will of the owner? I just don't see the difference between someone hopping my fence into my yard and him climbing through one of my windows into my bedroom.

[evilmick66]

@pureaggression The whole idea of owning large tracts of land and mansions falls apart with the absence of government. No one can make a legitimate claim to something they haven't built themselves. I can come along and claim some land for a golf course, but people had walked through and made use of that land for years; the only way I can prevent them from continuing with their lives is through nonpeaceful means.

cont'd

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 Mansions and Castle were built by workers who had their product of labour alienated from them. With the absence of government money would be obsolete and sensible workers would only build structures that they or their community can make use of. Those that already own mansions and such would have no choice but to give them up because they no longer have a way of paying for the upkeep.

cont'd

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 Hunter-gatherer societies have this same mindset as a natural way of life. Land belongs to no one, and all a man possesses is what he can keep in his hut. No one enforces this as a law, it's just a way of life. This can be fine-tuned and applied to industrialised societies.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 Ok, please explain why money would be obsolete without government. I don't see any reason to think that. Money is a tool of commerce, a tool for more effective trade. All modern governments restrict and control money, so just because there wouldn't be that monopoly doesn't mean it wouldn't exist or have no use. If workers AGREE to build a mansion for a pay, what is wrong with that? If they both didn't gain from the transaction it would never take place unless coercion was invovled.

[LibertarianSocialism]

Last time i checked Proudhon was a individualist anarchist, not a collectivist anarchist.

[evilmick66]

I don't think he's either one, I think he was just an Anarchist anarchist (being the first dude to define anarchism and all). After that you had ppl who didn't agree with JP on everything and two factions came about: Collectivist Anarchism by Bakunin and Kropotkin; and Individualist Anarchism by Tucker and Spooner.

I personally prefer classic Proudhonian anarchism because I see it as individualism AND collectivism co-existing together.

[dubified89]

Yes I reject the individualist vs. collectivist divide as they both come to the same conclusion that your rights end where the next person's begin. So individuals don't have the right to intrude on other individuals' rights & there is no distinction

[evilmick66]

@dubified89 Best anarchist comment I've ever read! :)

[dubified89]

Thanks!

[BRYAN351]

Whatever he is, he still needs to remove his buttplug, because his delivery style creeps me out.

[pureaggression]

@LibertarianSocialism Can you explain how is it that he served in parliament, and can be taken seriously as an anarchist? Not to say that anarchism wasn't his ideology, cus i dont kno but to participate in government is to endorse the violent system of the state, to give the state validation. And supported an income tax, totally a collectivist/government tool, hardly one to respect the fruits of a mans labor, then later referred to himself as a federalist, so many empty words it seems to me.

[machination2]

All this talk is fine but i'm interested by something else:

I realized that the audio is created through a Text to Speech engine, and the voice is incredible. I really want this at all costs !

Can the author tell me where he found it ? The software and the voice ?

[LibertarianSocialism]

Sorry for late reply its called NaturalReader, it and the voice can be got from w w w naturalreaders com

[caucazoidandroid]

read by stephen hawking...  holy shit

[internationallawman]

I didn't know text to speech sounded as good as that these days. It took a couple of minutes before I caught on.

[slavophile1]

Why did Proudhon hate Jews so much?

[LibertarianSocialism]

i have not read any of Proudhon's reasons for

his Antisemitism, so i cant answer your question, but i have to ask you motives for asking this question here are you trying to make an Ad Hominem argument.

[slavophile1]

I assumed since you are championing him that you know a bit about his entire philosophy.

If I were to make an argument at all I would ask you why all of his ideas have failed, and why he threatened Frederic Bastiat after being logically refuted by him.

But until then I would like to know why he hated Jews and why he considered blacks and Indians to be savage inferior races unworthy of freedom.

Maybe someone here might know.

[INeedAToiletQuick]

that's like like asking, why did he like women with big tits & fat asses rather than skinny ones. so he hated jews. so you hate people who hate jews. you're both victims, drones, products of your respective environments, cultures, times, etc., both limited in your 'sight'. everyone hates, right? you get that that's basic to human nature, until they start actually tweaking the genes? it just takes it course, the details are unimportant. mired in the details, you don't see the bigger themes.

[slavophile1]

So in other words, you don't have an answer to why Proudhon wanted to exterminate Jews...

[INeedAToiletQuick]

i have all of the answers, but you're in over your head here; i'll spare us both further embarrassment.

[slavophile1]

How you know so much. You have all the answers. Shit, I better run.

[VanguardofVertu]

If you're going to hold a 19th century man to 21st century social conceptions you must be prepared to indict Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer; indeed the vast majority of all pre-20th century thinkers.

[slavophile1]

Thats a good point. Before Trotsky invented the term 'racism' (when he discovered the Western working man cared nothing for his schemes), virtually everyone regarded blacks as savages except for fundamentalist Christians (The 'rightwing'), also the only people that stood up for Jews was other 'rightwingers' like Nietszche and Carl Menger.

[evilmick66]

So just because a philosopher had one flawed ideal it completely cancels out all the good ones? That's a pretty narrow minded view you got there. No thinker has ever been perfect: Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all tried to justify slavery; Sigmund Freud would prescibe cocaine to his patients; and Neitzsche spent the last days of his life condemmed to an asylum. All these ppl, including Proudhon, were not great and godly wisemen, they were just ppl like you and me trying to figure things out.

[evilmick66]

And some of those ppl, such as Proudhon, had more terrific ideas than others and inspires. Then there are douches like you that take one flaw and force it to overshadow all the great ideas that were made, even if that very flaw was irrevalent to the overall point of the thinker--what the fuck does Proudhon's antisemitism have to do with anarchism? This is what I consider a low-blow in philosophic and political debate; so you did a good job making yourself look like an ass on the internet.

[slavophile1]

Other than condoning genocide, which of his ideas do you like?

All of his ideas are ultra violent, not just his condoning genocide, so if you like his ideas, what does that say about the person that I am chatting with now, 'evil' nick?

[evilmick66]

I've never heard of him condoning genocide. I've just started studying about him so I'll have to do some research on that to make sure that your not just spewing bullshit.

I like his ideas about a free society where individuals can flourish and better themselves without the constraints of authority or the masses.

And it's Evil Mick! Don't wear it out.

[evilmick66]

Alright, I did my homework and your accusation of him condoning genocide was once again irrelevent to his overall beliefs. These sorta violent and contradictory thoughts he had were just part of his prejudices that can be easily forgiven and forgotten. Only his brilliant ideas about a truly free society should be what's important.

And you are wrong in thinking that ALL of his ideas are "ultra violent." He believed in social change through PEACEFUL transformation instead of bloody revolution.

[evelsteev]

but they DIDN'T figure things out. There's STILL no anarchist country/nation/land. It's like a hope-filling religion. Just a bunch of idealism.

[evilmick66]

Actually there have been several anarchist societies throughout history! But they were all short-lived because the power-hungry statists kept taking over. And it's not just idealism, anarchy was around BEFORE government.

Go to wikipedia and look up "List of anarchist communities" and "History of anarchism"

Also, there ARE some quasi-anarchist societies today! The best example, IMO, being Freetown Christiania. There's a documentary about it that you can find on Google Video.

[evelsteev]

More naivety:

Anarchy was "before" but is NO LONGER HERE (think about it)

if "statists" keep taking over, then apparently it won't survive in the real world.

Again, think.

[evilmick66]

Have you even tried looking up the stuff I suggested to you?

And the only reason why the statists kept taking over by a)violent force (invasions and what not) and b) hypnotizing the uneducated masses with propoganda. What we need to do is reach to ppl and try to bring everyone to an anarchist mindset just like how they're in a democratic mindset right now.

Btw, democracy was considered naive too back in the day. No one expected America to last 200 years.

[evelsteev]

I've heard the "what we need to do" phrase for years about every 'ism' ever existed. But again, NOTHING has changed.

It's not American democracy that's bad, it's the CORRUPTION of it that's bad, like anything else.You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But inherently, it's superior, and more 'ancarchist' than you think, since originally, sovereignty is dervied from the subjects, NOT the government.

[evilmick66]

Ofcourse nothing has changed YET, anarchism is too radical an idea for ppl to get used to quickly. You have to give this time.

Democracy is just the majority ruling over the minority--nothing more than a mob-rule system. But that wasn't my point. What I meant was that one time democracy was just a radical idea as anarchy and was thought to never be able to last long. But it has last long so far and was able to inspire other countries to be democratic. The same could happen with anarchism.

[evilmick66]

And no, our current government is NOT entirely ruled by the subjects. We are all still slaves and you are making yourself sound like an Uncle Tom ("Oh no, don't talk bad about the master! Master's good!")

And we're not "throwing the baby out of the bathwater"--Democracy has been thought up since the time of ancient Greece.

[evelsteev]

"is not" as opposed to the inherent ESSENCE of democracy, where the subject are sovereign, and the elected are given consent by the governed.

You ARE throwing out the baby with the bathwater by saying since Democracy is presently inhabited by corrupt people that it is therefore inherently corrupt. That's like saying we should blow up all highways, since mass murders can travel on them to reach their victims. That's absurd.

[evelsteev]

You can also say DEMOCRACY hasn't returned to it's prime state YET.

Your version of democracy, AGAIN (think) is a CORRUPTION of it, not it's inherent flaw. Abolishing something doesn't make it better.

You've dug yourself in a hole by saying one ideology was once radical and it won't last long. The same can be said for Anarchism, as you can see from history. Historically, it DIDN'T LAST. Its not that hard to comprehend.

[evilmick66]

ALL governments are corrupt, oppresive, and statist! You just gotta open your eyes. All polticians want is power, that's the only reason their running in the first place. There IS NO "prime state," Democracy will be as it always has: a popularity contest between machevellians.

I didn't say democracy won't last long. It probabley will. All I was saying that most ppl didn't believe it would but they were proven wrong. Just the same as you think of anarchy and you'll prolly be proven wrong too.

[evelsteev]

ALL goverments are corrupt but anarchists will NEVER be??? That's hilarious. The fact that we BEGAN with anarchism and ended up "courrpt" should only shed light on the inherent value of anarchism.

I HAVEN'T been proven wrong. Anarchy is not the status quo. If the people want it SO bad, it should have taken over the world already. Again, for the millionth time: THINK about it.

It's not hard to logically deduce. You're talking about a distant future.

[evilmick66]

How can there be corruption in anarchy if no one has the power to be corrupt?? That almost completely stupid comment is what I find hilarious. No one speaks for anybody in anarchy, every individual speaks for himself.

You've never been proven wrong? Well your just the center of the universe aren't you?

Fuck the status quo! And yes, your right on ONE thing, anarchy won't happen until long after we're dead. The ppl only don't want it now 'cos their still being brainwashed by propoganda.

[evilmick66]

I can sense that you are trying hard to be a witty smart-ass, but it's not working; You're just making a fool out of yourself.

[evelsteev]

I'm talking about what's REAL.The status quo is fucking ANARCHISM. Anarchism isn't the present system today. The Status Quo is. That's reality. You should tap into it sometime.

[evelsteev]

I'm talking about what's REAL.The status quo is fucking ANARCHISM. Anarchism isn't the present system today. The Status Quo is. That's reality. You should tap into it sometime.

[evilmick66]

What the hell is this shit?? Your talking about anarchism in some sort of whack-job philosophy not a social theory! You wanna know reality? Here's reality: Our police force is arresting ppl based on ethnicity; Our government is starting wars to make money; We are forcing immigrants who are desperate for a better lifestyle out of this country and ruining their lives; Our entire nation's history is based on tyrannical imperialism; Our corporations are using slave labour. **continue below**

[evilmick66]

If that's not cause enough for radical change what is??

Do you even KNOW WHAT ANARCHY IS??? You sound like you only know the one basic (no government) and are using some sort of psuedo-logic to damn it. Do some fucking research you moron!! Anarchy is not the status quo because asshole's like you DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!!! And neither do the ppl because the government doesn't WANT them to know, they want to keep their power, their unfair taxes and their citizens to blindly follow them!!!

[evilmick66]

Anarchy is not a food for thought. Anarchy IS reality!! It's a well thought out system formulated by some of the most celebrated intullectuals who oppose imperialism, use of force, coercion, and ALL forms of authoritarianism. It is a solution to war. It is a soulution to class struggle. It is a solution to Third Worldism. It is the ONLY true form of liberty.

Again, do some research and don't take the one basic, go into enemy territory with blind eyes and fire wildly hoping to hit somthing!!

[evelsteev]

It isn't reality, shithead. Democracy is reality. It exists NOW and has been for a while, thanks to John Locke and the Enlightenment. You're whining about corrupt leaders as if Anarchy is going to come from the sky and swoop down and take all the bad people away. Stop smoking crack and maybe you'll live in the here and now(maybe).

[evelsteev]

I know what Anarchy is, numbnuts. Do you know what REALITY is???? It's not anarchy, that's for sure. It's funny how everybody knows what Democracy is, but somehow, not anarchy. Interesting. If you blame governments for "suppressing anarchy" then how is it supposed to work and flourish. I'm glad it doesn't exist, and that you're still "opressed" by the man. I raise my glass to your optimistic insanity and utter bullshit. YOU need to do some research!

[evelsteev]

What radical change????????????? Do you have names? dates? accounts, where? this 'change' better yet, how about good old fashioned PROOF???????? You talk as if anarchism is an actual driving force that has taken over whole governments, when in fact, it's still just one of your pipe dreams. You and what army are going to stop "the man?" This isn't 1914, where they still used bayonets, man. Get real.

[evilmick66]

Democracy didn't exist in the 1700's. It wasn't "REAL" then. But ppl still fought for it's existence. Just like we are trying to fight for anarchy's existence. I'm not saying that it is gonna swoop down, you idiot, I'm saying we're trying hard for it to come. But first we have to get ppl educated about it so that it gets more support. Ppl don't know anarchy other than believing that it's chaos (which is not true). Anarchy won't take away the bad ppl but it WILL at least take them out of power.

[evilmick66]

Did you forget the anarchist societies that lived throughout history? Isn't that proof enough that anarchy is "REAL"? What about Freetown Christiania? A living breathing anarchy that exists TO THIS DAY!! Did you forget about that? You want acounts? Here ya go!: The Spanish Republic, Celtic Ireland (650-1650 a.d.), The Paris Commune. That good enough for you? Cuz there IS more!

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Your acting like some sort of psuedo-skeptic!

[evelsteev]

First of all, Freetown Christiania only has 850 people. You're gonna compare that with the other 4 billion people on earth? My GOD, you ARE stupid. Second, it's only Partially "anarchist" since they were infiltrated by both cops and drug dealers. That shows they're still under the majority rule of Denmark. So much for your "protected" anarchism. SOMEone, SOMEwhere is always going to invade 'anarchism', so it's NOT GOING TO WORK, but you're too STUPID to notice the reality of how things are.

[evelsteev]

First of all, you're speaking of AnarCHISM, not AnarCHY,you clueless idiot. 2nd,not all Anarchists agree on what kind of Anarchism is actually best. 3rd, Democracy existed in Ancient Greece, where it originated from, you shit-for-brains. Read a book for once. Good luck on "fighting" for something when you dont even know what it is! Christ.

[evilmick66]

1) Most communes would only be a small number of ppl since anarchy would be a federation of small populated communes including Christiania. You did know that didn't you?

I only see the coercion of the danish state to be a mere nuissance to Christiania's true freedom. And we can protect easily protect anarchy if we can bring the ppl's will to be strong enough.

1b) I use AnarCHISM and AnarCHY interchangabley.

2) That's where "anarchy without adjectives" comes in. Look it up. **cont.**

[evilmick66]

3) I didn't count ancient greece because it was so long before modern democracy. Also, only ppl of high status voted so it wasn't pure democracy. And finally, the democracy back then was easily overthrown to make way for autocracy--which, if you look around, could also happen in these times. Know that the democracies then became dictatorships within 1000 year; we've only been around for 200.

[evelsteev]

Well you NEED to count it, if you know what the hell you're talking about, which you apparently DO NOT. People of high status ruling/voting is called an OLIGARCHY. If it was 'overthrown' back then, well, guess what, IT'S BACK! Yessir. Deal with it. Democracies 'becoming' dictatorships??? Dictators are usurpers. That can also apply to anarchism, because, dictators invade and overthrow any system NO MATTER their ideology. My GOD, you are dense! Bad arguments,Bad logic. What next? Magic? Jesus!

[evelsteev]

Yes, "WOULD BE" but they AREN'T in the HERE and NOW. Apparently,you have a problem with the concept of TIME. You're talking of "would be's" I'm talking about what actually IS.You see 'coercion,' the rest of us sees REALITY.

You're using Anarchy (chaos,disorder) and Anarchism (ideology,although stupid)WRONGLY. Look THAT up.

[evilmick66]

Are you trying to convince me anarchism won't work or that it just doesn't exist? Just because it's not here NOW doesn't mean we can't fight to create it in the future. Concept of time is completely irrelevent.

Ppl thought that legal racial prejudice was "REALITY" but minorities still fought for change. Ppl once thought that autocracy was "REALITY" but ppl still fought for democracy. Why are you so skeptical of something just because it's different from the current establishment?

[evilmick66]

Did the commies worry about what was then presently "REAL" during the russian revolution? NO! The worker's thought they were being oppressed so they made change. Whatever was "REAL" would of been a completely stupid thought.

[evelsteev]

You live in contradiction: If "time is COMPLETELY irrevelent" then why do you bring up the "hardship" of democracy,capitalism,etc. from HISTORY. Your logic is SO bad, Aristotle is turning in his grave.

Really? As if racism was completely ERASED because minorities to fight for change. If you respond with the typical:"Of COURSE racism, isn't completely erased." Yeah no shit. THAT'S what I;m getting at. There's sound ideologies and there's REAL LIFE.

[evilmick66]

I'm just trying to say that just because anarchy isn't here NOW, doesn't mean it can't exist EVER. That's a completely baseless assumption.

I was talking about minorities not having legal rights. That could of been also blown off as just "REALITY," but it wasn't: ppl still fought for change.

[MacoutesGabber]

Please. You might as well say:"because Santa Claus isn't here NOW, doesn't mean he can't exist EVER" What a crock.

Oh their successful struggles (rights,etc.) are REALITY. But that's only when they ACTUALLY HAPPEN as opposed to NEVER happening. Two different things.

[evilmick66]

There have been anarchist societies throughout fucking history!! Do I really have to name them again? The Spanish Republic, Celtic Ireland (a.d. 650-1650), Freetown Christiania. There is an entire list on wikipedia, look up "list of anarchist communities".

[evelsteev]

yeah, well where are those "societies" now? NO WHERE!!! Are you dense that you don't see the pattern here? They don't last! Point blank. I rest my case (again!). You're living strictly in fantasy, hope, and delusion. Have fun!

[evilmick66]

We can create new socities, AND make them last if we just ACT! And anarchists ARE doing a lot of action. The first step is education, it's every anarchist's duty to reach out to ppl.

The only reason why the communities haven't lasted is because of the power-hungry states invading, which is why we need to destroy ALL governments to create a world-wide anarchy! We just need to reach out and give the common ppl the will to fight for TRUE freedom!

[evelsteev]

But we DON'T act! This is what I mean by the difference between REALITY, (that is, people NOT acting), and what is, hypothetically a "good" idea. So far all that's been said is "we NEED to do____!" or "we OUGHT to do____!" and then everyone just goes home to their computer,ipod, or TV. Some revolution! Please!

Destroying ALL the world's states!?!?! Do you realize what a crock of shit that really is???? You still live in fantasy. Fairy tales aren't gonna solve YOUR issues,man!

[evelsteev]

Besides many so-called anarchists hide behind "justice" when actually, they're acting out REVENGE. I quote from Nietzsche:

"Whom among today's

rabble do I hate the most? The Socialist rabble, the Chandala apostles who undermine the worker's instinct, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his little state of being --

who make him envious, who teach him revengefulness"

[evilmick66]

Where do you get your information?? Anarchists ARE acting!! They're reaching out to the ppl, they're building permanent autonomous zones (Christiania for example), they're organizing protests against the government, they're even using pranksterisms against all form of authority. Action IS taking place!! Your probabley thinking of violence as action, but most anarchists are against that, we prefer expressing where we stand hoping to inspire others and create a peaceful transformation. **cont.

[evelsteev]

Same info you're getting,dreamer. Democracies and capitalists are taking action TOO, and have been for the last century, and guess what? They're STILL here, despite 40+ years of American "counterculture." They're still on top of the mountain, while the hungry wolves starve down below.

[evilmick66]

And you know how they do that? By mind-numbing propoganda, dispecable violence, and bloody imperialism. Suppressing the very contitutional rights they claim to support, disrespecting human dignity at home and across the seas. Do you actually condone that?

Have you ever wondered how when they make propoganda against other governments, they use (some) actual facts, but when they use it against anarchism, they use myths and misinformation?

[evelsteev]

You think whether condoning it or not is going to STOP THIS?!!!?!?! Only when you successfully STOP ALL of this, I'll eat my words and kiss your shoes. But until then, it's only pipe dreams.

[evilmick66]

Shouldn't Cristiania be proof of that?? Why do you insist anarchism is fantasy? Because it's different? Because it's radical? Because it advocates change? Are you afraid of that? Yeah, just a chickenshit little conservative who can't handle true freedom so you just deny it. If you think it's fantasy why do you even bother to comment in the first place? Do feel threatened about anarchy? Like it even matters what you say! Go back to your mom and applepie, chickenshit, leave this to the big boys!

[evelsteev]

No because it's BULLSHIT. You talk like it's going to happen, but it doesn't. The BIG BOYS are democracy. NOBODY is listening to YOU and your pathetic little "army" of black and red hoody-wearing punks on skateboards. America's military force will squash and crush the little bugs that you are. Ha ha. Pathetic.

[evilmick66]

Gentlemen, I give you all Uncle Sam's little pet ass-slave boy scout, evelsteev.

You know, right now your sounding like a Sith Lord from Star Wars, you realize that don't you? Yeah! Protect the evil empire! That's what you live by.

[evelsteev]

Realists, I give the clueless starry-eyed day dreamer, evilmick66.

Right now you sound like Sisyphus. You realize THAT don't you? Rolling a rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down on you, wasting time. Evil empire? ha! You need to shut off the Rage Against the Machine and stop bitching and whining in your dream world, and DO something with your life you squatting hippie.

[evilmick66]

Just what is your deal anyaways? I find your assertions to be more in the vein of Sisyphus because I have proven to you that anarchists ARE doing something, they're NOT just complaining. There ARE anarchist organizations trying to find the most peaceful action of change: The CNT, the IWW, the EZLN etc. If you still think anarchy is impossible (or whatever) then what the hell are you complaining about? Why should you care? Just let us do what we're doin' and see for yourself who's wrong or right.

[evilmick66]

And btw, America IS becoming an empire. I didn't get that from Rage Against The Machine, I got it from Gore Vidal and it's all the bit true. Not so much of a naive hippie now, am I? I trust you also know of the alleged "smartest guy on campus," Noam Chomsky (anarchist). I'm just showing that you shouldn't use stereotypes in a debate, it's very indignifying.

[evelsteev]

Fuck Gore Vidal and Fuck that zionist, admitted that he's been wrong, Noam Chomsky! Bush is STILL in office. The most "undignifying" thing is that everyone is obsessed at what "should" and "ought" to be, instead of what actually IS.

What next, you're going to protest that water's too wet???? Ha ha. Hilarious!

[evelsteev]

It isn't MY deal. You're the one spouting bullshit nonsense and expecting everyone to dream along with you. A dream isn't enough. You spout off all this "anti-capitalist" bullshit, while at the same time you're using a computer that capitalism brought you. "Doing something" and a successful "revolution" isn't the same thing. Bush is in power, you're not. Plain and simple. Sentiments don't cut it. Have fun in your dream world.

[evilmick66]

Your an anti-zionist (for anti-semitic reasons?) and you support Bush? I actually feel sorry for you. BTW, Bush is gonna be OUT of office in few months if he doesn't cancel the election (which he has the power to do!!--where's democracy now?)

If Chomsky has "admitted" that he's been wrong on something then that should make him an even wiser man. As Socrates once said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

****continue below****

[evilmick66]

A market socialism could've also given me this computer. Such as Mutualism--one Proudhon's ideas. Look it up!

If no one were to think about "what ought to be" and only about "what is," then we would have no progress in our society. We wouldn't have had an AMERICA if everyone thought that way!

..And if you think that there won't be any success then look up "Black Bloc'ing" and the youtube video "Noam Chomsky on Anarchism" (1-5) Both of those sparked some optimism in me.

[evelsteev]

"a market socialism COULD've" but it's NOT! Jesus Christ, you are so starry-eyed you can't see what's in front of you. What is the definition of "progress???" That's a subjective term. We can sit here all day and discuss what "progress" is! One man's wrong is another man's right. YOU'RE going to be the modicum of what progress is supposed to be???? Please. Get real. Noam Chomsky is a critic (although as naive as you) not Nostradamus.

Get real man, for once.

[evilmick66]

I would much rather be a starry-eyed dreamer who does something than an all-hope-lost, apathetic loser who does nothing.

[evelsteev]

If this perfect Utopia is actually established (which it clearly won't) what are you going to "do?" Nothing, most likely.Without the "man" what would you whackos complain about?

I AM doing something: getting on with my life and living it, instead of bitching and complaining like YOU do. Please go move to an island and leave the rest of us alone.

[evilmick66]

That question is so fucking stupid. What else could you do? You live! That's all, just live!

And it's not a perfect Utopia; there will still be problems, no doubt, but at least we'll have true freedom to live the way wish.

[evilmick66]

*the way we wish.

[evelsteev]

If you're going to "live," then please start doing it NOW. That way, you'll save time by ending your incessant whining and bitching, and in turn you'll do ALL of us a favor.

Wow, there's problems here too!But this country is freer than most, even now. I've live in South America for 3 months, TRUST ME, it's MUCH better over here! Get your head out of your suburban ass and get your facts straight.

[evilmick66]

Oh, shut up with that! I can still live my life and fight for anarchy on the side. It's no different than other ppl living their lives while at the same time talking about who to vote for next election or who should be impeached.

We may have more freedom than other countries but we're still slaves. We have to have our labour exploited or else we starve, and there are assholes who're constantly banning things for stupid reasons, supporting censorship, chipping away at our freedoms each time.

[evilmick66]

Not only that, but look at what our country is doing to other countries. Our whole government and economy has been supported by a machine of dispecable imperialism; and every luxury we have in this first world has been made in the expense of the third world.

Face it, the state is an organized group of criminals. They can steal from the masses at the point of a gun an call it "taxes". They can murder millions and call it an act of war. Essentially, the state only exists through force.

[evilmick66]

One other thing: When I said progress I meant evolution in society. All civilisations have made radical changes because some Idealists thought about "what ought to be!" When you say we should only talk about "what is," where do you go from there? All that leads to in my mind is APATHY!!

And finally, I say YOUR the starry-eyed dreamer if you think that the current system is gonna last for all eternity. I HIGHLY DOUBT IT!!

[evelsteev]

You have NO conception about idealism vs action. If your glorious Utopian anarchism were to actually happen, "revoultion" and all, then I would concede and say: "anarchism is reality, and actually is here and now" but IT'S NOT!!! (which is my point all along!) but until then, it's just another ocean of bullshit. Hopefully your thick skull will allow you to ascertain this!

[evilmick66]

That's your opinion based on denial. Not FACT! Especially if your not going to give this ideal a chance.

Action IS taking place. Have I not already told you that? All it needs is more ppl to support it. Have you not looked up Black Bloc like I suggested?

And finally, Anarchism is NOT utopian. It's just SEVERAL times better than what we have now.

[evelsteev]

it isn't opinion, dummy, just look outside your window and pint to an anarchist country. None to be found, so much for FACTS.

Funny how anarchism always "needs more people" to support it. Hmmmmm... I can say that about ANY movement. Please, give me a break.You're so full of shit, I can smell it from here.

If isn't Utopian, then why all this bitching and complaining to get it??? Capitalism isn't utopian either. Some enlightenment!

[evilmick66]

There is an anarchist that exists TODAY. I didn't want to bring it up because it's a third world hellhole that's in turmoil right now. One of the perks of being an underdeveloped african country that hates westerners, I'm afraid. Anyways, go to wikipedia and look up "Anarchy in Somalia."

Oh and I guess you prefer the shit we have now? Ofcourse Anarchy's not utopian, nothing is! But it's BETTER. Reason? Just look at what I said three comments ago!

[evelsteev]

We're not an underdeveloped African nation, Jesus. Quit throwing in straw man arguents, that don't prove anything. We're NOT first world because of anarchy, read about GLOBALISM.

Hey if you prefer to work 16 hours a day be my guest. I only work 8, have fun in your Amish existence.

[evilmick66]

I didn't say all that about US, shit-for-brains!! I was talking about Somalia! Jesus, are you ADD or somethin'?? On my second paragraph I said "three comments ago," meaning three WEEKS ago, GOD!

[evelsteev]

YEAH AND WE'RE NOT SOMALIA, FUCK-HEAD!!!!!

WE'RE MUCH MORE DEVELOPED, AS THEY'RE NOT. ALL THROUGH THE ADVANCE OF CAPITALISM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS, AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT, NUMB-NUTS!?!?! My god, you are a moron!

[evilmick66]

What does that have to do with anything?? My point was to show that an anarchist society really DOES exist!! And also, being anarchist has helped Somalia alot in the turmoil it's going through. Your arguement was that anarchy wasn't real, that it was impossible because there isn't one around today. Well THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE. Do you actually think WE'RE the only country that matters? Our system was built on force and exploitation! As were other countries which were soon put to the ppl's sword!

[evelsteev]

What the FUCK does SOMALIA matter to YOU? What are you the fuckin benevolent angel that pokes his magic wand, saving the world? America matters because it's OUR country, that WE live in. You're the guy that feeds his neighbor so his family can starve.

[evilmick66]

YOU thought anarchy wasn't possible and that it wasn't "real." You said on your first comment, "but they DIDN'T figure things out. There's STILL no anarchist country/nation/land" and you also said "just look outside your window and pint to an anarchist country. None to be found, so much for FACTS." I proved that there IS an anarchist country, that anarchy is real and that it is possible. Whether it's possible in only the USA was NEVER the issue. Try thinking outside of your little world, man.

[evelsteev]

Wrong again, as usual. Currently, the whole of Somalia is still under the entity known as the Transitional Federal Government. Yes, that's right, FEDERAL government. Both containing executive and legislative branches. I AM think outside of YOUR little red and black covered Disney world.

[evilmick66]

No your wrong, The TFG only holds power in a few territories of Somalia. They have not been able to effectively collect taxes, has no notable finances or real power base, and have struggled to exert control over areas like Mogadishu. Other territories are divided by competing warlords. But large areas of the country such as Somaliland, Puntland, Galmudug, Maakhir, and Southwestern Somalia are internationally unrecognized autonomous regions--In other words: ANARCHIST!!

[evelsteev]

You back-peddling is hilarious. First you say ALL of SOMALIA is "anarchist" and now you concede that it's still not COMPLETLEY "anarchist." Gimme a break.

[evilmick66]

Imagine a playground of children, and there's a few bullies who proclaim themselves as kings of that playground and that they should boss the other kids around. Does that automically make them kings of the playground? NO!! That just makes them a bunch of punks that no one likes or cares about.

The TFG and the warlords are exactly that: a bunch of punk-bitches who think they should have the right to be bossing ppl around, and naturally there is resistance against them.

***cont. below***

[evilmick66]

So just because Somalia is full of bullies it doesn't make them any less anarchist. Like I said, the TFG have no real power-base and they haven't been able to collect takes. They are NOT the OFFICIAL or even a LEGITIMATE government. They're just a bunch of punk-bitches that no one likes or cares about, plain and simple. The warlords are no different. ****cont. below***

[evilmick66]

The U.N. may not recognize this but who cares what they think, what matters is what Somalia actually IS in IT's reality and not the reality that other nations make up.

And even IF you could say that Somalia isn't "fully" anarchist, the fact remains that there are anarchist socities existing IN Somalia and outside of the TFG's power. That makes it inargueable that anarchy IS possible and that it is "real".

/thread

[evelsteev]

I'm glad there's bullies on earth.

[evilmick66]

Yeah I bet you would be, statist!! Daddy's good little republican..

[evelsteev]

The "statists" that you despise so much, are in control, you're NOT!!!! Thank God!!!

[evilmick66]

Why are you so close-minded to possibilities?

And I never said I wanted to be in control, the whole point of anarchy is that NO ONE is in control.. other than to themselves!

[evelsteev]

Because anyone would be close-minded to something that STILL hasn't gotten off the ground.

"other than to themselves" is still a form of control. Your wordplay only attempts to hide your incredible naivete!

[evilmick66]

Anarchy as it is defined today was first concieved over a hundred years ago; which, in the scale of political evolution, is actually a very short time! How long did it take for Democracy to "get off the ground"? Your also forgetting Somalia!

You have a different definition "control". When someone holds dominion on others, THAT'S control. When individuals are free to control themselves, that's AUTONOMY!!

[evilmick66]

"The "statists" that you despise so much, are in control, you're NOT!!!! Thank God!!!"

"'other than to themselves' is still a form of control."

Why do you thank god for this? Are you some masochist who loves not having free will? Do you enjoy ppl having control over you? I bet you get a huge boner for authority, don't you? Fucking SYCOPHANT!!!!

[evelsteev]

Primitive Communism/Anarchy is several thousands of years old. Open a book for once.

We can be here all day discussing "defitnitions" hell, you "anarchists" can't even decide which anarchy is "right." Hilarious.

[evilmick66]

That sort of anarchy is NOT what we want! We want what Proudhon, the first person to CALL himself an Anarchist, and his successors wanted. We have differing views on ECONOMY, yes. But these can co-exist together, it's called "Anarchy Without Adjectives" (or "Anarcho-Anarchism").

Next your gonna tell me "but that NOT how it is today." YOU CAN'T FORETELL THE FUTURE BY ONLY LOOKING AT TODAY! QUIT ACTING SO MIGHTY AND MOVE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING BUBBLE, YOU NARROWMINDED, EGOTISTICAL, DOUCHEBAG!!

[Vulturu]

@evilmick66 Proudhon was an anti-semite. He hated jews as much as Hitler did. He also saw blacks as the lowest in the racial hierarchy." During the American Civil War he favored the South, which, he insisted, was not entirely wrong in maintaining slavery. The Negroes, according to Proudhon, were an inferior race, an example of the existence of inequality among the races of mankind."

You REALLY want what Proudhon wanted????

[CapitalistHolocaust]

"you "anarchists" can't even decide which anarchy is "right." Hilarious"

That's got something to do with having the ability to think freely, rather than accept a doctrinal line unquestioningly.

[MacoutesGabber]

thinking freely? Which "freedom" is it?

communist? collectivist? mutualist? or individualist.? give me a break.

Fortunately, I'm not any of those. More freedom for me.

[CapitalistHolocaust]

So you can't be a Statist if you want freedom. Statism & freedom are completely oxymoronic concepts.

How could Statism ever be freer than syndicalism, pray tell?

[INeedAToiletQuick]

can't understand a word

[GlobalDissident]

Ah Proudhon, the original Anarchist!

[beavisisgood87]

i own the 1st comment