It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anarchism

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It is easy to see where most on ATS fall in the left/right political spectrum, but I have seen very little in regards to members expressing anarchist leanings, the closest thing being the large libertarian following on this board.

How many of you would describe your political ideology as some form of anarchy?

If any of you subscribe to some form of anarchist ideology, is it minarchism, capito-anarchism, or social anarchism?

Also, since there are not likely to be many anarchists here, I would like to hear from those who are completely against any form of anarchy or strong authoritarians.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I totally hate the gov't. Power to chaos. Anarchy is good...or i could go for dictatorship too either way what is in place now just doesn't work.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Ararchy only works for so long, untill the people realize that in order to have a stable life orginisation is required. Now Archo-Transhuminism I can empathise with here is the website allthough it may be a bit ... radical for some members..

www.anarcho-transhumanism.com...




[edit on 27-11-2004 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Anarchy is something that is often mistaken by kids, adults, and society. Anarchy is not total chaos. I my self am no Anarchist but i do see what their point is. Anarchist want absloute freedom. They want no taxes, no goverment, no money, no laws, no nothing. They want to live their lives how they want when they want and do what they want without concequence. The reason Anarchy has such a bad name is becasue alot of people see the only way to get something done is through violent action. Many anarchist or suppsosed anarchist will often commit hate and violent acts. While another anarchist may sit back and protest the goverment nonviolently by not paying income tax.

The problem with anarchy comes with human nature. Even the idea of it has been warped. The people who claim to be anarchist go violent but ask for a free world, only to have violence be more rampart? the whole concept of Anarchy was a nonviolent stance against the goverment to get it to absolve to become a free person.

Just like communisim good on paper but when people are involved it gets blown out the water.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
.
Strictly speaking i am not an anarchist, but as bad/corrupt as the majority of national governmental & its agencies are I'm not sure that we would be much worse off with it. While some things would be worse, some would be better.

With it people know they have to police things themselves, much in the manner of the pioneers/frontier. It gets a bit tricky as you get high density population, everyone can't map out their own codes of behavior. You do at that point need some broad guides to standard behavior.
.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I am an Anarchosyndicalist, an anarchist wing of the trade labour union. The primary goal of the anarchosyndicalist movement is the abolishing of the wage labour system, which is seen as the primary form of exploitation by the capitalist class.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
No form of anarchy lasts forever, in the end you always have a group of people whom others end up joining.. the creation of some sort of government comes out of it.

I am for the overthrow and abolishment of the elite ruling class and putting the power in the hands of the majority whom are the working class. For the ruling class pretends it is taking the needs of the people seriously, yet in reality they are working to better themselves off the backs of the working class.

No, I am not looking for the abolishment of classes since it is not exactly possible at this stage, I am just looking for the elimination of the structure in which one class has more power over another. I'd perfer a structure where all classes represent each other equally.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 28-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 28-11-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Anachry is basically the respect of the individual, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." IF everyone treated everyone fairly then there would be no need for any kind of government, even if people grouped themselves together as long as the respect was intact it would be anarchy. I consider a mysef a revolutionist and anarchist, more of a revolutionary. That is kind of a oxy moron because like i said "respect for the individual", most anarchist believe in no war/violence...whereas MOST, not all, revolutions require violence.

Basically anarchy would never work, to much pride in the world, to much greed, to much anger, to many people fighting for silly ideas of people long since dead (religions in particular), people arent willing to cooexist. Ignorance of eachother is the biggest reason anarchy will never exist. I guess i shouldnt say never, who know what the future may hold.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
i'd like a anarchist government, ok maybe a bit more controlled than that. I can see where this is going, infinite.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
while I certainly agree with this:


Originally posted by RedOctober90
I am for the overthrow and abolishment of the elite ruling class and putting the power in the hands of the majority whom are the working class. For the ruling class pretends it is taking the needs of the people seriously, yet in reality they are working to better themselves off the backs of the working class.


I'm not so sure about this:


No, I am not looking for the abolishment of classes since it is not exactly possible at this stage, I am just looking for the elimination of the structure in which one class has more power over another. I'd perfer a structure where all classes represent each other equally.


the structure which employs the methods of exploitation as a valid form of extracting labour power, and therefore allows one class to have disproportionate power compared to another IS Capitalism. Therefore, the smashing of the capitalist system and therefore the capitalist state is the only solution to this. Reformism, within the current framework of the state institutions (the parliament, police and educational systems) is not a viable solution, since the state is not the primary institution of our time. The primary institution is capitalism, and the foremost manifestation of this is the corporation. Democracy is a secondary institution, which the supposed manifestation of is the state. For this to change, so that the popular will of the people (democracy) is placed ABOVE the wanton lust of profit (capitalism) will need revolution, not reform.

In summary, while classes exist, so will the class struggle. This is why it is a question of abolishing classes, not trying to make them equal. Difference and disunity creates classes in the first place.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
anarchy is good but is flawed. like everything.
because there would be no law only the law of society.
aka if you kill someone then society comes and kills you.
but gangs will rule in that culture so it would be prety sh**y.
my friend likes anarchism i dont mind it , would be kinda good but kinda cra*y



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90
No form of anarchy lasts forever, in the end you always have a group of people whom others end up joining.. the creation of some sort of government comes out of it.


That is the only problem I have with it. I have strong anarchist leanings but just don't see how it could work. You will, sooner or later, come under SOMEONES rule, be it government or local street gang or warlord. It is the nature of the beast. The best we can hope for, as of now, is a weak Libertarian Government which IMO is the best compromise. We need just enough government to keep a more powerful government from forming if you know what I mean.

True Anarchy is, IMO, like true Communism, it looks good on paper but doesn't work in real life.

Good Topic Cav



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The problem with Anarchism is that it allows people too much freedom. Basically people take advantage of it, this is the main flaw in democracy, people take advantage. No goverment lasts forever and Anarchism seems to be the shortest lived.

I'm personally in favor of a combonation of socialism and anarchism in which the goverment collects some taxes but only enough to provide public services which are nessesary such as electricity (nessesary in todays world), water, garbage disposal, etc. Society would have fewer pointless laws and laws would be focused on human rights.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Good Topic Cav
Hey thanks, I almost never start topics; I prefer to finish them. Actually, I didnt think I would get more than one or two responses.



You will, sooner or later, come under SOMEONES rule, be it government or local street gang or warlord. It is the nature of the beast. The best we can hope for, as of now, is a weak Libertarian Government which IMO is the best compromise. We need just enough government to keep a more powerful government from forming if you know what I mean.


I agree. The best trade off we can hope for is a very limited government whose only authority would be a small localized police force, a small court system to back it up, and an extremely small military, to cover the specialties a citizen with a riffle cannot, such as the maintenance of missile systems and large war ships. Everything else can be provided by a free market in a manner much more efficient than by government.

Government has become too large a part of our lives. Government should be transparent and limited to such a point that it almost does not matter who gets elected. We should not elect leaders based on who will fix things or change things for the best; we should elect them simply to maintain and serve.


General Zapata, it is the worker and consumer that keeps these corporations going, and this is no form of slavery, it is done willingly. A free market will always lead to the formation of corporations on some level as the other option, a commune, is just not as competitive. It is up to the workers and consumers to shape the direction of the market in what manner they can. People need to realize that they have the power in their collective hands, and the control. Any large group of people (and the right small ones) holds a massive amount of power over the market, and can control the corporations. If you did manage to break the back of the corporate world (and you cant) I dont think you would like what would arise to fill the vacuum.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
.
From a purely analytical view anarchy demands that each individual fend for themselves. That means that each individual is spending time, expense, energy defending who they are and what they do or create.

On the other hand it means they are free to create or do anything they choose [as long as they avoid the rath of others]. This means there are no limits on their imaginations. They have to evaluate what makes sense to them to do.

One thing to keep in mind is just HOW inhumane people can be towards one another, individually [anarchy] or collectively [governments]. We are without a doubt a nasty species.

If you have a government structure that sets up rules and does a reasonable job of enforcing them it allows individuals to expend a much larger portion of their energies doing and creating things [that fit in the government's rules] with less worry about defending them and their own persons. It means you create a larger amount of things and actions that fit into the government's rules.

But this limits them to doing what is government approved. Sometimes someone may have an 'against-the-rules' idea that is genuinely progressive. It means that the government itself is in the way of progress.

Six of One, half a dozen of the other.

Optimally you would have a flexible agile [able to change] government that had the best interests of all its individuals at heart and was ruthlessly effective against any destructive outside forces. It would require people who were somewhat adaptive themselves.

edit: grammar

[edit on 28-11-2004 by slank]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Anarchism is total collective mob rule and isn't too far from a monarchy. In it you'll find small bands of huksters running around and using extortionary methods against people to collect fund, and you will find these small bands are controlled by war lords, much like what is happening in Afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Anarchism is about elminating all the power holders and politicians so everyone can work out their problems. Bassically, if you want to do something, you get together with your friend and neghbors and do it. There is no president, mayor, or leader to tell you what else needs to be done. Community decisions are made by consensus.

Basically, it is more or less the state of things after one regime gets overthrown, and another takes power. Everybody say # the boss, # the government, and figure out how to get what they want or need. If you want food, you plant it, and harvest it. If you want a house, you get together with your friends, and build it. For those things you can't do yourself, you make friends with someone who can.

As far as trade is concerned, you can have a gift economy. If you some extra stuff, you tell everyone, "Hey, I have an extra ..... Any want one?". Over time, these things become consistent, and you know you better give some stuff to someone, or everyone will pissed at you.

I'd be happy with anarchism. The problem is that there many institutions and customs which entrench power. They create values, laws, and ideologies to help maintain their power. Complicated institutions and societies work to confuse people about the source of the power. Force is applied against who don't respect their authority.

Some organize vast movements to overthrow the current power structures. However, most of the time the leaders just replace the old power holders with new power holders. I think anarchism will probably become the dominant form of social organization when the American-led world system collapses.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
It seems like everyone is saying "Anarchism is........." yet everyone has a completely different meaning filled in the blank. Ironic- the proof of anarchy lies within its own inability to be described.

If you're thinking of anarchy in a governmental form (or lack thereof) then it's a cycle. There is no way to escape from order than through chaos, but in every chaos, order emerges. Don't even try to bring up the "natural world's" anarchy- it doesn't exist. Plants and animals have just a strict order or "law' as human beings do. Disorder forms to order, which eventually breaks down to disorder, which forms to order, which eventually breaks down......... so on and so on.

But if you're thinking of anarchy on a less physical level (how I like to imagine it) it becomes a state of mind. Anarchy of the mind and soul is much different than the powerless form we often think of. It is the ridding of barriers in the world around you and even the barriers we create for ourselves within your own mind. Now, I'm not saying disregard anyone else's ideas other than your own- heavens no! Anarchy is a state of freedom of ideas, the abilityto form your own with the influence, help, and attributio of others. Those without a path are lost, but those who follow another's path are even more lost. The same can go for ideas, thought, and wisdom.

Anarchy: A+

[edit on 11-28-04 by Scat]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Anarchism is total collective mob rule

I think you must have anarchism and democracy mixed up. Democracy is mob rule, where the 90% mob tell the 10% slave how to run his own life.

Anarchy is where you mind your own damn buisiness, and I mind my own damn buisiness.


and isn't too far from a monarchy.

Couldn't be farther apart. Infact, democracy is a monarchy where you pick who rules over you. The only ruler in your life should be you. Are you afraid to make your own decisions?


In it you'll find small bands of huksters running around and using extortionary methods against people to collect fund, and you will find these small bands are controlled by war lords, much like what is happening in Afghanistan.

You have seen too many movies.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Is it too much to ask to have a little bit of everything?

Live and let live - be free to do or act or think as you want - so long as it doesn't affect someone else's ability to do or act or think as they want. In exchange I'll pay taxes (hopefully reduced) and tolerate limited government.


B.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join