Anarchism

Originally posted by sardion2000
Ararchy only works for so long, untill the people realize that in order to have a stable life orginisation is required.

People at the top do not realise that the people at the bottom are the foundation, without the foundation there is no bourgeoise.

And people at the bottom have to unite and come together to pull the rug out...

Why are they holding it up? Wouldn't it be much more satisfying for them to step out from under it and watch the people at the top fall off their high horse??
Not to mention, carrying yourself is much more satisfying and rewarding then carrying those who do nothing for you.

People at the top have more clout over us because they are united, we are not. Us people need to start unifying once again for change. We are the foundation, we can build them up or build ourselves up. what will it be??

The problem with anarchy isn't that it won't last, but that half of the "anarchists" in America are these pop-punk kids who don't understand it but only know that (A) stands for anarchy because the media told them.

Originally posted by invader_chris
The problem with anarchy isn't that it won't last, but that half of the "anarchists" in America are these pop-punk kids who don't understand it but only know that (A) stands for anarchy because the media told them.

So does that mean you believe an anarchist society would or would not work?

It would not work. In anarchy, many people will be killed, kidnapped, and raped. And that's just the begining of the list of bad things that come with anarchy.

Originally posted by invader_chris

In anarchy, many people will be killed, kidnapped, and raped.

Thank God that the government keeps that from ever happening to anyone now

Originally posted by invader_chris
It would not work. In anarchy, many people will be killed, kidnapped, and raped. And that's just the begining of the list of bad things that come with anarchy.

I've got to debate that. I see what you just said in our democracy/ republics/whatever. Just take Iraq into account and you've fulfilled all of the aspects of your post.

Anarchy

Ever reviled, accursed, ne'er understood,
Though art the grisly terror of our age.
"Wreck of all order," cry the multitude,
"Art though, and war and murder's endless rage."
O, let them cry. To them that ne're have striven
The truth that lies behind a word to find.
To them the word's right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind.
But though, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
Thoughsayest all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempest's thrill?
I cannot tell - but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

John Henry Mackay


Anarchism is the natural order, to rule and allow yourself to be ruled is a perversion of the natural order.
A philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.
Of course in Anarchism, natural laws still stand. Murder, rape etc...will not be allowed to take place. We don't need a government to tell us this.

"Property is robbery" said the great French Anarchist Proudhon.

Property the basis of our modern capatalist ways. Gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.
Real wealth consists of things of beauty, the air we breath the food we consume, the earth we live on. But even these things are not ours.
But as people are forced to work all their days to just consume the products we ourselfs manufacture to our detriment, there can be no wealth.
In a society where products are produced for our benifit, not for profit, we would ALL have the best there is to offer, not just those fortunate enough to afford it. Capatalism benefits the selfish individual but does nothing for humanity as a whole.

The stupidist (sp?) excuse for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, kiiling in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the scourge of it's own creation.

Anarchism really stands for the liberation of the mind from man made religion, the liberation of the body from from the dominion of property, liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.
A social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth. Guaranteing (sp?) to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes and inclinations.
It is not a fixed philosophy like communism or socialism even though it can include those theories, but it can grow and change according to the needs of the community.
"Anarchism is the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of social harmony. It is the great, surging, living truth that is reconstructing the world, and that will usher in the Dawn."
Emma Goldman

Originally posted by crontab
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.

What you describe is termed 'communitarian anarchism' and it's an ideological belief I hold as my utopic end vision. Anarchism is not the elimination of authority but the elimination of heirarchy. You can do this on a community level. The reason that it's my utopic end vision and not something I fight to get across to people on ATS is because anarchy requires a revolution in order for society to be reconfigured. That's how different life would be, incomprehensible change is hard to discuss. Perhaps impossible to ever come about.

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. However, they neglected to take over the parliament because they refused to believe in its existence, therefore it had no power to them. Lawmakers soon turned their military force on the revolution and squashed it. Until the revolution (even if im 90) I'll at least know who's screwing me.

I disagree. As communists found out, people are greedy. You can't deny the fact that capitalism would flourish under anarchy. How? Envision a world of consultants so specialized in whatever it is that they would like to do they can set their own schedules and fees for service. You would have no keynesians in charge of fiscal policy because there would be no government regulation of the markets screwing everything up in the long run.

crontab, you should read Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy if you haven't already, you might find it interesting. That goes for everybody.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 12-6-2004 by insite]

ANOK, you speak of anarchy being liberation from property-greed, but how can you enforce this on people in an anarchist society? I don't want to argue the pros and cons of property ownership with you just yet; I just want to know how you propose stopping people from ownership without forming an oppressive government to force your ideology on others.

The point is you wouldn't force anything on anybody.
In reality in an Anarchist type society if someone wanted to own property, we (the Anarchists) would have as little right to stop that property ownership as they (the owners) would have the right to force property ownership on us.
But ownership only works if we accept that ownership as being legitimate.
We allow ourselves to be manipulated and exploited by the "owners" because we fear his authority.
But his authority is only possible because we accept it.
For example what point would there be of someone owning a factory if nobody recognized that ownership.
Either the owner would not be able to hire anyone to work his factory, or the workers would not accept his ownership, and they would only work if they equally benefited from the profits of their labors.
Thus forcing the owner to except equal ownership with his "workers".
He can own his property but in an anarchist society being the owner would have no real benefit.
It's not about forcing ppl with authority, that's what we have now.
Workers would no longer be "slaves to the owner" but equal participants in the running and profits from the "factory" and their labor.
This has many benefits.
Workers in this type of system would be far happier to go to work and productivity in the things we need would increase.
Food, clothing, housing being the obvious priorities. [I believe the majority of ppl would rather see everybody getting an equal share of the worlds resources, it's only the minority owners that want a bigger share and they teach us that that is how life is. When I think most of us would agree it shouldn't be.]
When we ALL have these then we can produce for our pleasures.
The working week would also be drastically reduced when we are not producing simply to make profit for the owner.
If we feed our need and not our greed then we wouldn't need that flash car or that bigger TV.
We fill our lives with these things because as slaves we need to feel that we are getting something out of life, out of our labors.
And of course this is all perpetuated by the owners (including the state). And it's the owners that create that greed mentality, because without our labor and consumption their ownership is worthless.
When we are liberated from the shackles of "ownership" we liberate ourselves from the drudgery of labor for the benefit of the few.
ALL our labors would be for the benefit of ALL.

Originally posted by invader_chris
It would not work. In anarchy, many people will be killed, kidnapped, and raped. And that's just the begining of the list of bad things that come with anarchy.

How juvenile.... People already have the freedom to kill, the only way to stop people from killing is to have everybody locked up.... What kind of society do we live in already? We have the freedom to roam about aimlessly or with a plan, we have the freedom to go over to our friends houses and families, and we also have the freedom to knock on someone's door and blow their face off...

You can't stop people from killing, so to say that anarchy is the beginning of the list of bad things to happen is juvenile... Take a look around you mate, people are being kidnapped, raped, and killed all over the country, everyday...

grrrr

The problem is the word ANARCHY is used incorrectly by the establishment to describe chaos and violence.
(I wonder why they do this?)
So the average person is always going to equate chaos and violence with any mention of the word Anarchy.
Just another one of those little ways we are conditioned to think that government is necessary for our survival and wellbeing.
Supposedly without government we would all turn into raping kidnapping murderes

[edit on 3/1/2005 by ANOK]

I think the blame lies with Mad Max and his ugly healer.

2 entries found for anarchy.
an�ar�chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
n. pl. an�ar�chies
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

anarchy

n : a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government) [syn: lawlessness]


If your for the law of the jungle, then this style of governance is for you...

There can be no 1/2 anarchist state, because as soon as someone sets up rules, or bands together for a common purpose, you switch to dictatorship (despotism)....

Man can do better than this.

The idea of "do whatever you want as long as it doesnt hurt someone else" is the basic premise of SATANISM as well as anarchy.

When i look at the posters names supporting anarchistic ideology on this thread, i think...i could have told you they would, based on their other postings.

Life is a game, learn to play it
so it dont play you...
that requires not only knowing the rules,
BUT
playing by them as well (i didnt say break them, tho in EXTREME circumstance that is detrimental to people/society it may be nessisary in LIMITED form to do so)

Isn�t the world a jungle now? The laws of our capitalist jungle are designed to protect privilege and wealth.

Why would people banding together for a common purpose be a dictatorship?

We�ll use your dictionary for reference;

Dic-ta-tor-ship 1 the office of dictator 2 autocratic rule, control, or leadership 3 a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c: a despotic state.

Hmmm sounds a little like what we have now, no?

We supposedly can do anything we want now, as long as it doesn't�t hurt someone else.
Government has the right to do what it wants, regardless of the consequences.
They/we have the right to exploit, control, oppress, kill in the name of war, torture in the name of freedom and progress.
Now that sounds like Satanism.

Life is a game, but who�s game is it? Who makes the rules? Not you or me mate. (unless YOU are one of THEM)
The game is dictated by the wealthy and privileged and their rules are designed to maintain their power.
Most of us can�t even get a foot in the door to play their game. All people can do is chase the carrot they dangle in front of us everyday.
And if you notice most of the privileged in any country come from the same families and backgrounds. The same people have been making the rules for a very long time.
They have got pretty good at it. So good that they can carry out their atrocities and fool the population into believing it�s for their benefit.
Do you know you are nothing but a guest in their country? The only reason they allow us to reside on their land is because without us their power and wealth would crumble.
Would you rather be one �them� or would you rather see us ALL benefit from world resources and our labors.

And BTW if you�re so happy with the way things are, what rules �under extreme circumstances� would you break and why?

When i look at the posters names supporting anarchistic ideology on this thread, i think...i could have told you they would, based on their other postings.

What does that mean?

hmmmm i guess i like a bit of social anarchy, im pretty much against most the government ideals.

'it would be a lot better if this were a dictatorship. just so long as im the dictator'.

im a bit of a project mayhem nut to be honest, i hope to rid many people of their material possesions. before you say hey but you've got a computer and the internet...well so did edward norton...everyone needs to be organized.

Anok says,

Isn�t the world a jungle now? The laws of our capitalist jungle are designed to protect privilege and wealth.

Now you know darn well i mean "might makes right" as the law of the jungle. Sure capitalism is a "different jungle" than one where physical domination is key.
BUT,
tell organized labor, tell the bill of rights, tell OSHA, tell the myrad other things that are designed to protect the little guy from the big fish that the rules in the "capitalist jungle" are just designed to protect privilage and wealth...do you know how many business owners would like to throw the wage and labor laws out the window because they force the privilaged and wealthy to spend $$$ in defense of the workers they want to exploit more? Lets hire some illegal immigrant cheap child labor so we dont have to pay minimum wage, provide bennifits or pay taxes on them, sound familliar? Remember the ford pinto? It was cheaper for ford to make an unsafe car than it was to care about customer safety until the government FORCED safety standards onto the automakers.
But oh yeah...no one looks out for the little guy. How willing we are to cry poor us.

Anok questions,

Why would people banding together for a common purpose be a dictatorship?

Umm 3a and 3c is your answer from the definition posted. once SOME kind of banding or organization takes hold, anarchy is no longer in effect...despotism is the next level of governmental form up from anarchy.

Anok states,

Hmmm sounds a little like what we have now, no?

Umm, NO. We have a represatentive democracy, which requires constant participation by all citizens in order to hold the government accountable. Dont blame government for the citizens being lazy slugs and not using the powers granted to them. Blame the lazy slugs.

We supposedly can do anything we want now, as long as it doesn�t hurt someone else.

Ummm, NO. There are plenty of laws that try to keep you from hurting yourself as well. Rights are limited when they encroach upon others rights....being in a society means giving up some of your freedom in the best intrests of the overall group.

Government has the right to do what it wants, regardless of the consequences.

Ummm, no...see my above paragraph on citizens not holding their elected officials accountable. Recall them, stop re electing them if they arent doing things your way, just dont cry "we're oppressed".

Do you know you are nothing but a guest in their country? The only reason they allow us to reside on their land is because without us their power and wealth would crumble.

The feelings mutual here. THEY are just as much a guest as we are.
Your second sentance exemplifies my point of accountabillity.

without us their power and wealth would crumble.

Well where does the power really lie then if what you say is true? I agree with you...except that while you wallow in "oppression" i see opportunity to use this power over them. All it takes is will, effort, time, and chance. But oh yeah...we have no options but to be slaves...
BAH!!!...throw off your self imposed shackles and create your own destiny.
This doesnt mean you have to violate the laws, just be cunning, patient, skillful, and tenacious. Anarchy is nothing to a well hatched plan.

Anuk backs me into corner,

Would you rather be one �them� or would you rather see us ALL benefit from world resources and our labors.

Id rather be one of them...wouldnt you? Isnt this the basis for much class warfare? The haves and have nots?
Besides, as mean as this will sound, the truth is that resources are finite, yet humans keep breeding more and more...at some point...nature (darwinism) is going to appear and claim us in our own folly of thinking that there is enough for everyone. Those that just sit back and milk the system without putting any effort into it are not on my list of "worthy" beings and are leeches of society. Why should those contributing suffer under the weight of those that self indulge themselves into a drug induced, self bloating, greedy, self centered, and uncaring of others position?
Support thine own habits before demanding i do it for you.

Anuk again thinks i wont give the real tough answer here,

And BTW if you�re so happy with the way things are, what rules �under extreme circumstances� would you break and why?

Hmm, mass murder of citizens by US forces, proveable (like shooting into a crowd on video with indiscriminate killing for a poor reason like supressing a peace rally) Herding of citizens into camps, (like entire cities, for "national security"), going door to door and taking away guns, cars, valuables etc.(looting the citizenry), Willful starving/siege of a city(not like wako, they deserved it, but like a region where it would be reasonable to assume innocents were being starved)...pretty much youd have to be able to show a great deal of evidence of mass scale wrong doing, resulting in a direct immediate threat to the lives of a large # of citizens for a really poor reason. (i already hear "like stealing your vote?" except that stealing your vote wont cause you immediate harm/risk of death. So dont go there.)

ON OTHER POSTERS SUPPORTING ANARCHY;
From reading posts from others, on many threads/topics, it is pretty clear which ones show contempt for organized civil society and the rules that people follow in order to maintain one. I wasnt suprized to see some of the same (names withheld to protect myself from slander) people on a thread supporting anarchy. Just putting 2+2 together. An observation, not an indictment.

Anarchy is more or less a forced state than anything, and contradicts itself really. during times of anarchy, there are still sub sects, communities, and other small committees that exist. How does one nation resolve itself from a state of anarchy. they organize themselves, and take power. it is an organized power struggle, and thus, defeats itself, and doesn't exist. its just a state of temporary organized chaos, until someone gets greedy, organizes, and takes power.

This is not meant as a put down but it seems most ppl seem to misunderstand the motives of Anarchists. Even some so-called Anarchist misunderstand this.
We are not about chaos and disorder. In fact we believe the society we live in now is chaos and disorder. Kept that way by the ruling elite to help keep us from organizing.
We ARE about organized communities and good non-governing leadership.
To lead and to govern are not the same.
You CAN have leadership and organization in a non-governmental society.
In fact leadership is essential for any society to thrive.
But not self-appointed leaders. They must be chosen by and come from the community in which they will work.
They must be natural leaders with something to offer other than the desire to be number one. Privilege and wealth will not be considerations for leadership.
Our government officials now are not leaders, they are controllers.
They don't lead society, all they do is control society for the benefit the privileged few. The only leading they do is us to our deaths.

Yes we need leaders, but those leaders should not be given total power to control. Our leaders should not be put on pedestals, this causes blindness in the population. Leaders should advise not dictate, and the final decision should come from the community.
When we learn to cooperate rather than compete with each other control from an outside force would be unnecessary.
The only reason government control is necessary now is to protect the privileged and control the poor. And it's the poor who create, build, serve, suffer, and die so the few can live in luxury.

More on Anarchist organization;
www.spunk.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
We are not about chaos and disorder. In fact we believe the society we live in now is chaos and disorder. Kept that way by the ruling elite to help keep us from organizing.
We ARE about organized communities and good non-governing leadership.
To lead and to govern are not the same.
You CAN have leadership and organization in a non-governmental society.
In fact leadership is essential for any society to thrive.

ANOK, we may not agree about much else, but I don't think I could have put the above any better.