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.

 

Anarchists Unite! Governments Failed! Are you Ready?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Anarchy is neither societal Chaos nor Disorder.


Anarchists and Anti-authoritarians who understand that we are a part of the historical and global struggle for liberty, justice, and human dignity. Our struggle is against all forms of oppression, exploitation and domination—capitalism, imperialism, racism, homophobia, patriarchy, or any condition that dehumanizes people. (www.mediadissent.com...)



Howard Ehrlich describes the values and origin of the black flag excellently in Reinventing Anarchy:

Why is our flag black? Black is a shade of negation. The black flag is the negation of all flags. It is a negation of nationhood which puts the human race against itself and denies the unity of all humankind. Black is a mood of anger and outrage at all the hideous crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of allegiance to one state or another. It is anger and outrage at the insult to human intelligence implied in the pretenses, hypocrisies, and cheap chicaneries of governments.

Black is also a color of mourning; the black flag which cancels out the nation also mourns its victims the countless millions murdered in wars, external and internal, to the greater glory and stability of some bloody state. It mourns for those whose labor is robbed (taxed) to pay for the slaughter and oppression of other human beings. It mourns not only the death of the body but the crippling of the spirit under authoritarian and hierarchic systems; it mourns the millions of brain cells blacked out with never a chance to light up the world. It is a color of inconsolable grief.

But black is also beautiful. It is a color of determination, of resolve, of strength, a color by which all others are clarified and defined. Black is the mysterious surrounding of germination, of fertility, the breeding ground of new life which always evolves, renews, refreshes, and reproduces itself in darkness. The seed hidden in the earth, the strange journey of the sperm, the secret growth of the embryo in the womb all these the blackness surrounds and protects.

So black is negation, is anger, is outrage, is mourning, is beauty, is hope, is the fostering and sheltering of new forms of human life and relationship on and with this earth. The black flag means all these things. We are proud to carry it, sorry we have to, and look forward to the day when such a symbol will no longer be necessary (www.anarchism.net...).


Here is a list of some Principles of Anarchism by Poitr Kropotkin

ANARCHISM , THE NAME GIVEN TO a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government--harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent--for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary--as is seen in organic life at large--harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibriu




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
cont.

equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
This could add to your salvific purpose :

www.jesusradicals.com...

Three lines.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Anarchism will not work in the real world. Why? Because not everyone will believe in that system, so what happens to those who want to establish democracy, communism, or a republic?

If you want an example of what happens in anarchy, look at Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet war. The Taliban took charge, formed their own goverment, and had little resistance, because they had the guns, money, and drugs. Same thing will happen in the US. Whoever has the most money (or items to barter with) and guns will form their own rule on the weak. Who will stop them, when no one can out-gun them, out-man them, or out-bid them?

The only resistance Afghanistan had against the Taliban was the Northern Alliance, and even then, it was extremely difficult to find people to join the Northern Alliance because people would much rather be controlled than put their lives on the line.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I found the following in The Illuminatus! Trilogy, by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson:


Free Market: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.

The State: That institution which intereferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).

Tax: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the state collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of priviledge, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.

Privilege: From the Latin word privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

Usury: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.

Landlordism: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land, and thereby takes tribute (rent) from thise who live, work, or produce on the land.

Tariff: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.

Capitalism: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.

Conservatism: That school of Capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market, while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.

Liberlism: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."

Socialism: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.

Anarchism: That organization of society in which the Free MArket operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. Right Anarchists predict that the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. Left Anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.





posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SolarAnarchist
Here is a list of some Principles of Anarchism by Poitr Kropotkin

ANARCHISM , THE NAME GIVEN TO a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government--harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent--for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary--as is seen in organic life at large--harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibriu


I have to admit, I have done little reading in this area...

But what utter nonsense!

Agreements require submission to the rule of law. Without that, the only enforceable agreements left are the ones where inequity ensures a clear winner and a clear loser. 'Force' becomes the new rule of law...

I think the black flag is an appropriate symbol.

I would shudder to think of a future shrouded in that kind of darkness.

:shk:

[edit on 14-1-2008 by loam]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
...If you want an example of what happens in anarchy, look at Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet war...


Hmmm that's not what we consider Anarchism. Anarchism is not simply 'no government'. But anyway if you want to see how REAL Anarchism worked, at least for a little while, read this...

Anarchism in the Spanish Revolution

And if you want to know what Anarchists really think click the link in my sig 'What would a Libertarian Socialist society look like.' Of course not all Anarchists agree, but that is pretty much the ‘classic’ Socialist Anarchism line of thought. And yes Anarchism is traditionally and historically socialist but don’t confuse it with Marxism or ‘national socialism’ which it is neither. We’re not ‘commies’ or ‘lefties’ even though we obviously sympathize with the left as it has traditionally supported the workers. Anarchism has also been traditionally anti-capitalist.
The right of course is traditionally and historically fascist, as we saw in its extreme in Italy, Spain and Germany. If it wasn’t for the left and Anarchists the fascists would have had an even stronger hold on Europe in the 1930’s. Even then though the establishment, and thus the media, in the west supported the right wing fascists. History ain’t changed.

‘Right Anarchism’ (anarcho-capitalism or free-market anarchism) is an oxymoron. The term wasn’t even in use till 1988. It’s people who want the freedom to exploit, not the freedom to organize. They simply don’t grasp the true meaning of Anarchism and its traditions. Anarcho-capitalists would have the corporations controlling your lives with no oversight at all. That would be Chaos not Anarchism.
It’s also weird to me as a European that right wing pro capitalists call them selves ‘libertarians’. Libertarianism is also traditionally of the left and anti-capitalist.
How did they get away with stealing that term? It’s no different than Hitler using the term National ‘Socialist’ when it’s obvious they were not socialist. Or China calling itself ‘The Peoples Republic’, when it’s a dictatorship not a democracy.
The powers that be like to confuse you.

I agree though that true complete Anarchism is not something we're going to see happen, and be successful, any time soon. People have been too conditioned to see anything that would bring them true liberty and real freedom as suspect and dismiss it as either impossible or utopia. But it’s not an impossible dream. Check out Norway and Switzerland, not complete anarchism but the less we have of the ‘authorities’ the better.

Anarchism in Norway

Isn’t that what most of you who call yourselves ‘right-wing’ want, LESS government?
You have been tricked into thinking the left means BIG government; it’s the other way around.

Anarchists realize that people are not perfect and we're never going to rid ourselves completely of anti-social behavior, but we could rid ourselves, at least, of the legal state sanctioned anti-social behavior we’ve had from our so called world leaders for hundreds of years. Anarchists also realize a lot of anti-social behavior is a direct result of the pyramid scheme of a system forced on us by self serving power hungry buffoons.

But the revolution starts at home. Until people can realize their own strength and take responsibility for themselves and their communities it will never happen. People have to organize and work together and make their communities self reliant. Rely less and less on the ‘system’. Live the way you want to live right now, don’t wait for someone to create a ‘system’ for you.

Edit: Forgot link...

[edit on 14/1/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   
I was raised in anarchistic state, so of course I'm prepared should push come to shove. I've read the right books, I've learned the right ways, I avoid the downfalls of Trendy Anarchism and I'm still upholding the foundations America was founded on.

Now, how many beers do I need to drink in order to take this to the next level?

I'm fed up with a lot of this bs.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
I liked your post, but I have to disagree with...



Right Anarchism’ (anarcho-capitalism or free-market anarchism) is an oxymoron. The term wasn’t even in use till 1988.


My previously quoted source was originally published in the 1970's.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SolarAnarchist
 


I am an anti-socialist Anarch... Guess that means I am the chaotic one. Ironicly Im a virgo. Seriously To see how anarchy could work just apply it to the economy in oh lets say the internet and media industries. Cooperate prices are going down and P2P has become a socially acceptable To make up for it the owners of the supercorps are chargeing more elsewhere You can split hairs over this or try something new...maybe grow a big garden and sell veggies.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
It would be great if we went back to the Original constitutional American government with states delegating their own laws.

That way we could make an Anarchist territory to test different versions out to see if they would work.

So in that sense I am a Ron Paul Supporter and agree with everyone here that the country is headed downhill and new ways of governance is needed.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by SolarAnarchist]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SolarAnarchist
 


In a lot of places, this is already going on.

I'm currently in Arkansas, and from what I've seen about how this place runs itself, I'm still waxing and waning on my final vote.

Huckabee is looking good, but Hillary has a good reputation with Health Care...Obama...nice guy but not really connecting with...Ron Paul seems rather cool and so do elements of McCain....so....it's all one big process for my ultimate decision.

I just know this country needs a brighter agenda, a more comprehensive and homefront oriented leader, and more postive use of media in all it's forms.

But one thing is crystal clear - THE "WAR" NEEDS TO END.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Check out Norway and Switzerland, not complete anarchism but the less we have of the ‘authorities’ the better.


Hmmm, from a recent BBC article on Norway requiring that a companies board be 40% women, I dont know. Forcing stuff isnt that cool.
Of course no requirement for the board to be 40% men. (Another subject for another time.)

Point is the attitude of government butting in and making changes that have to be at heart level (thats true anarchism in my opinion.) Not imposing things on the surface superficial level...you just get more issues.

Peace

dAlen



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by DJMessiah
...If you want an example of what happens in anarchy, look at Afghanistan after the fall of the Soviet war...


Hmmm that's not what we consider Anarchism. Anarchism is not simply 'no government'.


Which is exactly what happened. After the Taliban chased away Afghanistan's communist backing goverment, Afghanistan was without any rulers. Even the king had moved away. Afghanistan was left without laws, and people had only religion to govern themselves by. Instead of true Islam, the Taliban then decided that they had the power (money, guns, drugs), to govern the Afghan people, and since religion was what most Afghans knew, the Taliban tried to use religion to control them.

The Taliban acted in the same way any group here in the US would. Who ever has the guns, money, and drugs, will try to obtain power over the weak. Since we have no goverment, and only ourselves to protect us, we cannot out gun them, so we are left to being their followers.

Anarachism may exist for a short time, but there will always be a group out there that will seize power.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I like the way of the American Indians, when I think about "anarchic" society I think of them.

The principle is that no man tells another what to do - because he is too proud to do that (strange concept for today), and in this way no oppression can occur.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by pai mei]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Anarachism may exist for a short time, but there will always be a group out there that will seize power.


Sry but again you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Anarchism is not simply 'no government', or 'no leaders', or no 'laws', or no self defense against those that wish to impose their will on us. Again I suggest some reading before assuming the statist definition of Anarchy is what we are talking about, it's not.

As far as others seizing power, what stops that happening now? 'Muslim terrorists'? Think about that.

It all comes down to taking care of your community and organizing as a group with common interests, instead of fighting with each other to get more of the pie than we need. The only reason we have groups of people trying to control other groups of people is because of capitalism, and the need for the control of resources to keep profits rolling in.
It’s an artificial system that’s set up to rape the planet and the people on it. There are enough resources on the planet to keep everyone happy, but the resources are kept artificially scarce to help keep the profits rolling in.

I don’t know how anybody can’t see how we don’t have to live like this. It has been proven that normal working people can organize and control their own lives without an overlord whose only role is to exploit the workers labor. The populations self confidence has been destroyed and workers organizations ripped apart, while those in power have become more organized and their laws more totalitarian. The fascist state has convinced the population that anything that seems to support workers rights is ‘communism’ and of course ‘communism’ means Russia. Which of course wasn’t communist at all but just another dictatorship, a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Is it human nature to become corrupted by power?


When a person gains power over other persons — the political power to force other persons to do his bidding when they do not believe it right to do so — it seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. It may take time for this weakness to become visible. In fact, its full extent is frequently left to the historians to record, but we eventually learn of it. It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: "All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."


Source

If it is then why the hell do we allow others to become so powerful? Why do we allow a minority to control the majority and take the biggest slice? In fact they take the whole pie and we just get the crumbs that spill.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
It seems some of those definitions were selected to fit a certain view.

Example:




Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community


source: en.wikipedia.org...

first sentence.

Socialism in its most ideal state is actually people working together for the good of each other and sharing their resources so everyone benefits the most from all things.

Problem is, a select few always seem to be corrupt, maneuver into positions where they can start to gain control and power, and ruin even the best dreams into nightmares for the people.

No form of rule, or lack of, is perfect. We can dream of the perfect system, but, until we have all become more mature species as a whole ... true peace and pacifism will not work.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
States Rights are always the first to go. The Feds should do nothing to or for us except keep an army for defense and some other few necessary programs to benefit all. the rest should be left to the States as the people there vote to have or not.

But now the states are all subservient to the Feds, the opposite of the correct way. Voters in many states can vote to make cannabis legal medically, but as long as the Feds have UN Constitutional agencies like the DEA and UN Constitutional laws like the Federal Drug Acts, the Feds can over ride the will of the people. The will and votes of the People mean nothing if some crooked politician in Washington decides to abuse the law. Sick and sicker we get. There is NO place in the Constitution that gives the Feds the right to decide about medicines, transport, or almost anything else.

the crooked key to getting the Feds into the States and overruling them was this: the Interstate Commerce Act. This nefarious act said that the Feds could take controling interest over any and all activities that deal with anything that may at some point cross a state line. This is a bastardization of the old ways: oldtimers here will recall that at one point, the Feds could not chase bank robbers across state lines. As long as a crime was committed in the state, the Feds had no business being involved. But tghe Interstate act made it legal to get Feds involved in everything.

The case in California of Raich vs. Ashcroft/Gonzalez that the Supreme Court decided was the first time that the Supremes had turned states rights upside down and totally: They said that even if a product were grown in California, and never crossed a state line, and there was no reason to believe that there ever was any intent ever to do so, still, the Feds could say that the product was of Federal jurisdiction because ' iot was theoretically possible ' that some of the product could croos a state line at some time...maybe. Even old Uncle Tom Clarence Thomas said that the founding fathers would roll over in their graves to hear that hemp was banned by the Feds in state where it was voted legal. He was right.

But the founding fathers would not recognize a drooling fascist like Scalia or a liar and Bush drone like Roberts. the decisions handed won in the last 50 years would have the founding fathers asking us to loan them a rilfe and ammo to finish what they started long ago...getting rid of the scoundrels and establishing a good government that worked in the peoples interests. This nation is about gone...the UK already is.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
States Rights are always the first to go. The Feds should do nothing to or for us except keep an army for defense and some other few necessary programs to benefit all. the rest should be left to the States as the people there vote to have or not.

But now the states are all subservient to the Feds, the opposite of the correct way............


It may have been due to corporate influence, the 1913 federal reserve blunder otherwise, George Washington designed this system to be circumvented as such. Keeping in mind that he was part of a couple Secret Societies.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I was about to post that very comment...you beat me to it.

Any form of society requires rules. Anarchy is the abscence of rules, might makes right, he who has the gun/knife/money has the power. Anarchy is a fools dream.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join