It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Anarchism, the only way to freedom!

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:07 PM
As some of you know by reading my threads I am a Socialist. What you don't know is that I am also an Agrarian and Libertarian. You are probably asking yourself, "How can someone be Socialist, Agrarian and Libertarian?" Well good question. I was reading a thread explaining Communism and Anarchism when the OP made some astounding points, that Communism as we know it is actually state-communism. Which is just as bad as State-Capitalism.

Anyways I began to search Communism and I came across Anarchism. So I did some reach on Anarchism after that thread made 1 point that really changed my perceptions, the government is a monopoly. Yes it's true, just look up the meaning of monopoly. And with any monopoly they strip people of freedom and divert power to an elite group. So anyways I was reading into Anarchism and it made some pretty interesting points IMO. Here is the definition of Anarchism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.

Well many people cringe at the thought of a stateless society, and then they probably think of Africa or Somalia in general, and then say that it's impossible. Well I was just like you, whether you want to admit it or not as long as there is a government or even private property or private business then there are always people on top. You will always lack your freedom and will always be restricted in what peaceful things you do. So the only way to liberate society is to destroy the state.

There are many different types of Anarchism but since I am a collectivist, agrarian anarchist there is one that sounds pretty darn good to me.

The difference between Collectivist Anarchism and anarcho-communism is that under anarchist collectivism, the means of production were to be socialized, but a wage system was retained based on the amount of labor performed. Anarchist communism also called for the socialization of production but also of the distribution of goods. Instead of 'to each according to his labor', in anarcho-communism the community would supply the subsistence requirements to each member free of charge according to the maxim 'to each according to his needs'.

The difference between Collectivist Anarchism and Anarcho-Communism is that collectivist anarchism stresses collective ownership of productive, subsistence and distributary property, while communist anarchism negates the concept of ownership in favor of usage or possession with productive means being a possession not owned by any individual or particular group. Communist Anarchists believe that subsistence, productive and distributive property should be common or social possessions while personal property should be private possessions. Collectivist anarchists agree with this, however, disagree on the subject of remuneration; some collectivist anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin, believe in the remuneration of labor, while communist-anarchists, such as Peter Kropotkin, believe that such remuneration would lead to the recreation of currency and that this would need a State. Thus, it could be said that collectivist anarchists believe in freedom through collective ownership of production and a communal market of sorts to distribute goods and services and compensate workers in the form of remuneration. Thus, collectivist anarchism could be seen as a combination of communism and mutualism.

Collectivist Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to the use of currency, but some while opposing currency proposes a different type of payment (such as Participatory Economists). Originally many collectivist anarchists saw their philosophy as a carryover to communist anarchism, but many today see their system and the use of currency as permanent rather than a transition. Collectivist anarchist James Guillaume argued that such a society would "guarantee the mutual use of the tools of production which are the property of each of these groups and which will by a reciprocal contract become the collective property of the whole ... federation. In this way, the federation of groups will be able to ... regulate the rate of production to meet the fluctuating needs of society.” They argue for workplace autonomy and self-management "the workers in the various factories have not the slightest intention of handing over their hard-won control of the tools of production to a superior power calling itself the 'corporation.'"

In real life application of the collectivist projects were quite successful, sources during the Spanish Revolution noted that in the Catalan region,

“In distribution the collectives' co-operatives eliminated middlemen, small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly reducing consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the parasitic elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out altogether if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the political parties. Non-collectivised areas benefited indirectly from the lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlours, etc.)”

Tom Wetzel describes collectivization...

““Another industry that was totally re-organized was hair-cutting. Before July 19th, there had been 1,100 hairdressing parlors in Barcelona, most of them extremely marginal. The 5,000 assistant hairdressers were among the lowest-paid workers in Barcelona. The Generalitat had decreed a 40-hour week and 15 percent wage increase after July 19th – one of the Esquerra’s attempts to woo worker support. This spelled ruin for many hairdressing shops. A general assembly was held and it was agreed to shut down all the unprofitable shops. The 1,100 shops were replaced by a network of 235 neighborhood haircutting centers, with better equipment and lighting than the old shops. Due to the efficiencies gained, it was possible to raise wages by 40 percent. The entire network was run through assemblies of the CNT barber’s union. The former owners became members of the union (38)."

So as you can clearly see that this form of Anarchism has been tested and has succeeded with great success.

[edit on 3/23/10 by Misoir]

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:29 AM
reply to post by Misoir

Good post my man!

A lot of people don't realize that capitalism is not currency but 'private ownership of the means of production and distribution of resources', and Socialism isn't state ran, or health care, or welfare, but simply means 'the workers ownership of the means of production etc.'

'The State' is the system or 'the system', that allows one class of people to control and have power over another.

Socialism would shift the power away from private owners into the hands of the workers, and Anarchism would take the MONOPOLY (yes you're right on) and power away from governments (part of the ruling class 'state system') and into the hands of the people.

They talk about 'minorities' all the time when the real minorities are those that control our resources, for their own benefit, and the majority are forced to live on the breadline while they waste the resources that should be the right of all of us.

[edit on 3/24/2010 by ANOK]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Im coming from the left field here, but, I know very few people that are happy working for profit based corporations. On the other hand people that work for enlighten companies, those who's focus it's on bringing joy to their customers, those are, well not as "good" financially but, very happy with their work.
It's anarchism the equivalent of a society where the structures of power have been dismantled and the resources would be rationed according to ones needs? Compassion would be of prime importance, vote me in.
No more elections? great, I will interact with society on a more personal level i guess, not through "representatives", we should keep the internets.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by LoKito]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:13 PM
Labels Labels Labels...........

All out anarchism would be a massive failure, freedom - perhaps, but probably not.

Until our society on a global scale has evolved beyond the "need" for weapons and conflicts over differential advantage, lowered its population levels, created a single language (lojban?), everyone has an individual connection with God free from all organized religious dogma and segregation, and all races have interbred to the point that no-one can be discriminated against based on cultural/racial ethnicity.

Until those, and most definitely other, conditions have been established and rectified - the human species will not be capable of living under a anarchistic system and retain any hope of progressing and continuing on our evolutionary path peaceably and with purpose.

95% of people just aren't ready to live properly.

A resource-based world economic structure and goal-dependent/oriented-gradualistic-progressive socialistic governance is the only way we as a society are going to get to anarchism.

World Wide Socialism will be superseded by World Wide Communism which will one day (when the times right) be superseded by World Wide Anarchy.

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:42 PM
Anarchism is one of the most misused terms of all times. The wikipedia definition doesn't do its justice, it is one of the worst definition of anarchism you will find.

Too bad most good _real_ anarchist websites have been shut down, for whatever reason.. won't go into CTs here, makes no sense.

For some _real_ information you could probably visit

But to make a long story short: Anarchy means without hierarchy.. nothing more nothing less. The wikipedia statement as anarchism as an ideology to abolish the state is pure bull*.

Anarchism doesn't have anything to do with state in particular, in theory even a state in anarchy would be possible.

The main problem here is the language, and its use. Anarchism is an ideology which advocates anarchy. As such it even do not say anything about authority at all, because its conforms to order without hierachy. Authority it is permitted and even welcome!

Again: The main problem here is the language and how it limits the way you can think.
We are all taught from kindergarten on that authority requires hierarchy and latter it is nessecary for order.

In fact nothing can be further from the truth. If you want to understand how the elite operates you have to understand anarchy first, because they operate in anarchy above the hierarchical structure.

PS: Just in case that was not clear enough... AUTHORITY and HIERARCHY are different things and completely unreleated. Think of this for a few minutes and you will notice how they are substituted for one another.. even in the google video above.

It's all in your mind, please wake up!

[edit on 1-6-2010 by kybertech]

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Wondering how you connect your libertarianism with your statements in another thread:

I support an all out hand gun ban. We are the reason all of the countries that have banned hand guns keep having gun violence. We are the leader in arms shipment, including guns on the black market.

new topics

top topics

log in