I am an Anarchist and I love everyone on this board Media says I am evil.

I am an Anarchist and I love everyone on this board Media says I am evil. I would never hurt people for selfish motives. I just don't believe in centralized monopolistic authoritarian management bureaucracies. Am I wrong for having my opinion? Am I a terrorist for having my own opinion? I don't believe in social welfare or corporate welfare. I do believe in some socialist ideals(high income tax for high level of living,taxes that are agreed on by the community,no private ownership of vital infrastructures) just not hand outs and local democratically ran communities.

I don't hate anyone. I love David Rockefeller(even though he does evil its not him its a negative energy that is using him).I love everyone. How can you live with hatred for human life? I can't. God said its wrong to hate other humans.
So we shouldn't hate other humans. No matter what.

Why does the media keep smearing the public? Why do we keep believing trained manipulators/propagandists(sold-out/megacorp-news)? Why are they so afraid of us not agreeing with their model of "truth"?

Come on stop this FUD. We the American public are not monsters/evil/extremists for having our own unique opinions. Authoritarians are so determined to keep control of a fundamentally unstable system. Hey they are human just like us. Flawed.

Sorry to disappoint you, but everyone on this board doesn't say you're evil. I'm as indifferent to this label for a political ideology as I am to any other. So count me out. That being said, I understand what you're trying to say here, but there again lies one of the dangers of declaring an ideology. By their very nature, labeled ideologies open themselves up broadbrushed stereotyping by ignorant and/or lazy people. It's one of the calculated risks you take when you declare yourself.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
I am an Anarchist and I love everyone on this board Media says I am evil. I would never hurt people for selfish motives. I just don't believe in centralized monopolistic authoritarian management bureaucracies. Am I wrong for having my opinion? Am I a terrorist for having my own opinion? I don't believe in social welfare or corporate welfare. I do believe in some socialist ideals(high income tax for high level of living,taxes that are agreed on by the community,no private ownership of vital infrastructures) just not hand outs and local democratically ran communities.

I don't hate anyone. I love David Rockefeller(even though he does evil its not him its a negative energy that is using him).I love everyone. How can you live with hatred for human life? I can't. God said its wrong to hate other humans.
So we shouldn't hate other humans. No matter what.

Why does the media keep smearing the public? Why do we keep believing trained manipulators/propagandists(sold-out/megacorp-news)? Why are they so afraid of us not agreeing with their model of "truth"?

Come on stop this FUD. We the American public are not monsters/evil/extremists for having our own unique opinions. Authoritarians are so determined to keep control of a fundamentally unstable system. Hey they are human just like us. Flawed.

Hey good points, and of course I am sure you already know the answers. Sensationalism at its finest. I dont really agree with a lot of the things that comes with anarchy, but i do respect your right to have that opinion. Now, In a different society Anarchy would be great but unfortunately in this society there are already to many people that depend on laws to determine if they are a good person or not. Get rid of the laws, get rid of at least half the motive to be good. It would take a transition phase to properly implicate a anarchist system peacefully ( if possible at all).

Im with you on the peace and love front though, even if it seems that when talking to people who follow closely certain media that they just cant fathom the inner understanding of love and perceive it to be only what they have with their bf, gf, family, friends. Relativity has our society in a stranglehold and the minority seems to "think inside the box".

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


The media has been attempting to equate anarchism with chaos and violence for quite some time, although in recent years it seems they've taken it up a notch. They love to show clips of these Black Bloc goons starting riots, throwing rocks, etc., and call them anarchists. This is total nonsense, and a deliberate attempt to maintain false public conceptions of anarchy.

Violence and anarchism are incompatible, because anarchists hold that force must never be initiated against others. That is very reason we oppose government, and all coercive systems of social organization. These "anarchists" running around in black fatigues with bandanas throwing Molotov cocktails are a bunch of hypocrites.

That, or completely ignorant of what the philosophy entails.

Originally posted by NthOther
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

The media has been attempting to equate anarchism with chaos and violence for quite some time, although in recent years it seems they've taken it up a notch. They love to show clips of these Black Bloc goons starting riots, throwing rocks, etc., and call them anarchists. This is total nonsense, and a deliberate attempt to maintain false public conceptions of anarchy.

Violence and anarchism are incompatible, because anarchists hold that force must never be initiated against others. That is very reason we oppose government, and all coercive systems of social organization. These "anarchists" running around in black fatigues with bandanas throwing Molotov cocktails are a bunch of hypocrites.

That, or completely ignorant of what the philosophy entails.

Hit it on the head it seems with that one, unfortunately your anarchy is not everyones anarchy. Every self proclaimed Anarchist I have met in South Florida, basically perceives anarchy to be the freedom to do whatever they want. This is lovely until these same people who want to do what ever they want also are violent people. The ones who think that a person should be as successful equal to the amount of effort they put in, not on how the government limits them. This is well, until you consider that these same people are known thief's in their community. Now, please dont get me wrong, i would never condemn a whole group of people based on the few that I have met, but im illustrating the fact that these are the people that would become a problem in an Anarchist system.

You're not alone on ATS.

I consider myself a libertarian socialist.

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism", "free communism", "libertarian socialism", and "libertarian communism". For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable.

eng.anarchopedia.org...

The board doesn't think you're evil. There may be some who go with the towed line who think that you're bad for society, but not evil. I'd be willing to wager that it'd be alot more who are on your side, than are against.

I'm all for a bit of anarchy, myself. (take note goverment stooges/Aaron Barr watching this, feel free to U2U me for details of how to watch me more intensly)

Anyway, it's not anarchy to want to be free of goverment. It's sensible.

Originally posted by derst1988
Hit it on the head it seems with that one, unfortunately your anarchy is not everyones anarchy. Every self proclaimed Anarchist I have met in South Florida, basically perceives anarchy to be the freedom to do whatever they want. This is lovely until these same people who want to do what ever they want also are violent people. The ones who think that a person should be as successful equal to the amount of effort they put in, not on how the government limits them. This is well, until you consider that these same people are known thief's in their community. Now, please dont get me wrong, i would never condemn a whole group of people based on the few that I have met, but im illustrating the fact that these are the people that would become a problem in an Anarchist system.

I've found that a lot of people just like the rebellious connotations of the word, and don't really possess too much depth in their understanding of what it means. The label is tossed around haphazardly even by those who profess to espouse it. There is a plethora of different schools of anarchism, each with its own nuances, but the main currents running through the vast majority of them are that of voluntary cooperation and non-violence. Force, coercion, and fraud are contrary to those ends. By all means, do whatever you want, but acknowledge the responsibility and mutual respect that must necessarily accompany that freedom.

You're right, people that are irresponsible and disrespectful would be a problem, which is why they wouldn't be welcome in any community I'm ever a part of.

And... although I don't believe in the initiation of force, I have no problem using it in defense of person or property. There are ways of dealing with the troublemakers.

Originally posted by NthOther

Originally posted by derst1988
Hit it on the head it seems with that one, unfortunately your anarchy is not everyones anarchy. Every self proclaimed Anarchist I have met in South Florida, basically perceives anarchy to be the freedom to do whatever they want. This is lovely until these same people who want to do what ever they want also are violent people. The ones who think that a person should be as successful equal to the amount of effort they put in, not on how the government limits them. This is well, until you consider that these same people are known thief's in their community. Now, please dont get me wrong, i would never condemn a whole group of people based on the few that I have met, but im illustrating the fact that these are the people that would become a problem in an Anarchist system.

I've found that a lot of people just like the rebellious connotations of the word, and don't really possess too much depth in their understanding of what it means. The label is tossed around haphazardly even by those who profess to espouse it. There is a plethora of different schools of anarchism, each with its own nuances, but the main currents running through the vast majority of them are that of voluntary cooperation and non-violence. Force, coercion, and fraud are contrary to those ends. By all means, do whatever you want, but acknowledge the responsibility and mutual respect that must necessarily accompany that freedom.

You're right, people that are irresponsible and disrespectful would be a problem, which is why they wouldn't be welcome in any community I'm ever a part of.

And... although I don't believe in the initiation of force, I have no problem using it in defense of person or property.

There are ways of dealing with the troublemakers.

Please do not take this in any form of opposition or judgement, but if you would be willing to initiate the use of force, wouldn't others who have a different opinion of what is right? Or what their plans are and someone gets in the way? I do understand that there are good things to fight for if necessary, but do i trust everyones idea of whats right to be like mine? Certainly not.

for the record I like the idea of peaceful anarchy, just find a very hard time believing it would ever exist as defined.

People tend to dislike anarchists because when they hear the word, they often think about egoist anarchism , when in fact most anarchists do not advocate absolute disorder, but establishing order in society by what they consider to be more effective means. Altough I tend to often disagree with anarchistic philosophy, I understand their train of tought and do not hate them, but respect them.

Sorry, Cornhole, never gave you a minute's thought.

Until now, and now that minute is gone.

A lot of people misunderstand what Anarchism is because of the literal dictionary meaning of the term Anarchy.

The left during the industrial revolution was split between those who supported a state system, Marxists, Leninists, and those who apposed the state, Anarchists. The socialists and communists who apposed a state system appropriated the term Anarchy, not for its literal dictionary definition, but to differentiate themselves from supporters of the state. This is where a lot of people get confused, because the dictionary term Anarchy is not the same as the political term Anarchism (much like social is not socialism), even though they have obvious connections.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a French socialist, was the first person to call themselves an Anarchist in his publication 'What is Property?' published in 1840. A critique of the capitalist economy, the private ownership of the means of production. He was also apposed to the socialists who supported the state system, thus the term Anarchism was used.

"Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality... We are socialists... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership... We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations... We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic." Proudhon, 'Oeuvres Complètes' (Lacroix edition), v17, p188-9

"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason. Proudhon, Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire, p271.

Anarchism, like socialism and communism, were answers to the labour problem caused by capitalism (private ownership of the means of production). The difference between Anarchy and Anarchism is, Anarchism offers a solution to what it is apposed to. Anarchism doesn't just have some vague meaning like 'anti-government', or anti-authority', because it would be useless if it didn't offer a solution.

Originally posted by ANOK
A lot of people misunderstand what Anarchism is because of the literal dictionary meaning of the term Anarchy.

The left during the industrial revolution was split between those who supported a state system, Marxists, Leninists, and those who apposed the state, Anarchists. The socialists and communists who apposed a state system appropriated the term Anarchy, not for its literal dictionary definition, but to differentiate themselves from supporters of the state. This is where a lot of people get confused, because the dictionary term Anarchy is not the same as the political term Anarchism (much like social is not socialism), even though they have obvious connections.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon, a French socialist, was the first person to call themselves an Anarchist in his publication 'What is Property?' published in 1840. A critique of the capitalist economy, the private ownership of the means of production. He was also apposed to the socialists who supported the state system, thus the term Anarchism was used.

"Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality... We are socialists... under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership... We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations... We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic." Proudhon, 'Oeuvres Complètes' (Lacroix edition), v17, p188-9

"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason. Proudhon, Les confessions d'un révolutionnaire, p271.

Anarchism, like socialism and communism, were answers to the labour problem caused by capitalism (private ownership of the means of production). The difference between Anarchy and Anarchism is, Anarchism offers a solution to what it is apposed to. Anarchism doesn't just have some vague meaning like 'anti-government', or anti-authority', because it would be useless if it didn't offer a solution.

edit on 2/16/2011 by ANOK because: typo

What I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to be lead/bribed enslavement. They have been conditioned into wanting to defend the lawlessness that is screwing them. But if a libertarian comes up and tries to reason with them about the central societal sheep handlers they just answer with "fringe" or "nuts". Its like in north korea were the state has such control over "truth" and perception



What happens when the powers that be see that we are getting "too smart" for our own good?

Originally posted by FarArcher
Sorry, Cornhole, never gave you a minute's thought.

Until now, and now that minute is gone.

So spying on a random persons email makes you how much of a loser?

Spamming the thread with character attacks/off-topic post makes you how much of a troll?

Media and technology is keeping people from understanding the real truth. Technology keeps us so busy we have no time to really think about things. The media fills that hole with easy to digest opinions. The MSM of course have their own interests at heart, and they’re not about to give the game away. Whether the media is state controlled, or not, it doesn’t matter, it's not about to challenge the very system it relies on for its own survival. So inherently the MSM is biased and cannot be trusted. So to appear non-biased we get watered down 'left-right' politics that really both support the same system that supports them.

Anything that is a threat to this, Anarchism/socialism/communism, is demonized.

Nothing will ever change by playing MSM politics.

Originally posted by ANOK
Media and technology is keeping people from understanding the real truth. Technology keeps us so busy we have no time to really think about things. The media fills that hole with easy to digest opinions. The MSM of course have their own interests at heart, and they’re not about to give the game away. Whether the media is state controlled, or not, it doesn’t matter, it's not about to challenge the very system it relies on for its own survival. So inherently the MSM is biased and cannot be trusted. So to appear non-biased we get watered down 'left-right' politics that really both support the same system that supports them.

Anything that is a threat to this, Anarchism/socialism/communism, is demonized.

Nothing will ever change by playing MSM politics.

Look at what the "protests" did in egypt. Absolutely nothing. Why? They still have a state and the elite control it.

No state == No oligarch control medium.

They hate anarchists and libertarians because they can't control their model of government.

Anarchy is not a very practical philosophy, but I don't worry too much about it becoming widespread and disrupting the current system, since I understand that the Anarchist meetings are very sparsely attended, chaotic and unproductive.

Experience a riot: right up close, perhaps in the middle of it. Let us know how long your affinity for anarchy persists.

The idea of a genuine, working anarchic society is the stuff of idealistic fantasy.

Human nature precludes the possibility of it ever being anything other than an unmitigated disaster and a terrible step backwards.

No sooner had political authority been disbanded, society would fracture into groups struggling for power and enforcing their views, beliefs and morals on every other group that wasn't as numerous or as well-armed as them.

Humans are intrinsically selfish, malleable, and opportunistic.

The reality of the matter is that you have to have some societal authority which sets the rules and laws for the citizens, otherwise the society will quickly fragment.

The fact that many political and governmental systems have been tried and have failed over the years doesn't mean that a completely new and kamikaze approach will yield any better results.

I think we all have to realise that there is no perfect system or model for society, so we have to attempt as best we can to make our society work as fairly and freely as possible, but alas, anarchy - in practice - would be the antithesis of fairness and freedom.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Anarchy is not a very practical philosophy, but I don't worry too much about it becoming widespread and disrupting the current system, since I understand that the Anarchist meetings are very sparsely attended, chaotic and unproductive.

Anarchy is a very bad philosophy.

Anarchism is a very practical philosophy.

Until the present state system, with its schools and media to teach our kids its lies, Anarchism was very popular with the people, and meetings were very productive. In fact they lead to the last peoples real attempt to rid themselves of oppressive capitalism and introduce a truly free system that benefits all not the elite few.

libcom.org...

The Anarchists, socialists, and communists collectivized labour, re-built their cities infrastructure, increased productivity by 20%. There is a claim that Franco made the trains run on time, before the Anarchists re-built their cities there were no trains running. The people re-built the rail system, and the cities trams, not Franco.

But this is usually the case, we the people run the country, not the capitalists elite who control and exploit us. We have no need for them.