True anarchy, what it means to be an anarchist, page 1

True anarchy, what it means to be an anarchist, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 27-11-2011 @ 11:00 AM by filosophia

Anarchy means no class systems, as opposed to hierarchy, anarchy is the absence of "archetypes" and instead is a free system without regulation or restraint. The only restraint is an unwillingness to overcome boundaries.

The reason this is posted in the survival section is because you can't survive if you rely on the government for every meal of food. Eventually you'll starve.

Anarchy its not a process but a state of mind. Right now, disavow all allegiance to government, false gods, or kings. Stop giving them reality in your mind.they only exist if you let them. Especially if they are a topsecret "elite" you can barely prove to yourself to exist in the first place.

Secondly, know that all things which are called government is an illusion of collectivism and this can be viewed in how we use language. America did this, iran did this, the uk says this. These are not real entities, they are constructs of our mind that is not a real being.

So the solution is to know that all groups are a collection of anarchist individuals, and any"law" that supposedly keeps them together is a mere illusion of one strong group controlling a weaker group. If you need further proof of the non reality of laws, ask yourself why there is murder and kidnapping if these things are against the law. The law only punishes after the fact to the guilty or punishes the innocent before a crime is committed like in a police state. This shows the law is completely impotent.

the only law is the natural law, but even that can be broken, like for example gravity can be overcome with some type of force. All things are really just forces interacting with each other. But even when the"law" has a force behind it, it is not constant like natures laws, but rather only lasts a certain period or epoch, it is not eternal.

The only eternal law is disorder, chaos, anarchy, free will which acts in a temporary displacement.

As for punishment, anything a tyrant can do to you, you can do to them.if they try to boil you in hot oil, you can physically do this as well, the only difference is motivation, the tyrant is more sure of the laws weakness than you, which is why he has assassins to finish the job where democracy and law fails. If even the tyrant knows this, how can you not?

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:03 AM by ZeroKnowledge

Anarchy is individual vs system. Individual might try to boil gang of thousands who did this to him, but he will fail.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:13 AM by filosophia

the culmination of government is dictatorship, which is simply anarchy, since when the government can do whatever they want, that is anarchy since the law is not constant and will change according to the actions of government. So that means absolute government simply leads to anarchy.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:13 AM by bekod

reply to post by filosophia

no laws no rules and no power to any one, all the people have the power of them selves for them selves by them selves. Free to do what they as a person feels free to do, some serious flaws with this thinking! All will be free to do what they please, this includes man kinds dark side Rape, murder, child abuse, drunk driving, theft, so on and so forth, till man is cleansed of this type of "mankind" Anarchy will be just a word an Idea not fact, one thing that stops this the most... Unions, get them to back the idea of Anarchy then there might be a chance.

edit on 27-11-2011 by bekod because: editting

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:15 AM by filosophia

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Anarchy is individual vs system. Individual might try to boil gang of thousands who did this to him, but he will fail.

The "system" is a collection of individuals, so its really individuals vs. individuals. The"system" is merely a construct of the mind and holds no reality.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:17 AM by filosophia

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by filosophia

no laws no rules and no power to any one, all the people have the power of them selves for them selves by them selves. Free to do what they as a person feels free to do, some serious flaws with this thinking! All will be free to do what they please, this includes man kinds dark side Rape, murder, child abuse, drunk driving, theft, so on and so forth, till man is cleansed of this type of "mankind" Anarchy will be just a word an Idea not fact, one thing that stops this the most... Unions, get them to back the idea of Anarchy then there might be a chance.

edit on 27-11-2011 by bekod because: editting

This is not my wish it is this way, simply the truth. If government restricts the"dark side" of human nature, why does rape, murder, exist? You are admitting the government is losing a never ending battle.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:23 AM by ZeroKnowledge

reply to post by filosophia

The "system" is a collection of individuals, so its really individuals vs. individuals. The"system" is merely a construct of the mind and holds no reality.

It is all good and well until bunch of individuals whose mind constructed a reality in which they are the gang with leader X will try (and succeed) to kill individual who is enlightened enough to know that gang is only construct of mind and thus is alone, outside any social group.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:24 AM by Evolutionsend

reply to post by bekod

Ya know when I see posters trying to relate unions of whatever kind to subjects that have very little to do with unions, it makes me wonder if they are employed by the government.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:28 AM by filosophia

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by filosophia

The "system" is a collection of individuals, so its really individuals vs. individuals. The"system" is merely a construct of the mind and holds no reality.

It is all good and well until bunch of individuals whose mind constructed a reality in which they are the gang with leader X will try (and succeed) to kill individual who is enlightened enough to know that gang is only construct of mind and thus is alone, outside any social group.

You are assuming they will be successful. It took them ten years to kill the most deadly terrorist bin laden, and he was already dead for eight years! They can't pepper spray a walmart shopper without the entire nation hearing about it.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 11:57 AM by Tephra

There is potential shortcomings in every system.

I would rather endure the hardships attested to too much liberty, as opposed to not enough.

Under an anarchy a group could potentially amass and try and pillage and murder other groups. But the likely result would be a few groups/communities getting together to annihilate these men.

You should also note that a government never really prevented the murders in the first place, rather only offered the illusion of security.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 12:19 PM by filosophia

Originally posted by Tephra
There is potential shortcomings in every system.

I would rather endure the hardships attested to too much liberty, as opposed to not enough.

Under an anarchy a group could potentially amass and try and pillage and murder other groups. But the likely result would be a few groups/communities getting together to annihilate these men.

You should also note that a government never really prevented the murders in the first place, rather only offered the illusion of security.

Under a system of government a group could amass tragedies (nazis) and although they may lose power they are replaced by a worse group, un, nato u.s./israel/uk

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 02:43 PM by bekod

reply to post by filosophia

no this is human nature, just because you get rid of the laws or terms that say this person is, does not change the spots of the beast. A Tiger will still be a tiger whether or not you say its has stripes. this is the fault with Anarchy, do not call a wolf a wolf therefore he/she will not be a wolf.
Wrong it is still a wolf, predator and a killer.
Yes it would be nice to have a society with no laws and restriction's but then it would be a free for all, that is to say who would stop the killers among you, the rapist and the child molesters? For if you say they needed to be stopped then your for law and order if you say this is nature let it be this way, your not human your not of this world we live in, for it has go on too long to change.
There will be no Utopia nay can not be one till all of man puts his/ her tendency's to rest, may be when all greed lust , power and strife turmoil and hate are no longer seen nor seeked after.
Will this day come ??? It is nice to dream but dreamers are just that... dreaming.

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 02:56 PM by filosophia

reply to post by bekod

Your argument can be used against you: just because you say it is a government doesn't mean it is one; crime proves in favor of disorder as opposed to order. You call it order but it is just an illusion of security. Everything is the law of the jungle. Force is the only action, all else is intellectual, and how can government ever win on that level when their whole objective is lies and distortions?

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 03:27 PM by ladykenzie

Agreed OP.

Government truly is an illusion of security.
Government can punish people, but doesn't make you more secure.

Rapists are going to rape, murderers are going to murder, drug dealers and going to deal drugs, and people with this inside of them won't be stopped by rule of law.

I feel that the only true way to bring murder rates to a minimum is to break down the hierarchies and police state of government that alienatea individuals from birth, createa animosity, createa a sense of oppression and desperation and a lack of community-- because where community is, and faith in community is, government/ faith in government is instead.

If we can create a world of communities and connect with each other the way our biology intends us to yet socializations steal away from us, I think violence would much less often sprout up in the psychology of individuals. And when it did, your neighbors would help.

Imagine a world where people had each other's backs. Where you could trust your neighbor to help you because your neighbor knew in turn that when he was in trouble, he would have to rely on you. Whether the struggle is a lack of food/shelter, help watching their children when they went to work while they temporarily struggled to make ends meet, or something more sinister. If people were forced to, we could remember how to take care of each other instead of relying on an intrinsically corrupt, enslaving government.

Start at the roots and the blossom will in large part heal itself I think.

This whole idea that without a police state around and a prison in every city to intimidate us, everyone would turn into bloodthirsty cannibalistic ax murderers, raping each other's children, akin to Lord of the Flies, is perhaps the ultimate scam and the government has succeeded to tragic levels.

That is to say that humans, by nature, are born as barbarians and the government is our guardian and teacher.
I think it's the exact opposite.

edit on 27-11-2011 by ladykenzie because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-11-2011 @ 04:19 PM by ANOK

Anarchy and Anarchism are not really the same thing. Anarchy is a state of having no rulers/government, which could be defined as chaos, which it would be.

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the Greek anarkhia, meaning contrary to authority or without a ruler, and was used in a derogatory sense until 1840, when it was adopted by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to describe his political and social ideology. Proudhon argued that organization without government was both possible and desirable. In the evolution of political ideas, anarchism can be seen as an ultimate projection of both liberalism and socialism, and the differing strands of anarchist thought can be related to their emphasis on one or the other of these. Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction' ch.1, p.1, 1995

Anarchism is a political system that is as organized as any governmental system. The difference being instead of top down authority, control is from the bottom. Anarchism is not just 'no leaders', or 'no government', it is a solution to 'no leaders'. It is direct democracy.

It originated in the early 1800's when the left, socialist revolutionaries, split between supporters of the state, Marxists, Leninists, and those that apposed the state that took on the previously derogatory term Anarchist.

Before Proudhon, the word ‘anarchist’ had been exclusively used as a derogatory epithet to be flung at one’s political opponents.

theanarchistlibrary.org...

The term was ridiculed in the press and so other terms were used, such as libertarian, first used by French Anarchist Joseph Déjacque.

“libertarian” was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians. Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57

Libertarian socialist became the commonly used term for Anarchism, because basically anarchists are socialists.

Anarchism is stateless socialism. Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. Socialism Is Justice. Mikhail Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism

After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274

Sacco and Vanzetti

Socialism is not big government, or free hand-outs, or charity. Socialism is the workers ownership, and control of their own labour. It came from mill workers, who decided they would be better off if they owned the mill themselves.

The idea of Anarchism came mostly from Proudhon, and his writings on 'private property'.

...But it was his next work that was to gain for him lasting notoriety and a reputation as one of the leading socialist theorists of his day. First published in 1840, Proudhon’s 'What Is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government', was a forceful critique of private property and government...

Property is theft

Of course by 'private property' he means the property used by private owners to exploit labour, not your personal property.

Anarchism, and socialism, were formed by the working classes struggling in a newly formed industrial world, where wages were extremely low, and working condition horrendous. It is because of this labour organization and struggle, by Marxists and Anarchists, that we have so much better working conditions today. Anarchism outside of the industrial labour struggle is not really Anarchism imo, just a middle class flight of fancy that would fail miserably because no one would know how to organize.

I guess my point is, to be an anarchist is to be a socialist.

edit on 11/27/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Pages: ^^TOP^^