Anarchism is a sort of electrical current, used to give perspective to those who lack it

I don't claim any sort of anarchist organization or group of them would provide perfect answers all the time, but Anarchism is an opportunity to be invested in, not shunned.

If used by an enlightened person, Anarchism can provide an objective viewpoint of the governments actions, the public's reactions and the consequences both must face. Because it is derided publicly and denied by the government, anarchism has no real interest in protecting either from the other; only with detrimental amounts of government interference does anarchism have any ground to stand on, let alone the thin ice John Q. Public gives it.

The public does not like the idea of the government lying to it, the government looks deeply into the public for reasons to govern it. Anarchism, the people who support it, give the loudest voices to the disenfranchised youth inherent in every democracy, and the disenfranchised elders in any revolution.

I think that if people gave themselves more leeway on being anarchistic, you'd find stability when you need some objective analysis to what the public wants, to why the government can not deliver it.

Liberty, Fraternity and Equality are tenets of Anarchism, and now with the Green movement we could Shoehorn 'Sustainability' into that list of demands anarchists have.

Security, no where to be found, because the implementation of new security belies an eroding of fundamental liberty.

I recognize that people do need some security, I recognize security is built upon trust. Neither the government nor the public trusts the other completely. Anarchists only recognize this as a problem, but I'll try to show you a solution to having mistrust at all.

Mistrust is a virtue, the skeptical minds that oppose the governments drive to better its citizens for fear of their own liberty waste it; they'll decry technological advantages that allow passive security because of the erosion of illegitimate liberty. CCTV cameras are scary, but the government will only place them there at a cost if there is a cost to be paid.

Governments fear anarchism in the public, anarchists know this. Anarchists should use it to gain public office, continued opposition to coercive oppression does have a place in any democracy, and it's the reason that people vote for opposition parties.

Anarchism, without leaders, finds itself floundering on the geopolitical stage because its greatest strength of autonomous action is a liability on a global stage.

Anonymous, a true leader, rose up to guide us and there are those rightfully fearful of this new non-faced leader among the powerful and elite. You should be glad there are any who will abuse their powers to fight the powerful who abuse you.

Expect us.

I agree. Governments must fear us.

We must not forgive.

We must not forget.

Anarchists with leaders? I've been an anarchist for over five decades and I have never had a leader other than myself ! The only way anarchism or any ism would work is if all involved agree to it. That aint going to happen on any scale. Hell it couldn't even work in Occupy camps. Face it cousin most people are perfectly happy being sheep. Am I wrong?

Having learned some lessons from history and some from recent events, I've come to the conclusion that the only security one can have is in ability. Specifically one's ability or the ability of a small group.

Anarchy is an interesting concept. You don't often see people labeling themselves after a patently transient condition. While most, if not all situations are relatively transient, anarchy is the worst of the bunch in that regard. I have no issue with anarchists, think feel and say what you like. I just simply don't understand it since the hierarchical structure seems hardwired into our DNA, making it pretty impossible to fight without very strict conditions and on a fairly small scale.

I'd agree with the OP's notion that it could spur thought, but at what cost? Can we really qualify or quantify destructive learning or hope to understand the cost-benefit save for the understanding of our posterity.

Anyway, interesting topic.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by Quantazero


An anarchist for over five decades? Wow, I've only been a self-described anarchist for one decade. But, solidarity. I think that Anonymous is a leader, not in the traditional sense of we listen to him and obey, but because we would obey his demands, they are our own. Anonymous is not just the hacker collective who perpetuates DDOS attacks and leaks emails, it's the people who support them as well; Anonymous is a leader because we expected him to be the one leading Anarchism. It is us, we expected ourselves to lead us and now we have a leader, competent enough to lead through a transparent discussion of where we want to go. Anon leads and the masses follow; he hacks Stratfor and shows us the ugly internal workings of the Military Industrial Complex so we have issues to lens our frustrations on. He makes antisec lulz look easy, because the military industrial complex we fight is fragile, but intimidating. Fragile but intimidating, to be feared as we confront it, not feared as we flee from it.

reply to post by KrazyJethro

I'd agree with the OP's notion that it could spur thought, but at what cost?

The cost of self-righteousness in effort to find the truth. Anarchists are often humbled by how little we know, but together we know much. If you seek to bring a mind that is filled with assumptions about anarchism towards the light that anarchism provides, expect the mind to be tipped and spilled like a cup. Anarchism demands your previous prejudices can be something you want to dispose of, for the reasons they are to be disposed of.

The cost of having an objective point of view is being wary of those who try to get you to agree.

I have never been hardwired to follow any body!!! And yeah 50 years that makes me an old fart. I support the efforts of anyone trying to bring down the idea that we need to be lead, even Anon. However I feel most of you proposed anarchists have it wrong. Let me put it this way "Black on the outside Red on the inside". Want to read all about real anarchism try the work of Ted Kazinski.

Originally posted by Sachyriel
reply to post by KrazyJethro

 

The cost of self-righteousness in effort to find the truth. Anarchists are often humbled by how little we know, but together we know much. If you seek to bring a mind that is filled with assumptions about anarchism towards the light that anarchism provides, expect the mind to be tipped and spilled like a cup. Anarchism demands your previous prejudices can be something you want to dispose of, for the reasons they are to be disposed of.

The cost of having an objective point of view is being wary of those who try to get you to agree.

I have a few thoughts on this:

1) I was speaking of actually creating an anarchy-inducing event, although Katrina was a reasonable good model to go on. I gathered that you meant this in a practical way rather than just preaching theory.

2) I'm pretty confident that most anarchists (I've tested this with every one I encounter) have no real concept of actually being in a stateless environment is like. Practical experience is a wonderful thing.

3) I'm Libertarian, so while we have some things in common, there aren't enough to have me believe anarchy is the cup of wisdom some make it out to be. Being relatively close to the ideology myself, I know entirely too much about it to come close to thinking it's a good idea or even one that can be taken seriously. No offense, but that's just the way it is.

4) The problem with humans, is that we are pack animals. We naturally arrange ourselves, and hierarchy grows out of our natural group dynamic. Considering the population these days, we aren't taking about small tribes here, but vast numbers of people.

5) What, exactly, are you proposing? If this is a theoretical discussion about the merits of anarchy then that's cool, but it didn't seem that way to me.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


I do not bring a lot of answers, but I believe only God can lead in a state of anarchy, for what it's worth. I believe as there are less people believing in the Divine Right to Rule it reflects on Gods plan, not to rule us as God, but to be something more than our peer. God does not step down from the throne to leave it empty, he steps down from the Throne because it would be filled even in his absence.

Erm, No Gods No Masters, yes, but I do not find many people willing to believe the religious side of anarchism. I am a fringe member of a fringe group :p

>What, exactly, are you proposing? If this is a theoretical discussion about the merits of anarchy then that's cool, but it didn't seem that way to me.

I do merely wish people to take me a bit more seriously when I say anarchy. I am not some punk kid who thinks it will work without effort because I lack the will to be a hard worker. I am some punk kid who thinks others deriding me on a perceived lack of effort is bad.

If you do agree, that is cool. I am not agitating for a large change in this thread, I am merely pointing out that Anarchism is misrepresented through the over-eager youth portrayed in popular media, rather than the zenlike meditation of objectively rejecting the status quo to look deeper into the decisions of politicians.

I think it's important not to be painted by the wide brush that the MSM uses on me and my friends. This is the issue I bring up, because I wanted it addressed.

I admit; I almost fell for anarchism...or at least the Marxist nightmare that some people have come to associate with that word. Then again, you've also got the "anarcho-capitalists," these days, who actually make me want to vomit to a marginally greater degree than the leftists do.

Then I remembered that I'd already read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, close to a decade previously. One of the things that the cabal talk about doing in that book, is creating "alternative," viewpoints which serve their interests, as well as mainstream ones.

So you think you're doing something different, and working against the cabal...but it invariably ends up that you find out that you're not, and although what you are doing seems to have been entirely the opposite of what they want, you actually are serving their interests all along.

Sorry, but anyone that is a true anarchist is either dead or in prison.

Originally posted by petrus4 Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Let me cut you off right there and just say NO.

Originally posted by Sachyriel

Originally posted by petrus4 Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Let me cut you off right there and just say NO.

I'm hoping you can do slightly better than that.

reply to post by Darkchemistry


Your wrong. I just got out of prison and havn't found my way back.

reply to post by Quantazero


anarchism with a leader is not anarchism.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


I'm glad you agree!!!!!! It's nice to hear from another ATS member that knows what he is saying.

Originally posted by Quantazero
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

I'm glad you agree!!!!!! It's nice to hear from another ATS member that knows what he is saying.

i understand where both points of view are coming from but i think the former argument was simply worded a bit improperly. as an anarchist myself (though nowhere near as long as you) i am skeptical anytime i hear the term "leadership" and am quick to say that it is antithetical to the anarchist philosophy. i think all anarchists have this as an automatic "mechanism" if you will. this showed when anarchists criticized Nestor Makhno for his quasi-leadership role in the Ukrainian Free Territory that lead many anarchists to dismiss the experiment in anarchism entirely. however, i would suggest that an unofficial, provisional form of emergent leadership is not only useful at times in anarchism, but it is often necessary. i am not speaking of elected officials or mandated policies, but when there is a group of people, all with similar but still slightly conflicting interests, and no laid out plan, the stereotypes anarchism is labeled with from its detractors are perpetuated. in such a situation, voices often need to emerge as an organizing force, but those voices do not need to have any forceful authority. for example, i was involved in Occupy The Rose Parade. at the event, there were multiple organizers who gave direction to the group. they didn't flex forceful authority over the group, but they made organizational decisions and gave "orders" to various individuals and groups as the where, when, and in what order to walk in the parade. we had various groups that came out that joined the parade to represent their own messages, groups that carried the large "We The People" and "We The Corporations" constitutions and the Octopus of Greed, the local Occupy activists, and the Peacekeepers (which i was a part of). each group worked in unison to do their part without imparting on other groups and a part of the reason it went so smoothly was because of the organizers. did we have to listen to them? of course not. but did we? absolutely. why? not because they had some sort of threat of violence or other forceful authority over us, but because we chose to because we knew it was in our interests. and there were a few bad commands given, as has been the case in other Occupations, but usually these commands are ignored or immediately commanded against. that, to me, is the essence of the democratic rule of anarchism.

I once agreed to have a cup of coffee with another anarchist, but we got into a fist fight over where to go. All kiding aside my view of anarchism makes me a soverign of myself, I can have no leader because no one is more qualified than myself to lead me. I may asist you if I choose, I may let you speak on my behalf if I choose, its all in the choice. I stand by my earlier statement that most professed anarchists are red on the inside, at least the ones I run into, but hell true communism would be better than what we have now. I fully support your Occupy efforts but remember once you've occupied America we'll still be lurking in the shadows with a new enemy.

It's not 'Freedom' if someone/thing tells you 'How' to be 'Free'

i do question, who gives who right to govern other people?

I read all your comments. Do you all realize that you make no sense and are speaking delusional gibberish? No really, I can't follow what most of you are saying.
Sad really.