Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Originally posted by MikhailBakunin
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)"uniting" anarchists is an oxymoron.
2) anarchy is an evil thing, in every way. It should not be strived for.
So the anarchists who fought for women's and black's rights during the early 1900's, when giving women and blacks equal rights was unfathomable,
were .... not really there? And the direct action towards the red army pre-ww2.... evil?
I'm sorry but maybe you've been fed propaganda so much throughout your lifetime that now you're a walking billboard for the true evil.
I understand a lot of the true literature that shows you the true meaning of "the cause" is oppressed and diluted....
to help you get a better grasp of what you're attempting to portray in your post....
do some research, I recommend.... Our Daily
edit on 3-8-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: add something
1)those were not anachists. Once again, you all are proving you don't know what anarchy is.
2)saying " do some research" is weak. I know all about anarchy. I've lived it. And the majority who advocate it have NEVER experienced anything
even close. If they had, they would not advocate it.
Whats with your infatuation with lists and telling people what they don't know and what you do? I'm sensing a form of cockiness or perhaps a big
number person? Well, I hope that works out well for you.
Alright, the anarchist is the freedom fighter who stands up against tyranny and government (they go hand-in-hand). I say "do some research" because
anarchy or more accurately put anarchism is not.... evil or let's run around and break stuff, the whole viking thing. Anarchism takes an evolved
state of man. It takes the mutual understanding of all apart of "the cause" to work together and everyone plays your part. It is the next step of
man and it will happen when the time is ready.
What I'm noticing in modern society is the fabricated notion that "anarchy" is an absolute state. This is entirely, 100% false. As long as I've
lived and you will live there will be governments, therefore anarchism is a slow progression, striving for absolute freedom. Before you can
understand anarchism you must understand we will never find an absolute free state of being. To be a true anarchist your mindset must be of the
post-conventional state (like the hippie movement and let's work together for others).
I have an excerpt for you since you've proven to be illiterate in this department.
This is from a guide for those interested in the politics of an anarchist (not your 3rd world country... rape, pillage, and plunder... but from a
philosophically educated perspective, with actually valid points towards the matter)
"Chapter 20: What is Anarchism?
"CAN YOU tell us briefly," your friend asks, "what Anarchism really is?"
I shall try. In the fewest words, Anarchism teaches that we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind.
A life without compulsion naturally means liberty; it means freedom from being forced or coerced, a chance to lead the life that suits you best.
You cannot lead such a life unless you do away with the institutions that curtail your liberty and interfere with your life, the conditions that
compel you to act differently from the way you really would like to.
What are those institutions and conditions? Let us see what we have to do away with in order to secure a free and harmonious life. Once we know what
has to be abolished and what must take its place, we shall also find the way to do it.
What must be abolished, then, to secure liberty?
First of all, of course, the thing that invades you most, that handicaps or prevents your free activity; the thing that interferes with your liberty
and compels you to live differently from what would be your own choice.
That thing is government.
Take a good look at it and you will see that government is the greatest invader; more than that, the worst criminal man has ever known of. It fills
the world with violence, with fraud and deceit, with oppression and misery. As a great thinker once said, "its breath is poison." It corrupts
everything it touches.
"Yes, government means violence and it is evil," you admit; "but can we do without it?"
That is just what we want to talk over. Now, if I should ask you whether you need government, I'm sure you would answer that you don't, but that it
is for the others that it is needed.
But if you should ask any one of those "others," he would reply as you do: he would say that he does not need it, but that it is necessary "for the
Why does every one think that he can be decent enough without the policeman, but that the club is needed for "the others"?