Toward Reclaiming Our Birthright, Anarchists Unite!

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

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.


What is anarchism to you?




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

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.


What is anarchism to you?


Had this conversation multiple times in this thread already.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by FissionSurplus



2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.
reply to post by joechip
 

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

Stop it!

Your making too much sense! Native americans didn't have a government to manage thier lives?!
Impossible I say!


They also didnt have the population size or the societal advancements that we have. Oops, that logic thing again.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by MikhailBakunin
 


1)I'm sorry that you don't like the way that I format my posts....no, scratch that, I'm not. Deal with it, or don't.

2)I have no infatuation with numbers or lists, I do, however, enjoy calling out flat out falsehoods when people post them.

3)You sense cockiness through the internet? Wow...impressive.



4)Here, look at this:

a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

www.merriam-webster.com...

5)Care to show me where I said ANYTHING about running around "breaking things"?

6)What you are missing here is that "anarchy" or "anarchism" are utopian ideas. In sentiment, they sound great. In practice, it CANNOT work. You talk about all buying into it for it to work. Which in itself would make it not anarchy. See, if EVERYONE falls in line with the theory, then that theory is now the governing rule, which is the antithesis of anarchy.

7)Ahhh yes, the old straw man "since you are illiterate". Can you not state you case without the juvenile and sad tactics?

8)Again, tell me where I said ANYTHING about "rape, pillage and plunder". The fact that you have to make up things and put words in my mouth tells me all I need to know about your stance.

9)The biggest problem I have with anarchists is their hypocrissy. "Your form of governing is wrong. Mine is better". Do you not realize that it is a different side to the same coin? That you are not advocating anarchy? That all you are really doing is advocating a new form of governance?

10)you said:
"Yes, government means violence and it is evil," you admit; "but can we do without it?"

Can you show me where I said anything of the sort? Seriously, stop making things up.

11)you said: 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.

You are wrong. I would not say that. I am not that naive.

12) The biggest question here, one that you have avoided, is this: Have you EVER experienced ANYTHING remotely close to true anarchy? That you advocate it tells me that you havent.


Anarchism is an absolute. Its pure freedom.

Just like fascism is total borg-like authoritarian "management". It too is an absolute.

To hate anarchism is to hate freedom itself.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by FissionSurplus



2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.
reply to post by joechip
 

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

Stop it!

Your making too much sense! Native americans didn't have a government to manage thier lives?!
Impossible I say!


They also didnt have the population size or the societal advancements that we have. Oops, that logic thing again.


I am sorry the native americans proved you wrong.... for over 2000 years.


Yes we know that is impossible. Somehow the native american broke the laws of nature and made anarchy work.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


1)I dont "hate" anything.

2)It is not defined as freedom. How free are you, if I have the right to slit your throat if I dont like you?

3)Ill ask you the same question I asked the others, the one that they all want to dodge. Have you ever experienced a situation that was true anarchy?

4)If anarchy is so fantastic, why did those societies that employed never advance? Why were they defeated? Why is it close to extinct in this day and age? Anarchy on a grand scale is not a good thing.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by FissionSurplus



2. recognizing for ourselves the tremendous alienating effects of modern life. Take this one seriously, because the major roadblock to anarchy, or freedom, if you will, is the mistaken notion that man himself is "evil" rather than alienated from his world.
reply to post by joechip
 

This really rang true for me. I have seen children who are afraid to go outside and get dirty. What a travesty!

When the "man is inherently evil" myth is perpetuated, then the idea that we have to have police and a governmental structure is foist upon us, and we see the ugly results of that in the news every day.

Native Americans had no police, no government, and lived well for thousands of years. Yes, there were repercussions of bad behavior, which was decided upon by the whole tribe. I really think they had it right in the way they lived.

Good thread, excellent advice, and I enjoyed reading it.

Stop it!

Your making too much sense! Native americans didn't have a government to manage thier lives?!
Impossible I say!


They also didnt have the population size or the societal advancements that we have. Oops, that logic thing again.


I am sorry the native americans proved you wrong.... for over 2000 years.


Yes we know that is impossible. Somehow the native american broke the laws of nature and made anarchy work.


I see you chose to ignore the point of my post. I do love the games people play on here.

Did they have the same population size? Did they make societal and technological advances? Did they advance AT ALL as a society? Were they defeated?

Yup, that sure proves a lot.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?


Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?


Yes.

Only difference is the public/community will pay the bill(voluntary contractual taxes) for building/maintaining(via volunteership and paid commercial contractors) the infrastructure and own it directly, instead of corporations or a government.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?


Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?


Yes.

Only difference is the public/community will pay the bill(voluntary contractual taxes) for building/maintaining(via volunteership and paid commercial contractors) the infrastructure and own it directly, instead of corporations or a government.



I suggest you do some reading. These things did not, and could not, be implemented on the scale needed without central planning and execution.

Are you really claiming that a community would just get together and decide to create a power grid for the nation? That without specific, central planning and funding, that the civilians would create this power grid? The water grid? The highway system?

Anarchy can work in a tribal society. Any large civilization that tried it would be stuck, right where they are, or, more likely, would go backward. If you can show me ANY legitimate evidence to the contrary, id love to see it.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the human race has advanced exponentially faster since anarchy was pushed to the wayside.

Basically what all of you are saying by referencing passed cultures where anarchy supposedly "worked" is: "these other societies had it. It worked for them on a small scale, in that the cultures survived, up until they met not anarchy cultures, when they were defeated. It may not have totally worked then, but it will now."

Sort of like saying "that cyanide my dad took killed him, but it worked to kill the parasite that he had. I'm going to try it too. It didnt "totally" work for him, but it will for me!"
edit on 8-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


1)I dont "hate" anything.
Anarchism is pure libertarianism.So don't agree with absolute freedom?

2)It is not defined as freedom. How free are you, if I have the right to slit your throat if I dont like you?


a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on VOLUNTARY COOPERATION and FREE ASSOCIATION of individuals and groups

www.merriam-webster.com...

It is freedom.


3)Ill ask you the same question I asked the others, the one that they all want to dodge. Have you ever experienced a situation that was true anarchy?
A native american reservation

4)If anarchy is so fantastic, why did those societies that employed never advance? Why were they defeated? Why is it close to extinct in this day and age? Anarchy on a grand scale is not a good thing.

Because most modern advanced societies are dominated by oligarch controlled crony-capitalism and corrupt insider statism.Anarchism/libertarianism benefits the public.Authoritarian statism benefits oligarchs and corporations.So with most modern societies being controlled by oligarchs...yep we get state management.
It protect the oligarchs interests better than anarchism while keeping their level of power dominant over us.

Tyrants use threats of violence,manditory unnegotiable income robbery, threats of imprisonment,emotional terrorism(fear),coercion, blackmail, etc to FORCE you to be what ever they want you to be.Tyrants have did a pretty good job at convincing people to be "herded" or managed by their bought and paid for corrupt state instrument.

Why would they give us that power back? Why?



It ok dude. If you don't agree with me.

Your free to have your own opinion as I am.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


1)I dont "hate" anything.
Anarchism is pure libertarianism.So don't agree with absolute freedom?

2)It is not defined as freedom. How free are you, if I have the right to slit your throat if I dont like you?


a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on VOLUNTARY COOPERATION and FREE ASSOCIATION of individuals and groups

www.merriam-webster.com...

It is freedom.


3)Ill ask you the same question I asked the others, the one that they all want to dodge. Have you ever experienced a situation that was true anarchy?
A native american reservation

4)If anarchy is so fantastic, why did those societies that employed never advance? Why were they defeated? Why is it close to extinct in this day and age? Anarchy on a grand scale is not a good thing.

Because most modern advanced societies are dominated by oligarch controlled crony-capitalism and corrupt insider statism.Anarchism/libertarianism benefits the public.Authoritarian statism benefits oligarchs and corporations.So with most modern societies being controlled by oligarchs...yep we get state management.
It protect the oligarchs interests better than anarchism while keeping their level of power dominant over us.

Tyrants use threats of violence,manditory unnegotiable income robbery, threats of imprisonment,emotional terrorism(fear),coercion, blackmail, etc to FORCE you to be what ever they want you to be.Tyrants have did a pretty good job at convincing people to be "herded" or managed by their bought and paid for corrupt state instrument.

Why would they give us that power back? Why?



It ok dude. If you don't agree with me.

Your free to have your own opinion as I am.

1)No, it isnt, and again, it isnt absolute freedom. Just saying so doesnt make it fact.

2)no, it isnt. Volunteering and being free to join is not the same as freedom.

3)So, you cite small, communal (which in no way are logical comparisons to a nation) areas as your example? Did you not know that there are laws and governing rule on reservations? Not to mention, why are they on reservations now? Because of government control. Ouch. So I will take it that your answer is no, you have never experienced it.

4)So, by your own admission, anarchy can only work if EVERYONE buys in, and there are no oligarchy controls to impede on them. That, right there, means it isnt anarchy. On top of that, it is PROOF that anarchy will be defeated, time and time again, by those that are ORGANIZED.

5)Why wont you answer my questions about societies that have used anarchy, and their advancements? Why will you not touch on the subject of power grids and the such?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?


Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?


Yes.

Only difference is the public/community will pay the bill(voluntary contractual taxes) for building/maintaining(via volunteership and paid commercial contractors) the infrastructure and own it directly, instead of corporations or a government.



I suggest you do some reading. These things did not, and could not, be implemented on the scale needed without central planning and execution.

Are you really claiming that a community would just get together and decide to create a power grid for the nation? That without specific, central planning and funding, that the civilians would create this power grid? The water grid? The highway system?

Anarchy can work in a tribal society. Any large civilization that tried it would be stuck, right where they are, or, more likely, would go backward. If you can show me ANY legitimate evidence to the contrary, id love to see it.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the human race has advanced exponentially faster since anarchy was pushed to the wayside.

Basically what all of you are saying by referencing passed cultures where anarchy supposedly "worked" is: "these other societies had it. It worked for them on a small scale, in that the cultures survived, up until they met not anarchy cultures, when they were defeated. It may not have totally worked then, but it will now."

Sort of like saying "that cyanide my dad took killed him, but it worked to kill the parasite that he had. I'm going to try it too. It didnt "totally" work for him, but it will for me!"
edit on 8-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


What happens when "central planning" puts people into ovens and gas chambers?

What about costly infinite wars against "islamic terrorists"?

What if "central planning" gives 7 trillion to wallstreet?

How is GAT,NAFTA, and corporations getting negative taxes? Did "central planning" give our tax monies to private corporations and oligarchs? Where are the jobs? Why didn't GE pay any taxes?

Governments are not all that bad just glaringly flawed.

Keep worshiping at the alter of the hijacked state. It does not work for the public anymore. Central planning works for Goldman Sachs,Big Oil,Big Pharma,Big Military,Rockefeller and Koch brothers.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look. Your not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind.

So whats the point?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?


Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?


Yes.

Only difference is the public/community will pay the bill(voluntary contractual taxes) for building/maintaining(via volunteership and paid commercial contractors) the infrastructure and own it directly, instead of corporations or a government.



I suggest you do some reading. These things did not, and could not, be implemented on the scale needed without central planning and execution.

Are you really claiming that a community would just get together and decide to create a power grid for the nation? That without specific, central planning and funding, that the civilians would create this power grid? The water grid? The highway system?

Anarchy can work in a tribal society. Any large civilization that tried it would be stuck, right where they are, or, more likely, would go backward. If you can show me ANY legitimate evidence to the contrary, id love to see it.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the human race has advanced exponentially faster since anarchy was pushed to the wayside.

Basically what all of you are saying by referencing passed cultures where anarchy supposedly "worked" is: "these other societies had it. It worked for them on a small scale, in that the cultures survived, up until they met not anarchy cultures, when they were defeated. It may not have totally worked then, but it will now."

Sort of like saying "that cyanide my dad took killed him, but it worked to kill the parasite that he had. I'm going to try it too. It didnt "totally" work for him, but it will for me!"
edit on 8-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


What happens when "central planning" puts people into ovens and gas chambers?

What about costly infinite wars against "islamic terrorists"?

What if "central planning" gives 7 trillion to wallstreet?

How is GAT,NAFTA, and corporations getting negative taxes? Did "central planning" give our tax monies to private corporations and oligarchs? Where are the jobs? Why didn't GE pay any taxes?

Governments are not all that bad just glaringly flawed.

Keep worshiping at the alter of the hijacked state. It does not work for the public anymore. Central planning works for Goldman Sachs,Big Oil,Big Pharma,Big Military,Rockefeller and Koch brothers.


1)Thanks for answering my questions with questions, proving you cannot answer them at all.
2)Any government has flaws. And the corporatocracy in america is its biggest. Tell me, do you think these corporations would not flex their muscles, if government regulations were removed? If there were no laws protecting the consumer, the worker? You think its bad now, go ahead and remove all the restrictions. You will be indentured to a corporation in no time. NOW THATS FREEDOM.

3)Ahh the typical ad hom cry of anarchists "if you dont agree with me you bow to your masters". Get off your high horse. Teen angst makes people support anarchy. Life experience makes people detest it.

4)Are you claiming that central planning and funding is not the reason for our power grid, water grid, roadways...?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look. Your not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind.

So whats the point?


The point is to converse about the topic. However, it seems most of you who support anarchy cannot do so without getting angry, and resorting to name calling an ad homs.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I told you before. But you can't read my posts.


Oligarchs dominate all modern societies almost completely. They want large authoritarian governments to protect thier interests. No government = No domination of power for the ultra-rich/powerful. Can't have that you see.

So there isn't more anarchism in bigger more advanced societies because of that. Oligarchs won't allow it. Its a conflict of interest.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Respectfully disagree. I won't try to convince you that Authoritarian approaches will never work (except for benefiting the elite who profit from everyone else's slavery) and that you can still have a bed and air conditioning...it takes more than a few words to break that spell. You will never convince me that I need governance. Agreed?


Are you trying to claim things like public electricity, water, sewage, food services, etc, would be here if we lived in anarchy?


Yes.

Only difference is the public/community will pay the bill(voluntary contractual taxes) for building/maintaining(via volunteership and paid commercial contractors) the infrastructure and own it directly, instead of corporations or a government.



I suggest you do some reading. These things did not, and could not, be implemented on the scale needed without central planning and execution.

Are you really claiming that a community would just get together and decide to create a power grid for the nation? That without specific, central planning and funding, that the civilians would create this power grid? The water grid? The highway system?

Anarchy can work in a tribal society. Any large civilization that tried it would be stuck, right where they are, or, more likely, would go backward. If you can show me ANY legitimate evidence to the contrary, id love to see it.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the human race has advanced exponentially faster since anarchy was pushed to the wayside.

Basically what all of you are saying by referencing passed cultures where anarchy supposedly "worked" is: "these other societies had it. It worked for them on a small scale, in that the cultures survived, up until they met not anarchy cultures, when they were defeated. It may not have totally worked then, but it will now."

Sort of like saying "that cyanide my dad took killed him, but it worked to kill the parasite that he had. I'm going to try it too. It didnt "totally" work for him, but it will for me!"
edit on 8-8-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


What happens when "central planning" puts people into ovens and gas chambers?

What about costly infinite wars against "islamic terrorists"?

What if "central planning" gives 7 trillion to wallstreet?

How is GAT,NAFTA, and corporations getting negative taxes? Did "central planning" give our tax monies to private corporations and oligarchs? Where are the jobs? Why didn't GE pay any taxes?

Governments are not all that bad just glaringly flawed.

Keep worshiping at the alter of the hijacked state. It does not work for the public anymore. Central planning works for Goldman Sachs,Big Oil,Big Pharma,Big Military,Rockefeller and Koch brothers.


1)Thanks for answering my questions with questions, proving you cannot answer them at all.
What ever you say your entertaining me right now.
2)Any government has flaws. And the corporatocracy in america is its biggest. Tell me, do you think these corporations would not flex their muscles, if government regulations were removed? If there were no laws protecting the consumer, the worker? You think its bad now, go ahead and remove all the restrictions. You will be indentured to a corporation in no time. NOW THATS FREEDOM.
How? lol. In the last 100 years the leading cause of death was by government $262million.

www.hawaii.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
But go on...


3)Ahh the typical ad hom cry of anarchists "if you dont agree with me you bow to your masters". Get off your high horse. Teen angst makes people support anarchy. Life experience makes people detest it.
Your too funny right now!...I told you your opinion is your own and my opinion is mine. relax and laugh like I am right now

4)Are you claiming that central planning and funding is not the reason for our power grid, water grid, roadways...?
All can be paid from volunteership and opt-in tax monies by local libertarian communes

Why can't the community afford to pay a contractor to build and maintain roads and infrastructure?
I guess they are too poor.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Look. Your not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind.

So whats the point?


The point is to converse about the topic. However, it seems most of you who support anarchy cannot do so without getting angry, and resorting to name calling an ad homs.

Why get mad at complete strangers on the internet? Its just text on a flickering monitor dude.

What's that? hahaha!

Where did I call you a name?



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I told you before. But you can't read my posts.


Oligarchs dominate all modern societies almost completely. They want large authoritarian governments to protect thier interests. No government = No domination of power for the ultra-rich/powerful. Can't have that you see.

So there isn't more anarchism in bigger more advanced societies because of that. Oligarchs won't allow it. Its a conflict of interest.


No i read it, wbut what you are missing is that this is a reason why ANARCHY CAN NEVER WORK. There will ALWAYS be a usurper, PERIOD. Get it yet?

And again, please list how said anarchistic societies advanced.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
uniting goes against being an anarchist ...


No it doesn't.

Anarchists have always known the power of collectivism. That is why Anarchists join worker movements.

Do you know who Bakunin was? He was was one of the first Anarchists and a 'leader' in the International Working Mens Association, along side Karl Marx.

Nothing wrong with 'leaders' as long as their leadership is not coerced authority. Leadership does not necessarily mean authority.

Leading Without Authority

The only way for anyone to change anything is through collective power. One Anarchist standing alone is not going to make much difference. It takes 'leaders' to wake people up and show them a better path.


Organization which is, after all, only the practice of cooperation and solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a common objective.


Anarchism and Organization Authored by Errico Malatesta, Anarcho-Communist, (1897)


You may think in describing anarchism as a theory of organisation I am propounding a deliberate paradox: "anarchy" you may consider to be, by definition, the opposite of organisation. In fact, however, "anarchy" means the absence of government, the absence of authority. Can there be social organisation without authority, without government? The anarchists claim that there can be, and they also claim that it is desirable that there should be...


Colin Ward, Anarchism as a Theory of Organization

You can't have a society without organization of some kind. We will always naturally organise ourselves, things simply work better that way.

edit on 8/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join