Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is your view of political anarchism?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
What is your view of political anarchism?

What does anarchism mean to you?




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


To me It means everyone governing themselves and not adhering to any form of systematic governance. I personally am all for it. TRUE freedom. It would be a rough transition but i think that the beasts that the system has created would eventually weed themselves out of existence. I think it is the true nature of life and would reconnect us to the animal kingdom and spiritual realm of consciousness. Just my thought.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
One man's trash is another man's treasure.

There can be no political anarchism when politics no longer exist.

What was once politics, is now a simple grocery store where corporations buy ingredients for their menu.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
q ... What is your view of political anarchism?

a ... the bush family.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
To me anarchy means no channels of law, government, equality, justice, education, healthcare, a complete lack of national/international infrastructure It is every man for himself "It's anarchy!". When i think about the point i just made i can see different people forming fractions lead by the more testosterone driven people, what to stop a bunch of these guys getting together and rape a load of women or start killing people who will stop them? the community?

Well yes they could but with no fixed law or means of law, because if their was it would not be anarchy because it would start to develop structure.

But say it did have structure well then some people will want them dead, other will want the in jail for the rest of their lives, some would want them to have serious psychological help and to change them by making them realize and understand what they done, some may want to torture them. But in that list of reason people will start to disagree with the fate of these people, and among the disagreements people will start to quarrel...


In my understanding people are easier to turn bad than good, and i think anarchy would show this, so IMO it would not be good to show this.
edit on 28-12-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-12-2012 by definity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
The media has turned 'anarchism' into a dirty word to mean chaotic lawlessness where violence and injustice is rampant. It's a shame really, because that isn't the actual definition of the term. But because the word has been redefined to have negative connotations, I tend to avoid it.

The political ideology that all beings are free to do as they wish, while no beings have power over any other, is an ideal that I think ought to be the highest political end. I generally refer to this as 'true philosophical freedom.'

It's important to distinguish between having freedom and having power. Having power means you have the ability to restrict the freedom of others, but power in and of itself is not a 'freedom.' It is possible for all beings to be completely free, while no beings have power.

A common crime, such as a robbery, can be regarded as a violation of true philosophical freedom. If I hold a gun to your head and demand all your money, I have right then and there set up a new, albeit very temporary, system of government. A government in which I, the lawmaker, by means of force, have restricted your freedom and coerced you to perform a specific action. True philosophical freedom would not allow for such a thing.

The ideal arrangement then is a system in which every individual is fully capable of defending themselves from any and all forms of coercion, resulting in no individuals having the ability to coerce. This of course would be very difficult to attain in a world in which we possess bodies capable of pain, death, and imprisonment, but may be possible with enough ingenuity.

I believe the easiest way to attain true freedom, is to realize you are already free, and to not fear death. All political power ultimately comes from the ability to kill, which is only effective as a repressive tool if humans are afraid of death. When the fear of death is completely gone, and you realize your spirit is immortal, you are completely free.
edit on 28-12-2012 by SilentKoala because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by definity
what to say a bunch of these guys get together and rape a load of women or start killing people who will stop them?

That isn't true anarchy. Those 'guys' would be acting as a government in that situation.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 

Government gone rogue.

Waging endless pre-emptive wars, mass murder/war crimes, citizen assassinations, warrantless spying, tax and debt slavery, human experimentation, torture etc.

Complete lawlessness by the politicians, our current form of government.

edit on 28-12-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
What is your view of political anarchism?


Not for it.


What does anarchism mean to you?


The person with the biggest club makes all the rules.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shneal
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


To me It means everyone governing themselves and not adhering to any form of systematic governance. I personally am all for it. TRUE freedom.


So murder will not be illegal? You all for that? No system = No rights even though todays system does need to be scrapped.

edit on 28-12-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 





What is your view of political anarchism?


Taking the people who were voted in on good faith and having them do everything for themselves while ignoring the rest of us and eventually having the public string them up by a lamp post.
Getting the Mussolini treatment is my definition......tptb might have a different view,thats my view on what political anarchism is.

They cause anarchy by getting voted in and justifying their actions while screwing others over....the public has a different not so political view thats probably alot more correct in its approach then their views on thier actions.
Yet my opinion is POLITICALLY INCORRECT.........go figure,thats political anarchism at its best.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I'd consider my self an anarchist.

If your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

Its no good sugar coating the situation we're all in, there's no point attempting to replace little bits of the system, when the whole lot needs destroying.

Democracy? Try Bureacrasy and aristocracy.

Communist Socialism? Try Corporate Socialism.

I object with every bone in my body, and proudly.

Now is the time you choose the side you represent.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The term Anarchy means chaos, the term Anarchism was a political movement for the liberation of the working class from the chains of capitalism. Also know as Libertarian Socialism. It was the direct action wing of the socialist movement.

“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.

150 years of Libertarian

Anarchism was a political movement for socialism that started after the book "What is Property" by Proudhon was published in 1840. Proudhon was the first socialist to call himself an Anarchist in print.

It is the direct action path to socialism, as apposed to the political path of Marxism etc.

Anarchism is stateless socialism - Mikhail Bakunin (libertarian socialism)

Mikhail Bakunin was one of the most influential anarchists, and was active in the International Workers Federation along side Marx. He and Marx were in opposition to each other over the question of the state, but both had the same ultimate goal, the workers ownership of the means of production, AKA socialism, communism, free association. Those terms all mean the same thing.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)


Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.


Libertarian socialism

Since the advent of the oxymoron anarcho-capitalism other terms have sprung up such as 'social anarchism', 'left anarchism', which is kind of like saying wet water.

edit on 12/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
q ... What is your view of political anarchism?

a ... the bush family.


lol! ... -cough cough-

A true Anarchy would have little to do with chaos and violence.. (mostly American) society has been misguided regarding the meaning of Anarchism.

anyway, anarchism should boil down to a regionalist direct democracy... in the most simple sense. Thus rulers are dis empowered and governmental staff become servants of the people, instead of ... well , you know, what we have now.

The means of production is owned by the local stakeholders i.e. the workers resulting in a form of socialism. The worker's collaborative is an well established organisational model that has shown success. No, not perfect, but we can work towards it. The cooperative turn - building the right kind of autonomy

I believe that for the first time in human history we are able to administer the increased need for technological interaction such a system would require, through the interwebs, of cause. What if political decisions were decided on by daily internet referendums, where one's vote would be weighted by your involvement..?
edit on 28/12/12 by PadawanGandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
The person with the biggest club makes all the rules.

Pretty sure that's a dictatorship.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by beezzer
The person with the biggest club makes all the rules.

Pretty sure that's a dictatorship.


And a dictator arbitrarily makes laws, rules based on his/her own beliefs. A dictatorship is just a formal version of anarchy.

(In my humble opinion)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Is that not a secret version of America?
Fast and furious,NDAA and now Springer's new thread??
edit on 28-12-2012 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PadawanGandalf
The means of production is owned by the local stakeholders i.e. the workers resulting in a form of socialism.


Good post!

In it's most basic definition socialism is worker ownership.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by beezzer
 


Is that not a secret version of America?
Fast and furious,NDAA and now Springer's new thread??
edit on 28-12-2012 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)


Writ large? Perhaps. I just see dictators as anarchists who wear suits. Our current system has definite fascist overtones.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I see suits and ties as the big disguise.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join