PDA

View Full Version : Anarchism



Jojan
11-09-2004, 07:29 AM
What's your idea of anarchy?


http://www.socialanarchism.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
http://www.anarchism.net/
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html

samr
11-09-2004, 07:33 AM
I'd like to see someone with a decent idealism for Anarchy here. not some kid rebeling for the sake of rebeling. so I'll wait.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 09:08 AM
Well the 2nd and 3rd links are valuable resources in my opinion.

This is possibly the first thing I ever read about Anarchism, and I find it informative. (I read it in old Danish, so I hope this is the same thing.)

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1918/ps.htm
It's a pamphlet written by N. Bukharin, a communist under the Russian revolution of 1917.

samr
11-09-2004, 09:16 AM
ok I'll read it.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 09:27 AM
Well it's written in the form of a polemic, but this way you'll learn both about Marxism and Anarchism.

Mota Boy
11-09-2004, 10:20 AM
In my opinion, anarchy is the brief, transitional time between the collapse of the previous government and the rise of authoritarian rule.

wheelchairman
11-09-2004, 11:36 AM
hmm but I believe we're talking about anarchism, as in the ideology.

Mota Boy
11-09-2004, 06:25 PM
Just stating my opinion that it's utterly unrealistic as an ideology. Anarchy will only exist for a short amount of time as the vacuum between systems of government that can be sustained.

SicN Twisted
11-09-2004, 06:33 PM
Anarchism and anarchy are entirely different things. Anarchy is punks kicking over trash cans. Anarchism a political idealogy that believes all state problems are direct results of the states existence and part of the state's nature, and that people can only be free without rulers. People think it's incredibly unrealistic, but it's the most natural way for humans to live and thrive. At least, in my opinion.

Revolver-2005?
11-09-2004, 06:40 PM
The only way an anarchy would work would be if everyone was farming and had no care bout politics, lots of people today want something to stand for them....while anarchy would be nice...its just unrealistic

HornyPope
11-09-2004, 09:11 PM
Well if someone is seriously interested in reading up the Anarchism ideology, here's one link to get you started:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html

It's the first "official" anarchist book I read.

SicN Twisted
11-09-2004, 09:57 PM
Go to www.nothingness.org

That should give you the best idea of how anarchism isn't simply a wingnut pipedream.

NOAMR
11-10-2004, 04:23 AM
I think right now, anarchism isn't possible, cuz they are not used to take responsibility. But if you give them more rights and less rulez, I guess anarchism can become possible. If the whole power thing of being higher/better or lower, the whole class thing, doesn't exist anymore, then we're ready for anarchism.

intothevalleyofdeath
11-10-2004, 08:42 AM
anarchy is overrated, all the little "punk" kids running aroud with NoFX shirts and screaming "ANARCHY!!!" gets it to be a bit annoying

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 10:19 AM
I think right now, anarchism isn't possible, cuz they are not used to take responsibility. But if you give them more rights and less rulez, I guess anarchism can become possible. If the whole power thing of being higher/better or lower, the whole class thing, doesn't exist anymore, then we're ready for anarchism.


who is "them"?

NOAMR
11-10-2004, 03:02 PM
Just everyone. I mean, more democrazy, cuz can u call the American system democracy. U have to choose between 2 party's who are almost the same, and only one get completely power(what means their are a lot people who just are forgotten and have nothing to say). Well, and still, if it's European system, it's still not completely your choice, cuz you never 100% agree with a party. So, more referendums, and even a decentrated parlementarian democrazy.

Revolver-2005?
11-10-2004, 06:33 PM
Lol i still say ANachy is impossible, but possibly we could get rid of Republicans lol....a more liberal America is closer to a more Anarchist America, I think America should be more liberal wed be better off

greencows12
11-10-2004, 08:14 PM
What's your idea of anarchy?





http://www.socialanarchism.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
http://www.anarchism.net/
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html


It's good.

SicN Twisted
11-10-2004, 10:30 PM
For those who say anarchism wouldn't work - does the system we have now work? If you think it does, then why? And how do you suppose an anarchist society would create worse conditions? Don't say there'd be war, chaos, mass poverty, and constant dangerous of robbery and crime, because that's exactly what I'm seeing now. Explain how anarchism would make things any worse.

I'm an anarchism because I can objectively see how disfunctional statism is. We've been plagued by chaos for 2000 thousand years now, so I don't take anyone who says anarchism will cause chaos seriously.

NOAMR
11-11-2004, 02:01 AM
The problem is that if u do it just in once, with a revolutian or something, it's possible that they are guyz who profite from it and take power. Well, dunno, normally it shouldn't be possible, u alwayz need people who follow u than, and why should they do that? Srange enough, lots of people have the habit to follow a leader. But I don't think people will become suddenly criminals, I hope they don't do crimes for another reason then that it's illegal.

punk_flamingo
11-11-2004, 03:17 PM
Donít try to be original. Originality is a brand name nowadays, if you want to be different, donít rebel. Rebellion leads to riots, everyone joins in, sometimes they donít even know what theyíre rebelling against. They follow the crowd. Rebels are sheep, just like you will be if you try not to conform. The government wants you not to conform, so they can say that their people are free, but truly they are chained and just imagining their freedom. You are taught to demand freedom of speech. The words are put into your mouth. Donít rebel against the government for this, anarchy is a philosophy that the government created. Anarchists are rebels, they do not conform, and so they are sheep. The only way out is to think your way out, and yet if you think too hard, you think yourself back in. Find the happy medium and youíll be an oblivious island in the chaos surrounding you.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 03:35 PM
So what you're saying is, we should act like everyone else so that we don't act like everyone else.

Something about that makes me suspect that there is some plane that you've misunderstood about anarchism. Did you read the links?

NOAMR
11-12-2004, 04:52 AM
It's kinda crazy to think the government want anarchy/anartchists, cuz if their is anarchy, the won't exist anymore, and won't have power anymore. It just doesn't make sence, u know.

number70
12-12-2004, 03:43 AM
tgewrgtertgerff

SicN Twisted
12-12-2004, 06:55 PM
Does anyone have anything to say that is structured in a way that normal people can read it?

felix_leiter
12-13-2004, 03:09 PM
Like all things, Anarchism and Marxism (two totally opposite things in practice) need to be balanced. Marxism is based on absolute equality. Anarchism in absolute individuality.
Where do you draw the line with Marxism? Where everyone has to wear a certain item of clothing, or when you have a barcode stamped on your forehead?
Where do you draw the line with anarchy? There's got to be some feeling of community and respect for one another or else no-one would conform to being "anarchists".
Both theories eat themsleves, so there needs to be balance.

wheelchairman
12-13-2004, 04:04 PM
Like all things, Anarchism and Marxism (two totally opposite things in practice) need to be balanced. Marxism is based on absolute equality. Anarchism in absolute individuality.
Where do you draw the line with Marxism? Where everyone has to wear a certain item of clothing, or when you have a barcode stamped on your forehead?
Where do you draw the line with anarchy? There's got to be some feeling of community and respect for one another or else no-one would conform to being "anarchists".
Both theories eat themsleves, so there needs to be balance.
Both theories eat themselves? You haven't provided evidence on a theoretical or practical level?

In fact you basically showed your ignorance with the theory.

On your questions on Marxism. Who cares what kind of clothes you wear? That was not a point of the theory, in fact, no marxist theory would seriously concern themselves with that. I suppose a variety of clothes would be optimal, but we should try and fight the elitism that may come from Veblen or Snob motives (to use some marketing terms right there.)

And no barcodes would be used in Marxism. Not even during the dictatorship of the proletariat transitional stage (which as I see it, is the only difference between Marxism and Anarchism, the transitional socialist stage to communism.)

Sic is more knowledgeable in anarchist theory than I am. But I will try and answer and he can correct me later on, as far as I understand it, anarchism is entirely based on a community level. That would be the point. In practice it would be a system of communities that distribute capital(means of production) equally among the inhabitants, and distribute the products evenly among the other communities so that all communities would eventually have what they needed.

So of course the community is important. Anarchists too, are strong supporters of camaraderie and solidarity.

SicN Twisted
12-13-2004, 06:48 PM
Felix, your understanding of anarchism is as confusing as a Bond character who's played by a different actor in every movie. ANarchism is not absolute individuality - anarchists believe in absolute equality. They want to each the same ends as Marxism, just through different means. Anarchists also believe that absolute part of equality is the equal right of everyone to practice absolute individuality.

Anarchists come in many different forms - some belief that the world should be run by corperations, yet they still managed to legitimately be considered anarchistws (I don't know why), but in the fashon of Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, which is the most common form of anarchism, is the beieve that people should form communities based on equality and authorty and the State are not ways of achieving this, because they essentially cater to minority power. So basically, anarchists believe in achieving communism without a state, marxists believe in achieving it with one. That's the difference.

felix_leiter
12-14-2004, 09:37 AM
When you treat everybody the same (like in Communism) in everyday life it doesn't give dispensation for exceptions. No two people are the same, everybody is an exception. You can never treat everyone exactly the same or else it doesnt leave much room for them to be individuals (aka anarchists).

However, there needs to be some sense of community so there needs to be (as I said in summation in my last post) BALANCE. No extreme theory is correct, that's the beauty of human society, and this is what history has taught us.

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 09:40 AM
When you treat everybody the same (like in Communism) in everyday life it doesn't give dispensation for exceptions.
Whoever said this was communism?

felix_leiter
12-14-2004, 09:51 AM
Absolute Equality

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 09:56 AM
You obviously understand nothing of communism then.

felix_leiter
12-14-2004, 10:43 AM
How would you sum it up?

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 12:39 PM
Sum up an entire system? I wouldn't dare. I'll give one of the most well known descriptions though,

"To each according to his need, from each according to his ability"

felix_leiter
12-14-2004, 01:21 PM
=Give more or less to people to ensure they're equal, everybody do their bit to achieve this.

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 02:02 PM
Give to each individual and group what they need, the people will give what they can.

felix_leiter
12-14-2004, 02:15 PM
The aim of which is to create a successful equalitarian society.

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 02:18 PM
Egalitarian. But equality is not that everybody gets exactly the same, true equality is when everyone treats each other as brothers (very utopian I know).

It wouldn't be exactly equal, but what it would be is completely free of exploitation of man by man. It's difficult to discuss a society that only exists in distant theory. The keyword is exploitation-free.

SicN Twisted
12-14-2004, 04:45 PM
Felix, you seem to be more familliar with Marx then I am. I'm curious, can you show me where Marx or Engels said "everyone should look, think, and act exactly the same and have absolutely no personality?"

That seems to be your interpretation of Communism, and I'm curious if you got it from anywhere besides everyday McCarthyist ramblings.

felix_leiter
12-15-2004, 11:08 AM
It's the reality of when communist ideals are put upon people. Where does one draw the line in impressing equality on people?

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 11:11 AM
It's the reality of when communist ideals are put upon people. Where does one draw the line in impressing equality on people?
What are you babbling about? None of the former communist goverments, have ever tried to enforce perfect equality on people. That is not necessarily done in the beginning stages of socialism. Do your research before you speak out of your ass.

Lithuanian Offspring
12-15-2004, 11:18 AM
You are truely stupid Wheely. You use that ass thing all the time. I think you've been pulling it out of your ass. So why don't you tell everyone what you believe in? That is the reason I disagree with Communism.

felix_leiter
12-15-2004, 11:34 AM
My research, wheelchairman, is my life in a communist influenced urban environment. The borough council is red, the city council is red, not to mention the unions. In the education system, brighter pupils are LITERALLY held back with the rest, in the name of the communist ideal of equality. Standards slip, and things just get worse and worse.....
That's communism in action, and it's for bumbaclaats.

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 11:42 AM
My research, wheelchairman, is my life in a communist influenced urban environment. The borough council is red, the city council is red, not to mention the unions. In the education system, brighter pupils are LITERALLY held back with the rest, in the name of the communist ideal of equality. Standards slip, and things just get worse and worse.....
That's communism in action, and it's for bumbaclaats.
Yeah sure that's communism in action. The Famous Communist Commune of England.

Unions are more than likely Labor. You're going to need to provide evidence that the CPB or CPGB (not sure what the exact difference is) is running these councils. Cause people tend to use red to describe anything left at times.

And your example with education has nothing to do with communism, don't be foolish.

Lithuanian Offspring
12-15-2004, 11:47 AM
Yeah sure that's communism in action. The Famous Communist Commune of England.

Unions are more than likely Labor. You're going to need to provide evidence that the CPB or CPGB (not sure what the exact difference is) is running these councils. Cause people tend to use red to describe anything left at times.

And your example with education has nothing to do with communism, don't be foolish.
How about you get some quotes from the actual Communist Manifesto on where uber-equality is not present?

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 11:51 AM
How about you get some quotes from the actual Communist Manifesto on where uber-equality is not present?
Because I'm lazy and don't know exactly where it is. Why don't you tell me where Karl Marx uses the terms "everyone must get exactly the same!"

Because, why on Earth should I try and prove a negative?

Lithuanian Offspring
12-15-2004, 11:57 AM
Because I'm lazy and don't know exactly where it is. Why don't you tell me where Karl Marx uses the terms "everyone must get exactly the same!"

Because, why on Earth should I try and prove a negative?
Well, I am not an abid reader of the Communist Manifesto. Ok it is common knowledge that Marx called for an idealogy that would give everyone equal pay and so forth. But there was a twist! Everyone got the same pay no matter what. That is why it is different form all other idealogies. If it is what you are calling for than it is basically what we all have right now. So I guess you should be pretty conempt.

felix_leiter
12-15-2004, 11:58 AM
Well it's an example of people trying to infiltrate COMMUNIST ideals into schools, and levelling out opportunity for "each to give his best" or whatever. Then people go nuts (as always with communism) and fuck things up because they dont know where to draw the line with equality. what about those who cant give a certain amount and thus are considered needy: what do they need ("equal opportunities?) at the expense of others?

I'm all for equal opportunities, but not at the expense of others. Anyway, fuck this thread it's point's been lost.

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 12:01 PM
Well it's an example of people trying to infiltrate COMMUNIST ideals into schools, and levelling out opportunity for "each to give his best" or whatever. Then people go nuts (as always with communism) and fuck things up because they dont know where to draw the line with equality. what about those who cant give a certain amount and thus are considered needy: what do they need ("equal opportunities?) at the expense of others?

I'm all for equal opportunities, but not at the expense of others. Anyway, fuck this thread it's point's been lost.
This has nothing to do with communism. The connection you drew doesn't even make any logical sense. You dislike the school system and are trying to blame that the reason it's a failure is do "to dem nasty kommunishtsh."

Lithuanian Offspring, you are only affirming your stupidity. Marx never called for that. It's not common knowledge, it's a common misconception, that's why you can't find a quote for it. And there was never equal pay in the Soviet Union. Jesus christ you're from Lithuania, you should know that.

Lithuanian Offspring
12-15-2004, 12:02 PM
Yes, it has been a pleasure babbling on about Communism, but I must move forth and go to sleep. I have a histroy test. So I'll talk to you later Wheely, you damn dirty capitalist!

Lithuanian Offspring
12-15-2004, 12:08 PM
And there was never equal pay in the Soviet Union. Jesus christ you're from Lithuania, you should know that.
THAT IS WHY COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK YOU THICK SKULLED NINNY!! There was equal pay, I know. And the lazy people got paid the same as the hard working ones, you can ask my granny. Thank you. You can stay in Denmark and continue to bullshit. Plus I thought that the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Communism. Oh, but you say that when people talk about the totalitarian rulers. OH, oops. Stop throwing shit at the fan, Wheely. COMMUNISM WILL NEVER WORK!!!!! That is the end of the matter. I'll say it once more, I don't have the Communist Manifesto up my ass at the moment, so I can not affirm your stupidtity. HEy you are right I am from a formerly Communist country and my opinion should say something. Misconception, I don't think so. You have the misconception, believing that the Communist ideals are noble. See ya! Sucka!

felix_leiter
12-15-2004, 12:11 PM
Amen to that.

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 12:14 PM
THAT IS WHY COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK YOU THICK SKULLED NINNY!! There was equal pay, I know. And the lazy people got paid the same as the hard working ones, you can ask my granny. Thank you. You can stay in Denmark and continue to bullshit. Plus I thought that the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Communism. Oh, but you say that when people talk about the totalitarian rulers. OH, oops. Stop throwing shit at the fan, Wheely. COMMUNISM WILL NEVER WORK!!!!! That is the end of the matter. I'll say it once more, I don't have the Communist Manifesto up my ass at the moment, so I can not affirm your stupidtity. HEy you are right I am from a formerly Communist country and my opinion should say something. Misconception, I don't think so. You have the misconception, believing that the Communist ideals are noble. See ya! Sucka!
You're also like 14 years old and have never lived under communism. (at least not that you'd remember.)

I use the Soviet Union as a reference because you seem to believe that it's true communism from your examples. So I can say, I know very well that pay was very uneven in the USSR. Especially under Gorbachev.

Betty
12-15-2004, 02:04 PM
But was it supposed to be uneven?

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 02:53 PM
But was it supposed to be uneven?
Theoretically speaking yes. Even under Stalin. (He argued that in the beginning of the socialist stage, one must focus on the class struggles and contradictions. And then he went and killed all the Kulaks*)

That was of course, the line that Stalin brought. There have always been other ideas out there and inside the party.

*Rich peasants.

But people in the Western world tend to see Communism through backwards glasses. It's actually quite fascinating if you think about it. The way they see it is sort of a reflection of the values of their culture.

When they are told that under communism, everyone is equal. They merely see that as everyone being treated equal by being given the exact same thing (a kind of logic that I had as a child.) However, it's nothing about that kind of equality. Under communism more would always go to the families, the single fathers or mothers, or whatever. And that is a very rough generalisation, since under communism the family pattern would be different.

Betty
12-15-2004, 03:22 PM
I find the idea to be interesting, and inspiring as well. I just don't think it's realistic. Possibly on a small scale, and anybody involved would have to be willing to make it work, I would imagine. The same could also apply to anarchism, to have it actually be successful. Capitalism, I believe, while it may have it's faults, would come closer to actually working itself out. Although in it's pure from, it is probably pretty idealistic that it would go off without a hitch as well.

SicN Twisted
12-15-2004, 04:11 PM
Capitalism seemed to involve into the system we're living in now. There's an incredible amount of poverty, crime, disaster and war. Would you consider this to be an example of a system "working?," cause I certainly don't.

Betty
12-15-2004, 04:39 PM
It is still kinda far from capitalism since there is quite a bit of government involvement. And as far as I believe, there has never been total capitalism, only tendencies.

And no, it isn't working perfectly. Although I obviously think it's working better than you do.

So for one, you can't really criticize the theory based on the system we have now, since it's not the same. There have been attempts at communism, and whatnot, and even though some failed, people still maintain that it could still work if done properly.

And two, I think it's probably working better than something that would result from communism/anarchism, at least on a large scale. Obviously we can't KNOW any of this though, so I could be wrong.

I just don't think people would be able to make the whole share and share alike thing work in this day and age. I could possibly concede that if the world were to start over, and we had no technology, and nothing was overpopulated, and people just farmed and hunted for a living, anarchism would probably be a very real alternative.

SicN Twisted
12-15-2004, 04:47 PM
I think communism and capitalism are equally farfetched, horrible ideas, mainly because they both take human beings with souls and tern them into commodoties. Anarchists are idealists, we don't answer problems with doctrine, we do with ideas and let the system evolve itself to fit those ideas.

I can tell you that modern capitalism is no better then modern communism. Conditions are very similar both of them.

Betty
12-15-2004, 04:50 PM
I think that anarchism is a better alternative than communism.

Do you not think that since anarchism and capitalism both function on a system of non-government, that anarchism would evolve into capitalism because people are selfish? Like, unless everybody in the anarchist society wanted to be a part of that society, how could it not get screwed over?

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 04:54 PM
Actually on your last paragraph, you should research something called Primitivo-Anarchism (John Zerzan is from my 'hood'.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
A short article, but containst good links.

And what we have now is the economic system of Capitalism. Without a doubt. You are referring to classical liberalism, or Libertarianism (although that is the definition of libertarianism only in the states and maybe Canada.)

I often use this kinda comparison to point out why communist states have not had the best of beginnings. However, I always love to use this quote by Lenin

Capitalism is terror without end.
Ignoring your opinion on Communism or Lenin, I think this brings a valid point. Capitalism has plundered the world and re-created nations in it's own image. Half the world thrives off the poverty of the other half. Nations basically forced to be 3rd world nations due to the economic system we have now and the ruling class that it has created.

Anarchism has never existed on a real scale, you often bring up the 1968 student rebellion in France Sic. Have you researched what the leaders are doing now? Which parties they support? The contrast isn't as bad as what happened with Eldridge Cleaver, but it certainly is a shame.

SicN Twisted
12-15-2004, 05:03 PM
Anarchism does not mean there wouldn't be regulations. It's a misconception that capitalism means less government. The most succesful capitalist countries have the government playing a bige role in consolodating business power. Anarchism would definately evolve into something closer to what Adam Smith theorized, which is not capitalism by today's definition. People will own their own means of contribution, so workers truly will control their means of productions. If someone wanted to sell a product, they'd be able to without corperations controlling the economy.

Also, I keep explaining - anarchism doesn't mean their won't be government. It means there won't be a State - the two are not synonyms.

Betty
12-15-2004, 05:10 PM
My knowledge of musical genres is probably comparable to my knowledge of this kind of terminology.

I can even make up theories without even knowing they are theories.

But yes, you are correct on the libertarianism thing... can I support capitalist-libertarianism?

Wait, wait, I found something good... I've seen it before.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/2d_political_spectrum.png

I am the right side, WCM is the left side, and Sic is the top... the bottom is a bizarre combination.

Blah, I'll read up on my stuff over Christmas break...

Betty
12-15-2004, 05:11 PM
But Sic, I thought anarchy was when people went crazy and killed people and broke windows and stuff?

wheelchairman
12-15-2004, 05:36 PM
That's great Sic, I however never mentioned the government form (or lack thereof) under Anarchy.

politicalcompass.com (which I believe is owned by some bizarre communist group in russia (either the KPSU or the KPRF). Although I've heard that it's owned by American libertarians, so it's hard to tell.

For your study of Communism Betty, I recommend
3 volumes of Capital (or if you want something a little more piece meal, then Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy is good as well.)
and try and find an abridged version of "The German Ideology". For this book is 1000x better than the manifesto ever was.

And if you want to just learn some good stuff on the history of human society then:
The Origins of the State, Family and Private Property by Friedrich Engels
It's not a political work, it's more or less a sociological or anthropological work on the evolution of family forms, and how they relate to the forms of state and how that relates to private property. Absolutely fascinating.

Betty
12-15-2004, 05:45 PM
Sic was probably directing the anarchy/government comment to me, not you.

SicN Twisted
12-15-2004, 06:11 PM
I'll add that if you'd like to learn about anarchism, read No Gods No Masters and Anarchism, by Deniel Guerin (the former which contains the important works of Bakunin and Kropotkin), and the Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vannegam.

Betty
12-15-2004, 08:14 PM
Sic, I can't find any of those through the library. There were a few of the Guerin books, but not those. Mostly in French too. And nothing by the second author. And I don't really intend to buy these things, so I don't know if you'd have anything that I'd have a better chance of finding. I'd have to go get it tomorrow too, cause I'm leaving town after that.

SicN Twisted
12-15-2004, 09:09 PM
I don't really know, not much is too available. Look up Mikhail Bakunin online, many websites display his works. He was the best of all the beardos in my opinion - beardos being long bearded political philsophy of the 16th through 18th century. That all had those exact same beards, it was the trend or something.

wheelchairman
12-16-2004, 04:41 AM
Pyotr Kropotkin's autobiography is fascinating, I'd recommend reading that actually.

hereforone
12-17-2004, 02:24 AM
Anarchy:
1. Absence of government; a state of lawless-ness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
2. Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any sphere.
a. non-recognition of moral law; moral disorder
b. Unsettledness or conflict of opinion

~The Oxford English Dictionary~

SSOAG
12-17-2004, 02:27 AM
Anarchy is what will happen when you fuckers keep talking bout stupid shit, I mean come on have you got nothing better to do wheres that really funny cunt gone

Slayter
12-17-2004, 05:11 AM
Komunizm - Komunism - Stalin etc...$)))))))))))))))
.....Sadam Xusein - good guy too!
but komunizm drive all the world^))))
a say it didn't seriously!

NOAMR
12-17-2004, 05:11 AM
@hereforone: I think he means Anarchism( at least that's where the topic is about). Not just the dictionary explanation, but the ideology. And you can't put an ideology in a few words. I think anarchism is more than a 'no government', it's 'no leaders'. If they won't be any leaders, there would be equality. And it's hard to come to that, I don't know if it's possible, but it wont happen just suddenly (like now, there's anarchism). It needs some time, but we can try to come to that as much as possible. By trying to have as less laws as possible. And that's why, I think, communism may not work: they are still leaders, so not everyone is equal. Don't know much about it, but I also think some (communism?!) leaders confused being equal with being the same.

SicN Twisted
12-17-2004, 09:07 AM
Nobody's talking about anarchy. We're talking about anarchism. Completely different.

Leo_ARG
12-17-2004, 11:50 AM
If you are interested I will say that Anarchism DID work in Spain.
There was anarchy in 1938-39 for 8 great months.
Unfortunately, there was a big civil war with more than a million of victims and the anarchy ended.

I'll reccomend you reading some George Orwell books about the spanish revolution.Or some Mikhail Bakunin books, or Errico Malatesta.
I've been reading a lot about it and I changed my mind a lot.

SicN Twisted
12-17-2004, 05:09 PM
Where have you been all this time that I was trying to defend anarchism?

Leo_ARG
12-17-2004, 06:21 PM
Where have you been all this time that I was trying to defend anarchism?
Sorry dude...

I'll be here if someone ask something.
I've discussed this topic a lot with my friends, most of em right-wingers.It's interesting, and if there are no hard feelings it can be fun too. :cool:

gimpster138
12-17-2004, 07:25 PM
Anarchism = futility.

sebaspunk
12-17-2004, 10:26 PM
Anarchy Is The Highest Order Expression

La Anarkia Es La Mas Alta Expresion Del Orden

shatskater
12-17-2004, 10:57 PM
Anarchism is the future.

wheelchairman
12-18-2004, 09:43 AM
@hereforone: I think he means Anarchism( at least that's where the topic is about). Not just the dictionary explanation, but the ideology. And you can't put an ideology in a few words. I think anarchism is more than a 'no government', it's 'no leaders'. If they won't be any leaders, there would be equality. And it's hard to come to that, I don't know if it's possible, but it wont happen just suddenly (like now, there's anarchism). It needs some time, but we can try to come to that as much as possible. By trying to have as less laws as possible. And that's why, I think, communism may not work: they are still leaders, so not everyone is equal. Don't know much about it, but I also think some (communism?!) leaders confused being equal with being the same.
That's socialism, not communism.
Under Socialism the theory was that you could temporarily (in the beginning have leaders.) But eventually the governmentwas meant to break down and become less centralized. But it didn't, Stalin didn't want that to happen until the threat of the West no longer existed (which is a logical fear).

Anarchism = futility, you mind explaining that? This is a debate forum, not a forum for trying to sound like you have an opinion.

greencows12
12-30-2004, 05:15 PM
What's your idea of anarchy?





http://www.socialanarchism.org/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
http://www.anarchism.net/
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html


freedom. message is too short.

SicN Twisted
12-31-2004, 01:50 AM
Anarchism isn't just freedom. It's freedom, socialism, equality, and a classless society. It's actually a form of communism.

wheelchairman
12-31-2004, 04:09 AM
Anarchism isn't just freedom. It's freedom, socialism, equality, and a classless society. It's actually a form of communism.
omg dn't shox0rz them!

DirtyMagical
12-31-2004, 06:22 AM
Existence of individuals of a higher power has screwed over the human race all the way from the garden of Eden... If God didn't reinforce the law about the apple Adam and Eve would still be in "paradise".

achtung:
I haven't had any sleep yet, so I might not be making sense.

Satanic_Surfer
12-31-2004, 08:18 AM
Many groups to both left and right has many times been talkin about how the world would do better if the people actually had the power. But no other group than the Anarchists actually promote that kind of a society right here and right now.
Anarchists demand total justice and total equality everywhere, today.

People say that people cannot govern themselves, because people are not civilized enough to do that. Anarchists asks: If we're not civilized enough to govern ourself, what makes us civilized enough to govern others?

Anarchism is against all kinds of oppression, of all forms... from church/religion, fascism, sexism, racism... the list can be long, but you probably get the point.
Anarchists believes that a Hiearhy is oppressing to the people, the majority, in the bottom. The so called "working class".
Anarchists even promotes the earasing of Parlamentarism.
Therefor Anarchists are against the existence of a state and Capitalism.

Anarchism can by many views be seen as a very liberated sort of Communism. That sort of Anarchism is often referred to as Syndicalism or Anarcho-Communism though. There are other kinds of Anarchism too such as Green Anarchism, the vegan choise. But Anarchists stand united in their opinions in total belief that their opinions are the solution to all suffering in the world, and since they demand total equality and total justice.
It would be very likely that they ware right.

People often expect "Punks" to be less erious with their Anarchist opinions, but that is the thin line that marks who the Punks are and who the Anarcho-Punks are. The use of a cracked Anarchy A in a circle is more of an attitude than an actual political statement, while for example a black 5 pointing star is used by more serious "Punks".

Anarchists does not believe in party-politic, therefor they dont use their rights to "vote" since they believe the power always will be in the hands of the Capitalists, the big stock owners and multinational corporations'.
But Anarchists are usually very active in organizing demonstrations, manifests and most often of all, actions against oppressing corporations, where vandalizing and blockin streets usually are tactics.

Sometimes bombs are used to bring down state-owned buildings, but Anarchists are always sure not to hurt innocents and believes that Anarchism cannot win a war if innocent lifes have been spilled by Anarchists, for individuality is the highest law and even one innocent life taken is a loss.

Ken Jennings
02-11-2005, 06:54 PM
Anarchism is the future.

I really wish so.

Leo_ARG
02-13-2005, 10:42 PM
I am going to this library here in my City to learn more about Bakunin and Anarchism.

ANARCHIST LIBRARY (http://perspectives.anarchist-studies.org/3biblioteca.htm)


There should be a lot more of this around the world, so if you are interseted get togheter with other anarchists, it's always useful.