PDA

View Full Version : Anarchry solution



Sincerly-Sixx 13
05-19-2008, 09:28 AM
While seaching facts about Anarchy I finally found the solution website that has every awnser to something that people say is a problem and you know what its wicked, im using this to my advantage. :D

wheelchairman
05-19-2008, 09:50 AM
I got one.

The majority of people don't want to, and have never wanted to live under anarchy.

OffspringHead
05-19-2008, 01:19 PM
Anarchy=dumbest fucking idea ever. Period.

Blackball_
05-19-2008, 03:03 PM
for 99% of people, yeah. for the 1% it would be heaven, just the same as religious communes, etc.

a couple of ol fuckin hippies and nothin else.

Scythe Death
05-19-2008, 04:50 PM
for 99% of people, yeah. for the 1% it would be heaven, just the same as religious communes, etc.

a couple of ol fuckin hippies and nothin else.

I don't think the hippies would like to give up their rights. They'd be exterminated.

Lithuanian Offspring
05-19-2008, 07:19 PM
The true answer to solving all of Anarchy's problems is: just sell anarchy burgers.

EMehl6
05-20-2008, 09:06 PM
This conversation reminds me of "SLC Punk!" Good movie.

Smash punker
05-21-2008, 01:17 AM
I believe in Anarchy! :D

Sincerly-Sixx 13
05-21-2008, 05:35 AM
I found the website to all our solutions for people with problems problem with anarchy just go to yahoo and search anarchy, then look for this address

ancientimages.freehostia.com/anarchy/phil.htm - Cached

Go to the page look at the solutions and know that you can tell them off and keep them silent! :D

Scythe Death
05-21-2008, 07:36 AM
I believe in Anarchy! :D

The Offspring doesn't. 0|

OffspringHead
05-21-2008, 02:10 PM
I believe in Anarchy! :D

You wouldn't last a month maybe even a week in an Anarchist society. If you think people won't do the right thing without a government to support them, you're dumb. In Anarchy, there will always be a dictator along with mass destruction and chaos. It's human nature.

wheelchairman
05-21-2008, 03:02 PM
heh ooh look at this student of human nature.

Don't you think it's a bit presumptious to say you know human nature? Not that I blame you. I once thought I did too and so did most people probably. I think you grow out of that idea eventually though.

Smash punker
05-22-2008, 12:37 AM
The Offspring doesn't. 0|

You´re kidding? Look at Dex´s guitar! :D Look at their plane and so on....!

Smash punker
05-22-2008, 12:41 AM
You wouldn't last a month maybe even a week in an Anarchist society. If you think people won't do the right thing without a government to support them, you're dumb. In Anarchy, there will always be a dictator along with mass destruction and chaos. It's human nature.

Man, first try to learn what´s punk-rock about, and then you maybe get that punx goes well with Anarchy! :D And I know all the shit about what you´re trying to tell me. Really! But there´s no A state or anything! So being punx or anarchist is an individual´s choice and you meet those people just at punx gigs! :D

Satanic_Surfer
05-30-2008, 02:32 PM
You wouldn't last a month maybe even a week in an Anarchist society. If you think people won't do the right thing without a government to support them, you're dumb. In Anarchy, there will always be a dictator along with mass destruction and chaos. It's human nature.

So the people who lived in the anarchist communes that has existed this far all died out and were replaced every monday? Or did they just lack some old fashion nature?

I dont see the problem people have with anarchy. It's a great idea that actually would practice democracy for once, unlike many (most/all?) nations of today.

The shadow
05-30-2008, 10:09 PM
What's so wrong about current democracies?. Everybody keep on yapping about how modern democracies aren't "real" democracies and how everything they stand for is a joke. I don't see it. I think these republics are actually very close to what a "free" state should be.

Besides, a pure democracy would not be so good in my opinion either. Modern countries are just too big and too complex to implement such a system. Democracy does not mean good government, it means popular government; that's all. Political systems are as good as the citizens that create them. So, although people in this world are not very different from a few thounsand years ago, I think we've done a pretty good job with representative democracy. I see that as progress and as a sign that we're not even close to find a perfect system, but we're in the right direction. Our focus should be political education, wich will derive; again, in my opinion, in political evolution.

What I'm trying to say, is that the perfect government won't necessarily be a popular government, but just one where everybody will do what they're supossed to do. Bolívar said it better than me:

"The perfect representative institutions are not adequate to our character, customs and current lights [...] As long as our fellow countrymen fail to acquire the talents and political virtues that distinguish our northern brothers, the entirely popular systems, far from being favorable to us, I'm afraid will come to our ruin..."

Jamaican Letter, 1815

Sorry about the extension of the post.

Satanic_Surfer
05-31-2008, 04:12 PM
Democracy is the influence of the people. That influence does not stand a chance when one government is set to represent every instutution and individual in that specific country. The smaller the country is, the more influence over the administrating institutions the people will have. Eventually we come to a point where the most democratic place is a place with no government but with workers direct control over the working places and the teachers/students direct control over the schools.

Most democratic is certainly not a government that tells the people what to do, but perhaps opposite.

The shadow
05-31-2008, 09:27 PM
I have to disagree. First of all, democratic governments represent individuals, not institutions. Second, the whole idea of democracy is a government that represents all people, without exception. So actually, not only does that influence have a chance in an all inclusive political system, but in fact; the more people it represents, the more democratic it is.

You're right, a smaller country is more likely to have a government influenced by its people. But that doesn't mean that no government equals pure democracy. In order to create "working places" and schools, you need organization. Organization equals government. Your own statement: "direct control over..." points to some kind of stablished order, agreed among the members of a formal organization; you know, with rules, leaders and eventually, of course, a government. Governments originated from the necessity of setting limits, laws and all the benefits that can only come from colective effort.

Democracy is a government where people tell themselves what to do, because they are the government. That's why I don't believe a pure democracy is fit for us right now. But I do believe that modern democracies have reached a weak balance that is sometimes sustained for just enough time to make really great things.

boblebobi
06-01-2008, 06:21 AM
I couldn't have said it better. Great post shadow. There was this engraving i saw on a government office once that says "The authority of the government emanates from the people." It's made for the people, by the people.

Satanic_Surfer
06-01-2008, 09:19 AM
I dont understand how a government is more democratic the more people it represents? Let's take an example where i act government and you act citizen. I decide to represent you against your will. (You havent agreed to it). Am i more democratic the more people i do this to?

No. Obviously not. Forced representation is a good description of a dictatorship. Democracy is supposed to be the opposite of just that. Well that's how i see it. The government is democratic when it's under the peoples control. Not when the people are under the governments control. This is what seperates the democratic countries from the rest.

A government represents institutions aswell. A nation is an institution to begin with. And that is the reason we have institutions in our societies that are so called "government controlled". Like the police, the army, the schools and so on.

It seems you are suprised that i as an anarchist does not promote some form of "chaos" but rather organization? Well it is closest to a myth that anarchists does not promote the use of laws and order. But organization does not mean hiearchy. Cooperative communes, workers councils and other institutions where every individual being would represent his/her own will in a democratic process is the use of direct democracy that the anarchists promote. It is surely in no way impossible. But the idea of anarchism is to move all the power to the people without representation or adminstration. because we know ourselves the best and it surely would be the most equal and democratic way a society possibly could be.

What's interesting with your argument is that you actually promote a different way to be more democratic. Yet i am very doubtful that less freedom would be "more" democratic.

The shadow
06-01-2008, 03:07 PM
Well, I base my argument on that point in the understanding that such an ideal democracy would be constructed on top of a social contract. That means that previous to the election of the government, everybody has agreed that should their candidate lose, they will voluntarily submit to the will of the majority. That's why in a perfect system nobody is "represented against his will". That's not the case in modern democracies, but they're close.


The government is democratic when it's under the peoples control. Not when the people are under the governments control.

But then, what's the idea of creating a government if it's not to maintain some kind of control?. A democracy is a system where people are controlled by their government; the thing is, they are their own government. If you are in control of your own actions, you don't call yourself a tyrant, right?. As I said, if you want order, you need to tell people what they can't do, and that's not tyranny when everybody has agreed to obey the laws they helped to create. The government is only there to enforce those laws. So a government is in control of the people as long as the latter keeps on writting the social contract and the former limits itself to its mission.

You're right, those institutions are "government controlled", not "government represented". Who represents the police in congress?. I may be wrong in my definition of representation, but I have only heard things like "representative for the state of..." or "representative for the people of the ... district". So I'll have to look it up, but you could be right.

I think organization does mean hiearchy. A round table is chaotic. Let's say you create your perfect anarchy, and, in a workers council, a certain issue divided the members and there's no concensus nor solution. Then, they start fighting; there's violence and chaos. There can be no leadership, nobody can force anybody to calm down. How do you stablish order?. Will they magically sit down and settle their differences?. Look at Somalia: no central government since 1991 and a raging civil war since then on the brink of genocide.

It's very noble to give all the power to all the people, but that's just too much power in the hands of the wrong people. I don't think we know ourselves the best, that's why we are not the judges of our own trials. A pure democracy would fail right now, but a representative democracy has the opportunity to put the right people in the right place. Yes, it limits our freedom, but who wants to live in a world with total freedom and total chaos?.

adombomb222
06-02-2008, 12:41 AM
Anarchy is fucking retarded. In our modernistic society “survival of the fittest” doesn’t work; the regulation of a systematic government to sustain the regulated flow of ideas and goods is essential to the well being of society. With out proper protection of the populous and the essential trade market society would collapse, more then likely burn within the first few weeks. In a system, which encourages no systematic order of anything, no one is safe. People never do the right thing in the first place; giving that to everyone would cause total chaos. Anarchy (in lets say America) would last for a few weeks, and then people with guns would run different areas. Soon “city-states would emerge with a higher archaical government. Anarchy is stupid.

Satanic_Surfer
06-03-2008, 04:50 PM
The "anarchy is stupid" argument is the most stupid argument i've ever heard. Really, no offence, but it bases in an extreme lack of knowledge. At the same time the idea that people with guns in such case would run different areas is a bit ironic, because if you take a look around that is exactly the situation we have today.

The belief that anarchy means chaos, i think, only exists among people who has never actually had a face to face discussion with an anarchist. And as an anarchist i am upset about the chaotic world order and im for a more democratic, less chaotic alternative.

I want to put an end to the capitalist "welfare chaos", the idea that the ruling class of today does not follow any specific course, but will always hystericly aim for where the largest profit exists in the shortest reach.

This does NOT mean that there would be no laws. True is that there would be no laws as we recognize them today. But the laws would be created by the people in the commune where the laws are applied. The basic idea is to put everything under direct influence (direct democracy) of the people affected by it.

And yes, even then there has to be adminstrations, yet these are all ruled by the people collectively (or individually depending on how many people are affected by the decisions made).

The idea of anarchy is not so far away from the idea of democracy, the difference is that in a democracy, the adminstrating institutions are ran by representatives of the people, elected through (often complicated and shady) voting systems where in anarchy there are even more of these institutions (that we today know as governments) and are ran directly by the people.

Strangely enough the idea of anarchy is, i'd say, a way of settling order in a world of chaos. Btw... whoever created this thread misspelled "anarchy".

adombomb222
06-03-2008, 08:06 PM
I like how you skipped over my first few arguments. You call your self an anarchist; I find that comical. Anyone who believes himself or herself an anarchist must be a true punk, no doubt.

Lets look at the definitions of anarchy for a moment.

Anarchy
-Noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder

Latin/Greek Roots:
Anarchia – lawlessness, with out leader
(Taken from Dictionary.com)

So then taking from the collative ideals in the first three definitions in a true anarchical society/state, its expected that people do the “right” things? Now that may work in small communities where there isn’t a large diverse populace. Yea, cults could pull off anarchy because they all believe in the same thing. However on the large scale do you really expect people to follow moral codes? And true, anarchy doesn’t mean there is no laws, its just the laws must be agreed on by all that reside in the community. And true that’s similar to a direct/full democracy, however in an anarchical society there is no leader. Now you could get everyone to vote for all his or her laws, but they wont all agree. And under those definitions then no laws could ever be passed for the better of that society. Do you not understand? The reason democracy works (direct or reprehensive) is because the majority rules. Anarchy means EVERYONE must agree. And you know what unless it’s a little cult, not everyone is going to agree, we all have different ideas and morals.

Thomas
06-14-2008, 12:24 AM
Looks like SOMEONE needs to try reading the Federalist Papers, 10 and 51 in particular.

OffspringHead
06-15-2008, 05:58 PM
The "anarchy is stupid" argument is the most stupid argument i've ever heard. Really, no offence, but it bases in an extreme lack of knowledge. At the same time the idea that people with guns in such case would run different areas is a bit ironic, because if you take a look around that is exactly the situation we have today.

The belief that anarchy means chaos, i think, only exists among people who has never actually had a face to face discussion with an anarchist. And as an anarchist i am upset about the chaotic world order and im for a more democratic, less chaotic alternative.
Now. This is a fucking retarded statement. Take into consideration that "Power Corrupts and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY"

In a self-governed society where survival of the fittest is the basic guideline there is bound to be one fucked up individual who ruins it for all of us. Anarchy in a sense is very similar to Communism. Communism is a government based on ONLY the people with no leader. Look at all of the leaders that emerged from communist countries.

Communism is a great idea on paper. Everyone is equal, no leaders, everyone gets paid the same etc. But it just DOESN'T work in real life because of greed. Anarchy is the same exact thing. Anarchy is appealing but it would not work out at all.



This does NOT mean that there would be no laws. True is that there would be no laws as we recognize them today. But the laws would be created by the people in the commune where the laws are applied. The basic idea is to put everything under direct influence (direct democracy) of the people affected by it.

And yes, even then there has to be adminstrations, yet these are all ruled by the people collectively (or individually depending on how many people are affected by the decisions made).

Sounds to me like you're more of a communist than an Anarchist. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

adombomb222
06-15-2008, 10:12 PM
Nah, he's just a tru punx and living up to it. Not being a trendy asslhole at all. I bet his bedroom has a big Anarchy sign in red spray paint on his wall.

seirof
06-16-2008, 03:08 AM
Now. This is a fucking retarded statement. Take into consideration that "Power Corrupts and absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY"

In a self-governed society where survival of the fittest is the basic guideline


OK, stop right there. That is not the basic guideline of Anarchism. Skimming through the thread, you seem to have no idea... Not meaning to be rude, but please go read up on what Anarchism is if you want to participate intelligently. It has many flaws and reasons why it would not work, but not any you list.



Anarchy in a sense is very similar to Communism.


Yes, perhaps you do know what you are talking about after all...



Communism is a government based on ONLY the people with no leader.


Correct! Anarchism and Communism are very related political paths. They both aim to arrive at the same goal, but differ in how they aim to get there. Communism says that the transition should be controlled by a temporary government that will give up control once Communism is built. Of course no government will ever give up power voluntarily, so Communism is doomed to failure. Anarchism on the other hand does not subscribe to any government and believes such a transition is possible without someone supervising the process (how exactly differs depending on who you ask and is in general a cloudy subject). That is pretty much the only difference between anarchism and communism.



Look at all of the leaders that emerged from communist countries.


Yup, and you can look at anarchism as a form of communism that does not allow such leaders to emerge by not allowing anyone to exert power over others.



Communism is a great idea on paper. Everyone is equal, no leaders, everyone gets paid the same etc.

But it just DOESN'T work in real life because of greed. Anarchy is the same exact thing. Anarchy is appealing but it would not work out at all.


Greed is indeed one of the problems with anarchy/communism (which can be grouped together as they in their effect equate to the same thing, and you are talking about problems once the system they aim to build is in place). Abolition of property is a widely (but by no means the only) supported way of dealing with the problem.

In short, everyone owns everything, so trying to get exclusive use of something (e.g. putting a lock on something) would be equivalent to trying to exert power over the whole country. Hence, everything would be shared by everyone, and if "someone" tries to take something away, "everyone" will always be stronger than the "someone", and will be able to take it back.



Sounds to me like you're more of a communist than an Anarchist. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Nope, he is an anarchist, but is misunderstood by you. So, please go read up before replying. If you want a quick easy to read resource try The Anarchist FAQ ( http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html ). I am making a one stop to these forums, and so will be unlikely to read any reply from you, sorry. Hmmh, came to post about their concert at Download, but ended up engaging in political conversation instead :-( .

OffspringHead
06-16-2008, 06:03 PM
OK, stop right there. That is not the basic guideline of Anarchism. Skimming through the thread, you seem to have no idea... Not meaning to be rude, but please go read up on what Anarchism is if you want to participate intelligently. It has many flaws and reasons why it would not work, but not any you list.
Because the problems of both Anarchy and Communism are so extent that you couldn't list all of the problems and reasons to why it couldn't work. And most of it is common sense. There will never be a society built without a government or a leader. It is just impossible by human nature. The idea of governing yourself is not a hard concept it's just the other people in the world and how they would govern themselves in certain situations. A lot of people have moral values and would say "This guy stole my wallet. I'm not going to kill him because that is wrong but I will confront him."

Now then again there are people who do NOT have the moral values who would kill the guy who stole the wallet just because there are no laws or authority figure stopping him. And he could get away with it.



In short, everyone owns everything, so trying to get exclusive use of something (e.g. putting a lock on something) would be equivalent to trying to exert power over the whole country. Hence, everything would be shared by everyone, and if "someone" tries to take something away, "everyone" will always be stronger than the "someone", and will be able to take it back.

Now. Not being able to put a lock on a possession is a violation of Human Rights. If you earned something for yourself in an Anarchist society then why should you have to share it with the rest of the country?

Not only is that morally wrong but what makes you think for one second that a person in ANY society wouldn't put a lock on their possessions? You said yourself that greed is a big problem with the Human Race and this is a perfect example of how Anarchy wouldn't work. People would put locks and various types of protections of their things that they don't want others to touch. It's simple human nature. And THATS why Anarchy won't work.

Satanic_Surfer
06-20-2008, 06:12 AM
The reason democracy works (direct or reprehensive) is because the majority rules. Anarchy means EVERYONE must agree. And you know what unless it’s a little cult, not everyone is going to agree, we all have different ideas and morals.
There will obviously always be different ideas and morals. I didnt consider anything else of course. Though you're wrong when you say that anarchy means everyone must agree. That is the definition of a dictatorship. The term "anarchist" in a way is wrong too as it only focuses on the lack of government and state upheld laws. An anarchist society still has direct-democracy where the majority will make the decisions. Let's say for example a school is being built in one commune, and the decisions around it would be made by the majority.

Pretty much as it is today, but today we have representatives in the parliaments who make these decisions where that progress in a direct-democratic state would be made by the people directly without middle hands.


Anarchy in a sense is very similar to Communism. Communism is a government based on ONLY the people with no leader.
Yeah, they are similar. In fact, they are the very same idea. Only that the communists has taken a very authoritarian way of developing communism. Where anarchists say that we do support the ideals, but their ways doesnt work.


Communism is a great idea on paper. Everyone is equal, no leaders, everyone gets paid the same etc. But it just DOESN'T work in real life because of greed. Anarchy is the same exact thing. Anarchy is appealing but it would not work out at all.
To go a bit deeper on this subject: The communists has put way too large effort focusing on money. It's kind of ridicilous to expect equality to come just because everyone makes the very same amount of money. Because even if money plays a part, equality handles power rather than money. And equality comes in the shape of equal amount of power.

That is where the communists has failed to make a capitalist economical system (yeah lets call it that for now) work out. Even though they use a socialist reform to that system. The capitalist market still exist in for example North Korea. But the one participator has been the state. Wich is a system that in no way can last on its own.

I think that greed you refered to is a product of stress, insecurity and powerlessness. The greed comes from the feeling of being insecure of whether or not you'll make it through or not. That's why people steal for example. And is exactly the reason why crimes are up in the poor areas. though i wouldent say poor people are greedier than rich. They're just more insecure. Where the middle class man isnt as stressed about his money situation and can that way even develop a moral of not understanding the cause of why some people steal - and based on that promote for example harder punishments for it.


Sounds to me like you're more of a communist than an Anarchist. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Well i guess that's really teh case with most anarchists. The ideals are the same. Surely we'd like that marxist utopia aswell. Just that unlike the communists, we've come to realize that their socialist dictatorships just dont work and we're willing to try a different way where the people themselves participate in the process. because we believe the real change has to come from the below, not from above.


There will never be a society built without a government or a leader. It is just impossible by human nature.
May i remind you of that anarchist societies has existed successfully and to a degree does exist today? Not by the form of nations but in communes.

It works as long the people are for it and as long the population votes for it. If it comes to an end where in for example Soviet the people are against it. An anarchist commune would cease to exist.


If you earned something for yourself in an Anarchist society then why should you have to share it with the rest of the country?
Im actually happy you brought this up. In the anarchist society there would be nothing forcing you to share it, although there would probably be collectives that - by free will - decide to set such rules. This would give you an option of choosing whether you want to share it or not. The idea isnt to force you to one or the other. But the more options there is to choose from. The more freedom to choose you have.

However apart from the sharing thing, the idea is to produce after need. If you've earned something it's obviously yours. The solution isnt that you share it, but the industries today are large enough to produce after need. So the idea is that if someone wants it we'll have to produce more of it together. There is no material conflict in this as when both of you could get another one of that product you earned - there'd be no need for someone to steal it directly from you. And even if it happened - you could get another. This because money isnt used in an anarchist society.

Though one argument is that there is a filosophical conflict in this. Those industries are talked about is a product of capitalism and wouldent have been there if it wasnt for capitalism. And you know what? That is true. And that is why i myself bring that up. The society never stands still. It always develops and evolves. This stage - capitalism - is necessary to exist at some point because it is effective. When enough industries has been built and we have aquired the knowledge of how to maintain them, is where we can change the system to be of a greater good than the profithysteria that has no other goal but constantly expanding. Wich again - is the positive side of it. Yet nothing can expand forever because anything will burst at the end, be it capitalism or communism in this case.


People would put locks and various types of protections of their things that they don't want others to touch. It's simple human nature. And THATS why Anarchy won't work.
That is exactly why it could work. It would only reach an end where it doesnt work when we no longer can produce after need

Actually the chinese government has realized this about their totalitarian system. The government officials talks often about how the country was not able to put up with the reforms the communist party made (personally i'd say no country ever will be, because those reforms are just fucked up) and needed to bring back a capitalist economy in order to sustain. And so they did, and now it's like any other capitalist nation but completely without any form of democracy. The communist ways hasnt ever showed to work out properly. And when it comes to the point where it clearly dont work no more. The dictatorships has always lasted longer than the ideals.

Perhaps the best thing about the anarchist society, wich sometimes is refered to as anarchocommunism, is that if it fails (and it might, im not gonna say it's any form of total solution to all the worlds problems) - the people can change it back to the way it was before - or for that sake develop it in any other way, all depending on what the people feel about it. There'd be no power crazy dictator and controlled borders to prevent anyone who wishes to leave or who wishes to use their free speach. And there'd be no guidelines of "the Party" you'd have to follow in order to participate in making the decisions.

I guess we simply cant tell if the anarchist ideas are fully doable in a large scale until it's been tried. But the fundamental idea is that people are in control. And that is even if they say "Fuck it, this is crapola, let's bring back capitalism!"


Nah, he's just a tru punx and living up to it. Not being a trendy asslhole at all. I bet his bedroom has a big Anarchy sign in red spray paint on his wall.

Hmm... not a too bad idea about the circled A there, i might just do so. :p

Well yeah, so im a punk with a red/black mohawk that is getting hard to put up nowadays because my hands only barely reaches its tips. But it doesnt mean i cant have complex ideals. :)

EDIT: To make a giantic input even longer (heh, sorry) i thought to add something about what seirof said about property. That "everything to everyone" basically would be the rules of property. This is of course true, but it all depends on the definitions of property. Where communists put large effort discussing do people really need 2 coffee cups when they can own only 1 and clean it up after using it. Anarchists doesnt really give a shit. What we define as property would be things like claiming private property of forests, land, large buildings, corporations... this is where we want to share things in common. When it comes to "property" such as your underwears or whatever, we dont really see it as a problem that you have more pairs than i do. And we see the solution in producing more if there is a lack of it instead, because we think this would be both easier and more doable.

Exactly how it would be produced we cant of course say for sure by now. But it would probably include discussion and collective ruling from the workers, or for that sake the population, to solve the problem.

D_VM
06-20-2008, 07:32 PM
What Is Anarchism?

( The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition )

anarchism (an´urkizum)

[Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that men are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders man's development. Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoic philosophy, is regarded as the father of anarchism. In the Middle Ages the anarchist tradition was closely linked to utopian, millenarian religious movements such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit of the 13th cent. and the Anabaptists of the 16th cent. The philosophy of modern political anarchism was outlined in the 18th and 19th cent. by William Godwin, P. J. Proudhon, and others. Mikhail Bakunin attempted to orient the First International toward anarchism but was defeated by Karl Marx. Bakunin gave modern anarchism a collectivist and violent tone that has persisted despite the revisionary efforts of Piotr Kropotkin and Leo Tolstoy. Political anarchism in Russia was suppressed by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution. Anarchism's only real mass following was in Latin countries, where its doctrines were often combined with those of syndicalism, especially in Spain. In the United States, early anarchists such as Josiah Warren were associated with cooperatives and with utopian colonies. After the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886 and the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 a law was passed forbidding anarchists to enter the country. The Sacco-Vanzetti Case attests to the fear of anarchism in the United States. As an organized movement, anarchism is almost dead, but it retains importance as a philosophical attitude and a political tendency. See Roderick Kedward, The Anarchists (1971); Gerald Runkle, Anarchism, Old and New (1972); Max Nettlau, History of Anarchism (3 vol., 1978).

Except as otherwise permitted by written agreement, the following are prohibited: copying substantial portions or the entirety of the work in machine readable form, making multiple printout thereof, and the other uses of the work inconsistent with U.S. and applicable foreign copyright and related laws.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©1993, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.

anarchism (an´urkizum)., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, 01-01-1993.

top of page



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia

ANARCHISM. The word anarchism derives from a Greek term meaning "without a chief or head." Anarchism was one of the leading political philosophies to develop in Europe in the 19th century. The chief tenet of anarchism is that government and private property should be abolished. Also part of anarchism is the concept that the people should be allowed to live in free associations, sharing work and its products.

Although a 19th-century movement, anarchism had theoretical roots in the writings of two English social reformers of the two previous centuries: Gerrard Winstanley and William Godwin. Winstanley was a 17th-century agrarian reformer who believed that land should be divided among all the people. Godwin, in a book entitled 'Political Justice' (1793), argued that authority is unnatural and that social evils arise and exist because people are not free to live their lives according to the dictates of reason.

It was the French political writer Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who coined the term anarchism and laid the theoretical foundations of the movement. In many ways Proudhon's thought was similar to socialism (see Socialism). He urged the abolition of private property and the control of the means of production by the workers. Instead of government Proudhon desired a federal system of agricultural and industrial associations. (See also Proudhon.)

Proudhon's theories attracted many followers, among them the Russians Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman; the Italian Enrico Malatesta; the Frenchman Georges Sorel; and the American Paul Goodman. These individuals all elaborated theories of anarchism based on Proudhon's work. (See also Bakunin; Kropotkin.)

There were several different tendencies within anarchism. For some, the only means to change society was terrorism. Malatesta, for example, advocated "propaganda by the deed," a point of view that led to a number of political assassinations (see Assassination). Others, including Sorel, tried to combine the goals of anarchism with those of trade unions, in a movement called anarcho-syndicalism. The main tool of this movement was the general strike, by which anarcho-syndicalists hoped to achieve their goal of abolishing capitalism and the state and of establishing organized worker production units.
It was the economic and social change wrought by the Industrial Revolution that led to the proliferation of political theories such as anarchism, communism, and socialism. Followers of the three movements were at first allied in their basic desire to overthrow the existing political order; however, the anarchists soon split from the others. While the communists wished to take control of the state, the anarchists wished to abolish the state altogether. Anarchism continued as a mass movement until the end of World War II. It was especially strong in Spain, where anarchists played an active role in the Spanish Civil War (see Spanish Civil War). The movement finally declined because of the success of communism in the Russian Revolution and because of the suppression of anarchists by Fascist governments in Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s.

Although there was a brief revival of interest in anarchism during the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1950s and 1960s, anarchism persists primarily as an ideal, a warning against the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of governmental or economic institutions. (See also Communism.)


Some Leading Anarchists

Some prominent persons are not included below because they are covered in the main text of this article or in other articles in Compton's Encyclopedia.

Goldman, Emma (1869-1940). Born in Kovno (now Kaunas), Lithuania. Immigrated to the United States in 1885; became associated with Russian anarchist Alexander Berkman. Carried on anarchist propaganda and activities until 1917, when she was arrested for obstructing the war effort. After two years in prison, she was deported to Russia. She left there after two years and later lived in England and Canada. Died in Toronto, Ont.

Goodman, Paul (1911-72). Born in New York City. Writer and lecturer who espoused anarchism in the 1930s. Urged educational decentralization in his book 'Growing Up Absurd', which made him popular with protesters of the 1960s. Also an author of poems, plays, and short stories.

Malatesta, Enrico (1853-1932). Born in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, in what is now Italy. Anarchist who promoted "the insurrectionary deed," an act of terrorism done to change society. Spent 35 years in exile, mainly in London, but returned to Italy after an amnesty in 1919.

Most, Johann (1846-1906). Born in Augsburg, Bavaria (now in Germany). Publisher of socialist and anarchist newspapers. Imprisoned in both Germany and France for his views, he immigrated to the United States in the early 1880s. After several imprisonments there, he abandoned the anarchist philosophy.

Sorel, Georges (1847-1922). Born in Cherbourg, France. Social philosopher and author. He became a convert to Marxism in 1893, but by 1902 had turned altogether against government, even under communism. Adopted revolutionary syndicalism as the means of social change. Author of 'Reflections on Violence'. Died in Boulogne-sur-Seine, France.

Stirner, Max (1806-56). Pseudonym of was Johann Kaspar Schmidt. Born in Bayreuth, Bavaria (now in Germany). Published 'The Ego and His Own' in 1845 under the name Stirner. The book was an attack on all philosophical systems and an exaltation of the absolute individual. He asserted that one has no obligations except to oneself. He saw the state as the enemy of the people and proposed a rebellion of all individuals instead of a political revolution that would only establish another state.


---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1994, 1995 Compton’s NewMedia, Inc.
(http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-mindcontrol-anarchism.html)

I like how you skipped over my first few arguments. You call your self an anarchist; I find that comical. Anyone who believes himself or herself an anarchist must be a true punk, no doubt.

Lets look at the definitions of anarchy for a moment.

adombomb222
06-21-2008, 09:24 PM
And... (?)

Is that your argument; yet another definition? I'm not going to take the time to read the entire thing, but from the parts I read, it’s the exact definition I gave just with more detail. I don’t understand what the point of your post was. You need to post more then my quote and a definition.

Also I found this very interesting:

"There were several different tendencies within anarchism. For some, the only means to change society was terrorism. Malatesta, for example, advocated "propaganda by the deed," a point of view that led to a number of political assassinations."

So, if I read that correctly, terrorism (chaos) is used to promote and reign in Anarchy? And the “deed” as a propaganda tool, carrying out political assassinations in order to get an anarchical state? How ridiculous is that? And you wonder why chaos is always associated with anarchy. However, when such acts are carried out, is it by the people as a whole? Or some organized group hoping to bring in anarchy, because to me that doesn’t seem in the anarchist sprit. I’m pretty sure that political assassinations are carried out by extremist groups (terrorist) who have their own agenda in mind. Therefore, wouldn’t that make anarchist an extremist group?

Now, before you jump on me, you tru punxs out there, I’m not saying that anarchist ideals promote over throwing governments, terrorism and political assassinations to get to an anarchical society. But it does seem that in the past terrorism has been used to promote anarchy.

adombomb222
06-21-2008, 09:34 PM
There will obviously always be different ideas and morals. I didnt consider anything else of course. Though you're wrong when you say that anarchy means everyone must agree. That is the definition of a dictatorship. The term "anarchist" in a way is wrong too as it only focuses on the lack of government and state upheld laws. An anarchist society still has direct-democracy where the majority will make the decisions. Let's say for example a school is being built in one commune, and the decisions around it would be made by the majority.

Pretty much as it is today, but today we have representatives in the parliaments who make these decisions where that progress in a direct-democratic state would be made by the people directly without middle hands.


Ok then you’re riding on more of communistic and direct democratic ideas. What you’re talking about is not anarchy no matter how you look at it. You may want to think that your ideas are anarchical, but they’re not. You’re leaning more toward communism with influence from a true democracy. So instead of calling yourself an anarchist you can call yourself a commie.

Satanic_Surfer
06-21-2008, 10:22 PM
Ok then you’re riding on more of communistic and direct democratic ideas. What you’re talking about is not anarchy no matter how you look at it. You may want to think that your ideas are anarchical, but they’re not. You’re leaning more toward communism with influence from a true democracy. So instead of calling yourself an anarchist you can call yourself a commie.
Not a commie, a libertarian socialist. Such as all anarchists.

There is nothing that says a state-free society would necessarily be capitalism. Anarchists oppose that idea and argues that the state is a capitalist invention and has its role in capitalism. Anarchists does not only want the state-free society but the class-free society aswell. Wich is the pure definition of communism. Only taking the state-free part out would instead make it neoliberalism and put it far to the right on the political scale.

It's called anarchism because we want to reach that goal (of anarchy) through a state of anarchy unlike the authoritarian communists who are on to the ideas of "the proletarian dictatorship". I guess you simply made the discovery that anarchists are libertarian socialists.

adombomb222
06-22-2008, 01:27 AM
Yet you're still calling yourself something else. Why do you insist your self as an anarchist? You’re spiting out words that are changing the base definition by which you’ve said you stand by. Every time holes have been poked into your definition you’ve changed the very fabric of what you believe in. I believe, sir that, that is a propaganda tool that is used by tyrants – changing the very definition of what you say you are and what you stand for. You’ve been using clever word choice, however your grammar belittles you.

I’ll be honest with you; you have thrown out terms, which have stumped me, and I’ve looked them up. And though your term “Libertarian Socialist” does relate to anarchy: modern day anarchist rather be called libertarian as a result of what I mentioned before, “Propaganda By Deed”. Which resulted in many political assassinations, because the men who ran the Anarchy movement turned to violence, because they believed it was the only way to over throw the government. Yet you insist you are an anarchist, and yet a libertarian at the same time.

“Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organization and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.”

Satanic_Surfer
06-28-2008, 07:19 AM
Well im not a tyrant, that's for sure. :p

But i think it might base on the different definitions of the words. The right-wing anarchists (yeah not a very proper term but you know what i mean) is almost exclusively an american thing. Perhaps depending on the american political climate. Meanwhile overhere in Sweden anarchism is a leftist ideology all the way through. Again it is probably related to the political climate where even the right wing parties has to come through as "workers parties" in order to stand a chance in the elections.

In Europe anarchists has for quite a while been much engaged in antifascist activities. I guess unlike in the US, we have a bunch of nazis overhere, and with a history of some "not so humanist" european nations, fighting off the extreme right has been the main target for long. And overhere human right issues such as freedom of speech, homosexuality issues and so on are much seen as leftist issues.

The few actual libertarians there are here stand further away from the anarchists. Although we do get together with them in some issues such as integrity issues alike to the "Patriot Act" and filesharing. Other than that, the anarchists are mostly engaged in antifascism and working union activities.

iPunk247
07-12-2008, 03:41 AM
What Is Anarchism?

( The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition )

anarchism (an´urkizum)

[Gr.,=having no government], theory that equality and justice are to be sought through the abolition of the state and the substitution of free agreements between individuals. Central to anarchist thought is the belief that society is natural and that men are good but are corrupted by artificial institutions. Also central in anarchism are the belief in individual freedom and the denial of any authority, particularly that of the state, that hinders man's development. Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoic philosophy, is regarded as the father of anarchism. In the Middle Ages the anarchist tradition was closely linked to utopian, millenarian religious movements such as the Brethren of the Free Spirit of the 13th cent. and the Anabaptists of the 16th cent. The philosophy of modern political anarchism was outlined in the 18th and 19th cent. by William Godwin, P. J. Proudhon, and others. Mikhail Bakunin attempted to orient the First International toward anarchism but was defeated by Karl Marx. Bakunin gave modern anarchism a collectivist and violent tone that has persisted despite the revisionary efforts of Piotr Kropotkin and Leo Tolstoy. Political anarchism in Russia was suppressed by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution. Anarchism's only real mass following was in Latin countries, where its doctrines were often combined with those of syndicalism, especially in Spain. In the United States, early anarchists such as Josiah Warren were associated with cooperatives and with utopian colonies. After the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886 and the assassination of President McKinley in 1901 a law was passed forbidding anarchists to enter the country. The Sacco-Vanzetti Case attests to the fear of anarchism in the United States. As an organized movement, anarchism is almost dead, but it retains importance as a philosophical attitude and a political tendency. See Roderick Kedward, The Anarchists (1971); Gerald Runkle, Anarchism, Old and New (1972); Max Nettlau, History of Anarchism (3 vol., 1978).

Except as otherwise permitted by written agreement, the following are prohibited: copying substantial portions or the entirety of the work in machine readable form, making multiple printout thereof, and the other uses of the work inconsistent with U.S. and applicable foreign copyright and related laws.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. Copyright ©1993, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.

anarchism (an´urkizum)., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, 01-01-1993.

top of page



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia

ANARCHISM. The word anarchism derives from a Greek term meaning "without a chief or head." Anarchism was one of the leading political philosophies to develop in Europe in the 19th century. The chief tenet of anarchism is that government and private property should be abolished. Also part of anarchism is the concept that the people should be allowed to live in free associations, sharing work and its products.

Although a 19th-century movement, anarchism had theoretical roots in the writings of two English social reformers of the two previous centuries: Gerrard Winstanley and William Godwin. Winstanley was a 17th-century agrarian reformer who believed that land should be divided among all the people. Godwin, in a book entitled 'Political Justice' (1793), argued that authority is unnatural and that social evils arise and exist because people are not free to live their lives according to the dictates of reason.

It was the French political writer Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who coined the term anarchism and laid the theoretical foundations of the movement. In many ways Proudhon's thought was similar to socialism (see Socialism). He urged the abolition of private property and the control of the means of production by the workers. Instead of government Proudhon desired a federal system of agricultural and industrial associations. (See also Proudhon.)

Proudhon's theories attracted many followers, among them the Russians Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman; the Italian Enrico Malatesta; the Frenchman Georges Sorel; and the American Paul Goodman. These individuals all elaborated theories of anarchism based on Proudhon's work. (See also Bakunin; Kropotkin.)

There were several different tendencies within anarchism. For some, the only means to change society was terrorism. Malatesta, for example, advocated "propaganda by the deed," a point of view that led to a number of political assassinations (see Assassination). Others, including Sorel, tried to combine the goals of anarchism with those of trade unions, in a movement called anarcho-syndicalism. The main tool of this movement was the general strike, by which anarcho-syndicalists hoped to achieve their goal of abolishing capitalism and the state and of establishing organized worker production units.
It was the economic and social change wrought by the Industrial Revolution that led to the proliferation of political theories such as anarchism, communism, and socialism. Followers of the three movements were at first allied in their basic desire to overthrow the existing political order; however, the anarchists soon split from the others. While the communists wished to take control of the state, the anarchists wished to abolish the state altogether. Anarchism continued as a mass movement until the end of World War II. It was especially strong in Spain, where anarchists played an active role in the Spanish Civil War (see Spanish Civil War). The movement finally declined because of the success of communism in the Russian Revolution and because of the suppression of anarchists by Fascist governments in Italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s.

Although there was a brief revival of interest in anarchism during the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1950s and 1960s, anarchism persists primarily as an ideal, a warning against the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of governmental or economic institutions. (See also Communism.)


Some Leading Anarchists

Some prominent persons are not included below because they are covered in the main text of this article or in other articles in Compton's Encyclopedia.

Goldman, Emma (1869-1940). Born in Kovno (now Kaunas), Lithuania. Immigrated to the United States in 1885; became associated with Russian anarchist Alexander Berkman. Carried on anarchist propaganda and activities until 1917, when she was arrested for obstructing the war effort. After two years in prison, she was deported to Russia. She left there after two years and later lived in England and Canada. Died in Toronto, Ont.

Goodman, Paul (1911-72). Born in New York City. Writer and lecturer who espoused anarchism in the 1930s. Urged educational decentralization in his book 'Growing Up Absurd', which made him popular with protesters of the 1960s. Also an author of poems, plays, and short stories.

Malatesta, Enrico (1853-1932). Born in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, in what is now Italy. Anarchist who promoted "the insurrectionary deed," an act of terrorism done to change society. Spent 35 years in exile, mainly in London, but returned to Italy after an amnesty in 1919.

Most, Johann (1846-1906). Born in Augsburg, Bavaria (now in Germany). Publisher of socialist and anarchist newspapers. Imprisoned in both Germany and France for his views, he immigrated to the United States in the early 1880s. After several imprisonments there, he abandoned the anarchist philosophy.

Sorel, Georges (1847-1922). Born in Cherbourg, France. Social philosopher and author. He became a convert to Marxism in 1893, but by 1902 had turned altogether against government, even under communism. Adopted revolutionary syndicalism as the means of social change. Author of 'Reflections on Violence'. Died in Boulogne-sur-Seine, France.

Stirner, Max (1806-56). Pseudonym of was Johann Kaspar Schmidt. Born in Bayreuth, Bavaria (now in Germany). Published 'The Ego and His Own' in 1845 under the name Stirner. The book was an attack on all philosophical systems and an exaltation of the absolute individual. He asserted that one has no obligations except to oneself. He saw the state as the enemy of the people and proposed a rebellion of all individuals instead of a political revolution that would only establish another state.


---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia
Copyright © 1994, 1995 Compton’s NewMedia, Inc.
(http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-mindcontrol-anarchism.html)


.............n0 c0mments.............

adombomb222
07-13-2008, 01:09 AM
Thanks for wasting space shithead.

Personally, I believe that they’re a lot of people who just need to be killed… Just eliminated, like mass genocide through out the entire world. Anyone with gang-related tattoos and/or agenda epilated likes should just be shot in the head dragged to a pile and burnt. Violence to end violence, I know it sound weird… But I’m all for propaganda by the deed. I just believe that anyone willing to represent that they’d ignore morals and laws to be accepted in some shitty “family” just needs to be shot.

That’s just me; I don’t like people very much.

But really… if I had it my way, Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t be on maps anymore. Just let the world know, if you fuck with US we’ll fuck you up! Also I’d have my own genocide in the Sudan… Kill all those mother fucking Janjaweed! I hate the fact that people can kill each other stupid shit like that. Slaughtering people with machetes and raping every women you get your hands on all over oil… How stupid. That’s when you lose your humanity.