# (VERY General) What is your idea of anarchy?



## st1tch

A lot of my friends are "anarchists"- including myself- but we can never agree on anything. Which is pretty funny, seeing as how a true anarchist state would need almost a consensus on everything. (There's a statement that could cause conversation already..)

I'm going to apologize if my following thoughts are a bit all-over-the-place, so I'm going to number each thought as different issues I have with my "fellow" anarchists.

1) I personally look at anarchy as a tool that will better our civilization, and not so much a political state after the revolution, and a lot of people think that that isn't a true anarchist. But my main issue with anarchy being a political state that would actually work better then what we have now is no one can come up with any better ideas! Everyone is good at complaining about what they DON'T like in our society, but they rarely come up with realistic ways to make it better.

2) My issues with revolution: I feel that we -this is terrible, but I mean "we" as in the rich, western world for the most part- have worked on OUR democracy- which is very different then a TRUE democracy- for over 300 years, and it HAS slowly been getting better throughout that period of time (i.e people aren't killed for believing a slightly different version of the popular religion, religion is no longer shoved down our throat as a way to keep people in line). SO, keeping all that in mind, ENTIRELY changing everything seems really stupid! If people had plans on how to make the transition of societal changes not fuck over just about everyone else, then I would understand, but NONE of the anarchists I've talked to seem to have any fucking idea! They just want something else, that they haven't even worked out what it is! The grass is always greener on the other side, I guess. It seems that people just want to take the easy route (total revolution, hoping it works out), as supposed to the maybe more effective route (protesting, lobbying, and all that other "direct action" that never seems to do anything, but actually does over a long period of time). Give me some thoughts on that, because if anyone has thought it through on how a revolution would work, I would love to hear them. 

3) This is also an issue I have with a revolution. Different kinds of anarchism. This is something that's always made me laugh, because the different sects of anarchism are as different as the left-wing parties and the right-wing parties we vote for now! I'm just imagining these people having to figure out how they were going to work together to make everyone happy! I suppose everyone could survive in small knit tribes, just avoiding those with other beliefs, but that seems like there is a lot of room for corruption.

4) MY philosophy on anarchy. I think that anarchy is a mind set for thinking outside-the-political-box, it's removing yourself from the conventional way of thinking to better solve problems. I think its EXTREMELY important for people in this society to consider themselves "anarchists". It always gives them a critical view on issues that the government, or corporations, or police may have fucked up on. And by people addressing the issues, the issues slowly get solved, whether it's a bill being passed to change the problem right away, a cop being fired for abuse of power, or a longer- but equally as important- moral-shift in society. Consider the 60's, no one respected the hippies until probably 20 years later, when people were like "Hey! Peace isn't so bad of an idea, maybe I SHOULD look at the war my government is waging overseas instead of blindly, patriotically agreeing with it!" And this WAS an issue, up until Vietnam, people usually got excited about going to war! The hippies DID change things, you just wouldn't know it until you look at the 20 years it took them to do it. Am I too off-topic? I think that you guys understand what I'm trying to say here. Basically, anarchy is the modern-day "peace" revolution of the 60s. 

5) Anarcho-communism. I think this is something worth looking at, because the similarities these anarchists have to the Russian revolution is scary. I've gotten really into anarcho-communism for very not-anarchist ideals. I just like the idea of fighting police on the streets, it is a guilty pleasure I try to separate from my anarchist beliefs as much as possible. But if these people ACTUALLY overthrew the government, I think it would turn to fascism before you could finish a 40. These people fascinate me as much as the terrify me. Anyone here consider themselves an anarcho-communist who would care to ease my fears? 

So yeah, just a couple topics I think are interesting to discuss, and there were a couple questions there I'd like to hear answers to. 

Rant away!


----------



## Franny

I really will give a more substantial reply to this. But....



st1tch said:


> (i.e people aren't killed for believing a slightly different version of the popular religion, religion is no longer shoved down our throat as a way to keep people in line).



are you sure about this?


----------



## chompchompchomsky

In regards in point 5), you should read Arthur Koestler. He has an wonderful essay on how the function of revolution is to establish dictatorship. He covers a lot of the ideas you're talking about.


----------



## chompchompchomsky

Franny said:


> I really will give a more substantial reply to this. But....
> 
> 
> 
> are you sure about this?



I think that's a totally "where you happen to live" issue. Of course if you live in tennesse or Punjab, going around spouting "anarchy" and "fuck religion" would get you shot. But most of the people shouting "anarchy" (at least in North America) do it with some degree of safety.


----------



## adragonfly

for me, anarchy is various things put together. Anarchy is governance through formal consensus. (BTW, learn the formal consensus process is really important since it gives a structure to the decision making process.) I don't believe in gold-backed money. Its weird enough that we value gold so much, but now we value a piece of paper that represents gold. For me, communal style living and anarchy go hand in hand. I am still working out the kinks on my ideals tho, like consequences to murder, rape, assault, and theft in an anarchist society.


----------



## whaleofashrimp

loveing my friends..shareing..being open toanyone who is nice with different views and beliefs then me...and trying to be kind
that is my political philosiphy
as for anarchisim...it's mostly (but not always) middle class suburban kids with issues against there parents and those who are (rightfully) alienated by the system but other then screaming and marching and finding beef with there natural allies have no new ideas or realo plans


----------



## Dirty Rig

I'm in it for the looting. Wake me up when we start stealin' shit.


----------



## drunken marauder

So wow I'm going to rant until wow... Maybe I should drink more cause I didnt understand this thread at all..... I was looking at this thread to see very generally what your idea of anarchy was.. But all I saw was the word anarchy a bunch.. So I still dont know what you think anarchy is.. 

With that being said hahahaha I will put my head on the chopping block with some unpopular views hahahahaa

I think that I have been living anarchy for years.. Is life not a perception I choose not to recognize the government of the United states. Fuck there laws fuck them.. Poof your gone baracka obama I dont believe you exist you socialist fuck go back to the hole you crawled out of.... Simple definition of anarchy a state of society without government or law.. Until they come kick in my door I dont think they are there...


5) Anarcho-communism. I think this is something worth looking at, Are you serious??? How is that anywhere absense of government???? A dictator deciding exactly how and when and what your going to do.. Because that is what happens every time its been tried.. Are we the might usa gonna be the first to have a great dictator?? Yes I may be a little right wing in thought very much so. Socialism/communism is so far from diy.. I dont need the government to show me help me give me. but I'll take it bleed them fucking dry..

If you look at the regime now... Its grrrrr freedom of speech is like in dire straights.... Because this new clown cant deal with some radio hosts attacking him... Any white christian man with a beard goes on a terrosist watch list.. I dont know 


So yea after all that ranting to me in general anarchy is policing and taking care of your own with out having some shit in an office in washington tell you to go make military boots.. Its a group or a core that works together because there going down the same highway.. Being proactive and doing things cause they need done I dont know maybe thats just some silly redneck shit...

Oh and I am just stoned this morning hope I wasnt to harsh...


----------



## chompchompchomsky

pritymic said:


> So wow I'm going to rant until wow... Maybe I should drink more cause I didnt understand this thread at all..... I was looking at this thread to see very generally what your idea of anarchy was.. But all I saw was the word anarchy a bunch.. So I still dont know what you think anarchy is..
> 
> With that being said hahahaha I will put my head on the chopping block with some unpopular views hahahahaa
> 
> I think that I have been living anarchy for years.. Is life not a perception I choose not to recognize the government of the United states. Fuck there laws fuck them.. Poof your gone baracka obama I dont believe you exist you socialist fuck go back to the hole you crawled out of.... Simple definition of anarchy a state of society without government or law.. Until they come kick in my door I dont think they are there...
> 
> 
> 5) Anarcho-communism. I think this is something worth looking at, Are you serious??? How is that anywhere absense of government???? A dictator deciding exactly how and when and what your going to do.. Because that is what happens every time its been tried.. Are we the might usa gonna be the first to have a great dictator?? Yes I may be a little right wing in thought very much so. Socialism/communism is so far from diy.. I dont need the government to show me help me give me. but I'll take it bleed them fucking dry..
> 
> If you look at the regime now... Its grrrrr freedom of speech is like in dire straights.... Because this new clown cant deal with some radio hosts attacking him... Any white christian man with a beard goes on a terrosist watch list.. I dont know
> 
> 
> So yea after all that ranting to me in general anarchy is policing and taking care of your own with out having some shit in an office in washington tell you to go make military boots.. Its a group or a core that works together because there going down the same highway.. Being proactive and doing things cause they need done I dont know maybe thats just some silly redneck shit...
> 
> Oh and I am just stoned this morning hope I wasnt to harsh...



If you please....perhaps clarify that one when you're sober...I really, really, have no idea what you're saying there.


----------



## whaleofashrimp

pritymic said:


> So wow I'm going to rant until wow... Maybe I should drink more cause I didnt understand this thread at all..... I was looking at this thread to see very generally what your idea of anarchy was.. But all I saw was the word anarchy a bunch.. So I still dont know what you think anarchy is..
> 
> With that being said hahahaha I will put my head on the chopping block with some unpopular views hahahahaa
> 
> I think that I have been living anarchy for years.. Is life not a perception I choose not to recognize the government of the United states. Fuck there laws fuck them.. Poof your gone baracka obama I dont believe you exist you socialist fuck go back to the hole you crawled out of.... Simple definition of anarchy a state of society without government or law.. Until they come kick in my door I dont think they are there...
> 
> 
> 5) Anarcho-communism. I think this is something worth looking at, Are you serious??? How is that anywhere absense of government???? A dictator deciding exactly how and when and what your going to do.. Because that is what happens every time its been tried.. Are we the might usa gonna be the first to have a great dictator?? Yes I may be a little right wing in thought very much so. Socialism/communism is so far from diy.. I dont need the government to show me help me give me. but I'll take it bleed them fucking dry..
> 
> If you look at the regime now... Its grrrrr freedom of speech is like in dire straights.... Because this new clown cant deal with some radio hosts attacking him... Any white christian man with a beard goes on a terrosist watch list.. I dont know
> 
> 
> So yea after all that ranting to me in general anarchy is policing and taking care of your own with out having some shit in an office in washington tell you to go make military boots.. Its a group or a core that works together because there going down the same highway.. Being proactive and doing things cause they need done I dont know maybe thats just some silly redneck shit...
> 
> Oh and I am just stoned this morning hope I wasnt to harsh...





abbie hoffman once sid that when someone tells you to love it or leave it...tell them you already left


this is one of my favorate sites..it has a list of countrys that dont exist anymore including many anarchist movements
http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/

click here..they made an atlas of the whole thing http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/atlas.htm


i'll find more sites...personaly i find the zapatesta movement to be the best source...local direct democracy villages that make there own decisions but are linked with others for common defense


----------



## whaleofashrimp

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/enter.html

here what i was looking for...lets go grab a realitivly uninhabited bhamian island and form our own "stateless country"

http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/usa.html
this has the one on the yippies near at the bottem


----------



## st1tch

Franny said:


> I really will give a more substantial reply to this. But....
> 
> 
> 
> are you sure about this?



Yes, and you do need to compare current state of affairs vs. 300 years ago. I admit there are still issues with our society, but as chompchompchompsky says, you can scream "ANARCHY" in safety.



NegroCommando said:


> for me, anarchy is various things put together. Anarchy is governance through formal consensus. (BTW, learn the formal consensus process is really important since it gives a structure to the decision making process.) I don't believe in gold-backed money. Its weird enough that we value gold so much, but now we value a piece of paper that represents gold. For me, communal style living and anarchy go hand in hand. I am still working out the kinks on my ideals tho, like consequences to murder, rape, assault, and theft in an anarchist society.



I've been interested in communal living, but I think that we would lose a lot of knowledge that we have due to larger scale communities (i.e libraries, the internet, this website to talk about how we feel about subjects such as this). I think you need to make a pro and cons list of our current society vs. tribal living. Actually, I'll just start it off really quick:

Pros For Commune Living
-learning to live off of the land as a community effort
-not needing to worry about huge governments making decisions that affect you

Cons For Commune Living
-not having a readily available source of information (the internet)
-setting up an education, healthcare, social assistance systems would be very difficult and open for corruption

Anyway, just a start, but I think you can see the issues that would come out of communal living, you can weigh it out for yourself though.



whaleofashrimp said:


> loveing my friends..shareing..being open toanyone who is nice with different views and beliefs then me...and trying to be kind
> that is my political philosiphy
> as for anarchisim...it's mostly (but not always) middle class suburban kids with issues against there parents and those who are (rightfully) alienated by the system but other then screaming and marching and finding beef with there natural allies have no new ideas or realo plans



That isn't exactly a political philosophy... what about healthcare? What about education? These are issues that aren't covered by individual morals. Those are good morals, I agree with everyone one of them, but it doesn't set up a system to live in. 

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that second part, sorry. If you mean that anarchy is mostly followed by people who don't think about it, I think that counts for every belief, some people are more intelligent then others. 



Dirty Rig said:


> I'm in it for the looting. Wake me up when we start stealin' shit.



At least you know what you're in to.


----------



## adragonfly

st1tch said:


> Cons For Commune Living
> -not having a readily available source of information (the internet)
> -setting up an education, healthcare, social assistance systems would be very difficult and open for corruption



about the internet, not at all. for the internet, we need servers, computers, and power.
Each commune could have a server that act as wireless nodes. each node (each server) is connected to other servers in other communes through long range antennas. The only problem with this right now is that the bandwidths or water they are called (im not too good with radio technology) are regulated by the fcc making this shit illegal. how it works now is the FCC rents certain bandwidths to certain companies that sells you internet.

the servers might be created by communes that specify in creating servers. it barters the servers away to other communes for shit they need. The computers will be created like this as well.

as for education, see my post about sudbury schools.

the only thing that is going to be a bitch is healthcare since it takes so much resources. I Guess if you have something really serious you die in this theoretical society. but hey, thats darwinism lol


----------



## whaleofashrimp

st1tch said:


> Yes, and you do need to compare current state of affairs vs. 300
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't exactly a political philosophy... what about healthcare? What about education? These are issues that aren't covered by individual morals. Those are good morals, I agree with everyone one of them, but it doesn't set up a system to live in.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that second part, sorry. If you mean that anarchy is mostly followed by people who don't think about it, I think that counts for every belief, some people are more intelligent then others.
> 
> 
> 
> At least you know what you're in to.



i think you hit the nail on the head
either people dont think about it and are doing it out of trendyness"
or people think about it so much that they get lost in the little details without comeing up with a useful "gameplan" for bringing there dreams about..also with this second group you find people comeing up with dogma

i dont see why treating other people right cant be a political philosiphy because the success of any "system" depends on it's participents...i belive that any change at this point will come less from a top down mass revolution and more from people opening there eyes and arms to each other one soul at a time..if enough people have love and respect for each other on thge individual level then organizing buracracys health care ,education and trade will become irrelvent..people will go out of there way to feed, share and care for each other

the closet system i've seen to this..is even though it's far from perfect is the rainbow gathering


----------



## st1tch

NegroCommando said:


> about the internet, not at all. for the internet, we need servers, computers, and power.
> Each commune could have a server that act as wireless nodes. each node (each server) is connected to other servers in other communes through long range antennas. The only problem with this right now is that the bandwidths or water they are called (im not too good with radio technology) are regulated by the fcc making this shit illegal. how it works now is the FCC rents certain bandwidths to certain companies that sells you internet.
> 
> the servers might be created by communes that specify in creating servers. it barters the servers away to other communes for shit they need. The computers will be created like this as well.
> 
> as for education, see my post about sudbury schools.
> 
> the only thing that is going to be a bitch is healthcare since it takes so much resources. I Guess if you have something really serious you die in this theoretical society. but hey, thats darwinism lol



That's a really fucking good idea for the internet, I never even thought about people making an effort to keep it alive after the revolution- but that is mad cool. 

As far as Darwinism, it's cruel- but it helps out the gene pool.



whaleofashrimp said:


> i think you hit the nail on the head
> either people dont think about it and are doing it out of trendyness"
> or people think about it so much that they get lost in the little details without comeing up with a useful "gameplan" for bringing there dreams about..also with this second group you find people comeing up with dogma
> 
> i dont see why treating other people right cant be a political philosiphy because the success of any "system" depends on it's participents...i belive that any change at this point will come less from a top down mass revolution and more from people opening there eyes and arms to each other one soul at a time..if enough people have love and respect for each other on thge individual level then organizing buracracys health care ,education and trade will become irrelvent..people will go out of there way to feed, share and care for each other
> 
> the closet system i've seen to this..is even though it's far from perfect is the rainbow gathering



I agree with you on the people trying to up teh PUNX points and get into anarchy, and that yes, people often focus to much on the little details and forget the overall big picture.

And I'm sorry, but people feeding, sharing, and caring for each other is nice and all, but how many people know how to set up chemo therapy or other "big" medical projects? I still think that your political philosophy is a personal philosophy.


----------



## drunken marauder

I dunno I think I stumbled into the wrong thread.. I hate politics thats why I dont believe in them....


----------



## lobotomy3yes

Anarchy is the absence of government/authority/what have you. Anarchism is the hodgepodge of musings about why this is a good thing and what that would look like. It's a rather confusing when we throw around all these terms without defining what they actually mean. 

I will probably write more on this later, but for now I will keep it short. I go back and forth between a few ideals. I am always a anti-civ libertarian socialist of sorts. I think some form of anarcho-communism/primitivism is probably what we should aim for.


----------



## oldmanLee

back to the original question : Anarchy for me has always ment having the good manners to co-operate without being pushed,and to respect the fact that others will differ from you.Sounds simple,but try getting it to work ........


----------



## st1tch

oldmanLee said:


> back to the original question : Anarchy for me has always ment having the good manners to co-operate without being pushed,and to respect the fact that others will differ from you.Sounds simple,but try getting it to work ........



I've noticed that "fundamental" or "basic" morals they teach you in kindergarten are becoming fairly hard to come by, respect and compassion are all anarchy would really need for the basics. 

That's harder then you'd think!


----------



## druid

If you want to get involved in a real anarchist movement try these links:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/

http://www.mindyourelephant.org/

Centralized communism does not work. See history of USSR for details.

Peace

Druid


----------



## uppercunt

Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron...Its what happens when thoughtful people get all label-happy...like "marxist-feminism"


----------



## lobotomy3yes

uppercunt said:


> Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron...Its what happens when thoughtful people get all label-happy...like "marxist-feminism"


You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about...nor what communism is. It ain't fucking Marxism and it ain't fucking state socialism.


----------



## uppercunt

lobotomy3yes said:


> You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about...nor what communism is. It ain't fucking Marxism and it ain't fucking state socialism.




no matter how many times you repeat the word fuck it doesn't make me wrong. I never said it was marxism or state socialism.


----------



## st1tch

Explain yourselves instead of just a "nu-huh" - "YUH-HUH!" battle.


----------



## fluke1986

"The anarchists conceive a society in which all the mutual relations of its member are regulated, not by laws, not by authorities, whether self-imposed or elected, but by mutual agreements between the members of that society, and by a sum of social customs and habits - not petrified by law, routine, or superstitions, but continually developing and continually readjusted, in accordance with the ever-growing requirements of a free life, stimulated by the progress of science, invention, and the steady growth of higher ideas. No ruling authorities, then. No government of man by man; no crystallisation and immobility, but a continual evolution - such as we see in Nature."

To me, anarchism is a "perfect society"...eutopia. But the thing is, everybody has a different ideal of what perfection actual is. That is why everyone you talk to has a different version on anarchism, thus the different braches, green-anarchist, anarcho-communism, and so forth. Anarchism is ideal but would never work in practice. To put everybody onto the same wavelength and thought process is a heaven on earth situation. The ideas are all great but just like communism, someone would fuck it up. how could you punish a person for rape or dumping nuclear waste in our rivers and prevent it from happening while still maintaining a true anarchist society? and communism isn't as evil as everyone thinks, its just that humans are not ready for it, and maybe never will be. even if communism or anarchy (or incorporating them) did work in a specific society, another society would come along and try to dismantle it. i'd put my money on america achieving that status. ha

Fuck yeah for darwanism. this whole "the human race must prevail" is a recipe for disaster. when you take control out of the hands of mother nature and put it into the hands of man, the human race is bound to fail. but thats a matter of over population of one species. (posting a thread about ones ideals on anarchism is also a recipe for disaster..ha)

and on the topic of revolution. real revoltion is not and ingredient in the molotov cocktail. that would be armed struggle. real revoltuion comes from within. learning to coexist with each other as well as nature. in some cases, that means revolting against human nature itself. until that is achieved, anarchy will remain a dream.


----------



## Skankin Jerry

Society, as it will always be, caters to alpha-male pack leaders rising above the rest in competition, leaving the more “androgynous” if you will, to bow. Therefor no "system" would allow this to work, and certainly the absence of a system could not exist. The alpha-male will always aspire to dominate, and if everything has a system, including ourselves, their will always be an established dictator after a revolution, and American society is a mere reflection of reasons why anarchy cannot work, as no society can remain untouched by the presence of the alpha-male.

No one man or idea can make anarchy just occur, nor can a movement work in the way it could be thought to in terms of communism and socialism.

If anarchy could exist I'd be terribly happy, but with the best ideas of anarchy having come from the late 19th century and as the world is still not able to or ready to act upon them, I doubt I'll see even a glimpse of anarchy in my lifetime.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

uppercunt said:


> no matter how many times you repeat the word fuck it doesn't make me wrong. I never said it was marxism or state socialism.


My bad on all the fucks.

What I should have said is that communism in its pure form is anarchy. The statists intended to get there by strict socialist states. If that makes any sense to you. It doesn't to me haha. 
Even Lenin didn't intend for the USSR to be permanent, he believed it would bring about the state-less communist system. Communists have always been split. Some are statists, like Lenin. Others see even socialist states as only adding to the problem. I am vastly oversimplifying here, but hopefully the point is still clear enough. Anarcho-communism is a broad term, and one can't lump everything into one statement. Communism gets a really bad rap because people love to associate it with statists and Marxists. There have been libertarian Marxists as well actually. That would be where your criticisms might be a bit more valid.


----------



## drunken marauder

lobotomy3yes said:


> My bad on all the fucks.
> 
> What I should have said is that communism in its pure form is anarchy. The statists intended to get there by strict socialist states. If that makes any sense to you. It doesn't to me haha.
> Even Lenin didn't intend for the USSR to be permanent, he believed it would bring about the state-less communist system. Communists have always been split. Some are statists, like Lenin. Others see even socialist states as only adding to the problem. I am vastly oversimplifying here, but hopefully the point is still clear enough. Anarcho-communism is a broad term, and one can't lump everything into one statement. Communism gets a really bad rap because people love to associate it with statists and Marxists. There have been libertarian Marxists as well actually. That would be where your criticisms might be a bit more valid.



Are you dense hahahahhaaha... How is a form of government anarchy.... That would umm be just.. Show me how a form of government can be.. Having no government???? Why not say you wont someone to give you everything and tell you to go to work?? Say you cant do it on your own and you need the Hillary Clinton "village" to hold your hand... Socialism/Communism represses any sort of indivuality, thought, expression, and art... Quote me on this one.. EVERYONE IS NOT EQUAL... There is a lot of lost lazy bastards who will never be anything because they are lazy scum fucks of all races and religons.. However but I like the idea if I apply myself I can be successful.. Yea I am most definitly am right wing.. I like the idea of prospering... Why should I only be able to eat meat once a month because everyone lives off the government?? Has anyone in here been to any former east block countries???? I have I was in the Ukraine 4 years after communism.. All I can say is no thank you.. Those people still whisper about the government..


----------



## 614 crust

Freedom, equality, respect, and cooperation to do what is needed to survive.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

drunken marauder said:


> Are you dense hahahahhaaha... How is a form of government anarchy.... That would umm be just.. Show me how a form of government can be.. Having no government???? Why not say you wont someone to give you everything and tell you to go to work?? Say you cant do it on your own and you need the Hillary Clinton "village" to hold your hand... Socialism/Communism represses any sort of indivuality, thought, expression, and art... Quote me on this one.. EVERYONE IS NOT EQUAL... There is a lot of lost lazy bastards who will never be anything because they are lazy scum fucks of all races and religons.. However but I like the idea if I apply myself I can be successful.. Yea I am most definitly am right wing.. I like the idea of prospering... Why should I only be able to eat meat once a month because everyone lives off the government?? Has anyone in here been to any former east block countries???? I have I was in the Ukraine 4 years after communism.. All I can say is no thank you.. Those people still whisper about the government..


Communism isn't a form of government, and it wasn't what was in Ukraine.


----------



## 614 crust

Wow LOL


----------



## drunken marauder

So tell me Genius what was the USSR??? What is North Korea thats what I want.. Oh wait can we have out own tiananmen square .. Where do I sign up???


----------



## christianarchy

I like Guerin's definition of anarchism as "the abolition of exploitation of man by man," which according to him is a goal that can only be realized in the absence of government. That's a fancy way of saying equality. I think that's really central to anarchism. I think most anarchists dislike the state because it brings about injustice and inequality. If somehow a government created equality between everyone (which I don't think is possible in the first place), I don't think anarchists would continue to be discontent with the state just because it's the state. The thing is, gov't can't exist without some people being better than others - which is why anarchism and equality go hand in hand, I do believe.

Thoughts? Agreements? Vomit?

EDIT: Equality means no violence, even if it's means to bring about an anarchist state. I think anarchism and non-violence go hand in hand as well. Violence is basically putting yourself above someone else, making yourself the government. Property destruction I'm back and forth on.


----------



## keg

anarchy=selfishness.i do not want anything from anyone and i do not want anyone to want anything from me.you do whatever you want.i do whatever i want.if you want to kill me,kill me.if i want to throw water on you i will.anarchy


----------



## lobotomy3yes

drunken marauder said:


> So tell me Genius what was the USSR??? What is North Korea thats what I want.. Oh wait can we have out own tiananmen square .. Where do I sign up???


State socialism.


----------



## Odal

I think the people insulting Anarcho-Communism have been brainwashed by the media. Dictatorship Communism does not equal Anarcho-Communism. Anarcho-Syndicalism is not the only valid path, Anarchy means to many things for us to keep fighting about. In the 1950s in Japan the Anarchists split up because of such arguments.

If any of you have studied Conflict Sociology or anything Marx has ever written, you will see this...



Karl Marx said:


> Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its destruction.[2] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism.



This idea is connected to a term anyone of you who have done any reading will also know. "Class Struggle." Basically, due to the nature of Capitalism, the ruling class will make their own enemies, the working class, who over time will revolt due to their majority, and over throw the capitalist system, in favor of a socialist system where the needs of the many are met, as they gain control over capital and product.

In theory, this would in time collapse to form a Pure Communist state, assuming people remembered the lessons they learned. This 'pure communism' 'libertarian communism' or 'anarcho-communism' is contrary to the state that formed in the USSR. (If anyone of you remember social studies, you'll remember Lenin was replaced by malicious dictator. He ruined it.) 

Now, if we weren't in a capitalist society where we were raised to know that money = power, a dictator might have not messed this Utopian image up. Money, it is what gets work done, it gets us materials, it provides with resources to live. This kind of path is individualism, the self is more important then the masses. Anarcho-Communists argue that this is what causes what people perceive as 'Human Greed'. We are what we are taught, pretty much.

Some Christians (Not church-goers, I mean personal Christians. I used to be a Black-Metal head, don't think I'm a religious nut.) belive that Jesus himself was an Anarchist. - and in a sense, I can see some allusions to Anarcho-Communism in his words. (Treat others as you would like to be treated etc...) (God is the only ruler... etc...) 

Don't bow to down to humans, stay free, and work together out of love for eachother.

Hope that clears up any biases against it, not trying to push it on you, just pointing out what you seem to not understand.

Done my rant now.


----------



## Dylan Seagull

Like someone said earlier in this post, everybody you talk to has a different perception of what anarchy "means to them". But it seems everybody can agree that anarchy goes hand-in-hand with equality and accepting that others views will differ from yours.

Then why do i see people fighting and criticizing others for there views/beliefs.
That's not very anarchy of you. =)


----------



## Odal

I was just trying to defend my viewpoint have nothing against theirs.


----------



## JungleBoots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semai

this.

devoid of all commodity, the people can live hand in hand, with gifts, and nothing but love.


----------



## Odal

That's an interesting link, and in my opinion, that is an example of anarcho-communism. It should be known as tribalism, in my opinion.


----------



## CanoeTramp

Anarchy has way to many adjectives, From now on I'm just a Libertarian. W/ libertarianism you're either right or left, and the lefties are a small minority.


----------



## JungleBoots

Odal said:


> That's an interesting link, and in my opinion, that is an example of anarcho-communism. It should be known as tribalism, in my opinion.


 well thats definately my anarcho- hopes. primitivist anarcho communism.


----------



## Odal

Glad I'm not alone on this site then .

Just kind of got worried at that first post, mentioning how it scares him haha.


----------



## madewithpaint

i honestly wish i could say anarchy is a good idea (cause it is), but it would never work because humans are selfish, greedy, and full of hate.

that's all really..


----------



## JungleBoots

i agree made, but what anti-civ, tribalism, and anarcho communism backs its theory on is that humans aren't inately greedy violent and selfish. it is the class struggles, the forms of oppression devised by upper classes, and the aspiration of the lower classes to catch up with the uppers that corrupts humanity's intrests. i think given the chance to be equal, and nonviolent humans can live nonviolent and greedless without such corruption.

My evidence for this is in the link i posted in the above post with the malasian indiginous people of the Semai.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I don't think humans are all these things by nature. It's really quite pointless to say what human nature is or isn't considering we ever tested our limits. If I can think it, I am pretty sure it is possible. At the very very very least, it is possible for the nice people to kill the oppressive people so we have that to fall back on haha.


----------



## st1tch

lobotomy3yes said:


> I don't think humans are all these things by nature. It's really quite pointless to say what human nature is or isn't considering we ever tested our limits. If I can think it, I am pretty sure it is possible. At the very very very least, it is possible for the nice people to kill the oppressive people so we have that to fall back on haha.



If the nice people kill the oppressive people... isn't that oppression? Or was that the joke?


----------



## christianarchy

JungleBoots said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semai
> 
> this.
> 
> devoid of all commodity, the people can live hand in hand, with gifts, and nothing but love.



do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.


----------



## JungleBoots

christianarchy said:


> do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.


 
as far as i know and as far as most indiginous tribes go, they are very very very suspicious of outsiders. not to mention no matter how much you absolutely love their way of life, i would be hard pressed to think an outsider could ever completely fit in there from out of the blue. I never read the actual reports of anthropologists studying the Semai so i dont know anything of the intricacies and traditions they uphold. but of course all of that can be learned, all of that can be adjusted to, and i would think eventually the people there could warm up to an outsider given they come to live entirely by their ways.

but in reality we as westerners have the ability to build a society like that as well, given it wont be easy and certainly wont be looked kindly upon by 'normal people' one might be able to create a commune type community living in a very similar way. Its kind of a personal dream of mine to do so. though, as a few people that know about the ideas i have say its still in the "napkin stage."


----------



## Odal

christianarchy said:


> do they take kindly to travelers with similar ideals? sounds like a place i'd spend my life tryingto get to.




If only, and so true. That's what some people think Jim Morrison of the Doors did. (Well at least some conspiracy nuts.) Ran away and joined a tribe. 'Wild Child.'


----------



## lobotomy3yes

st1tch said:


> If the nice people kill the oppressive people... isn't that oppression? Or was that the joke?


Killing isn't oppression by definition. Of course it certainly can be.



Think about it this way. There are rapists, abusers, nazis, presidents, and all around scummy people out there. These people's whole lives are built upon and around oppression and exploitation. Do you really think they will just give it up? 

That's kinda the thing with authority, it isn't voluntary.


So yes, eventually we are going to have to kill some of these people. Probably boatloads of them. And don't even tell me about equality. These people are the sole reason there is no equality.


I guess we could always go back to writing letters?


----------



## st1tch

lobotomy3yes said:


> Killing isn't oppression by definition. Of course it certainly can be.
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it this way. There are rapists, abusers, nazis, presidents, and all around scummy people out there. These people's whole lives are built upon and around oppression and exploitation. Do you really think they will just give it up?
> 
> That's kinda the thing with authority, it isn't voluntary.
> 
> 
> So yes, eventually we are going to have to kill some of these people. Probably boatloads of them. And don't even tell me about equality. These people are the sole reason there is no equality.
> 
> 
> I guess we could always go back to writing letters?



Okay, I'm just going to take the devils advocate here. Although I agree that it would be convenient (and perhaps essential) to kill all of the people who would fuck up an anarchist society, it would contradict everything we stand for. You can't say that you have the right to choose who lives and who dies (except for the nazis.. there's a very interesting book- the name escapes me- written by a bunch of pyschologists explaining how the nazis were actually evil in every sense of the word, very few other groups of people have been able to pull that off). I think that individual people might kill rapists and other such scum when they fucked with them, but making a community decision to start a mass-killing is wrong and against everything anarchy stands for. If we don't stick to our morals (equality for _ALL_), then I'm not so sure an anarchist society would be ideal.


----------



## Delerious

Whoa, nice thread dude.

For me I've always thought of anarchy as a methodology or I guess as you put it a tool. In a not anarchist state one can be an anarchist. That doesn't mean advocating change or even wishing for a state that is considered anarchist.

Being an anarchist in our current(western rich) society means that your actions are governed by yourself, not the laws or norms. The reason you don't kill is do to your morality and ethics. The reason you break certain laws such as those inhibiting you from dumpstering is because you don't see them as reasonable. 

Essentially for me, modern day anarchism without the advocation of an anarchist state is when your actions are governed by your reason and morality as opposed to paper, assault, fear of assault, or social stigma.

As for an anarchist state,

I envision a community of any size where the citizens are working for themselves and by themselves. This doesn't mean they can't work together, but when they do, it would be because of a mutual interest, not because of legislation.

So how can a bunch of people with self-centered interests form a functional society?

It is my belief that human interest and curiosity would be the fuel of most peoples jobs / time consuming activities. It is also my belief that there are people interested in a myriad of different occupations or activities which all are needed to form a society.

Let's consider for a second a very small and simple example.

We have 5 people,
1, 2, 3, 4, and five.

1 likes carpentry(there are people who like carpentry and do so without the provocative of money). 

2 likes helping other people and is very interested in medicine.

3 enjoys being a protector and a physical enforcer

4 enjoys music and art, and wishes to play and paint.

5 is infatuated with baking and cooking.

1 needs things to build and construct since he likes building. 2,3,4, and 5 need homes. 1 now has a very large amount of work that enjoys doing which in turn benefits the rest of the population.

2 needs people to help. He likes helping people of course. 1 hurts himself while building houses and 2 now has something to do. 5 also cuts himself while cooking. and 3 injured his leg practicing martial arts. 2 is stocked full of things to do.

3 Notices that while 5 was being stitched up by 2, some dogs started trying to eat the meat 5 was cooking. 3, now recovered from his leg injury roundhouse kicks the dogs and they leave...sorry guys I thought it was funny.

4 just wrote this beautiful new song on violin and finished her latest painting. She plays music for everyone as they go about their daily activities and decorates their houses with her artwork.

5 recovers and with a catchy tune in his head finishes dinner.

A lot of people consider this communism. People all working together. The key difference is where the incentive lies(I can't spell the correct lie, anyway). In communism people work together with the idea of working together. In my anarchist state people work together as a by-product of working for themselves. It's an accidental harmony. To put it in music terms, everyone wants to play a note, and they act selfishly and play their notes, they notes sounded at the same time or in a proper sequence or order form chords and songs. That is the way I envision society.

The reason I like this so much is because there is noone saying what should be done, there is no one forcing anyone to do something they don't wish to do, and anyone can pursue their passions(which in our society, very LITTLE people get to do so).

Clearly I'm not a politics major and don't have the care or motivation to formulate a framework for the larger societies. I also didn't incorporate wankers. 

If anyone IS interested in this ideology on the mass scale there are a couple speakers and theorists who have VERY reasonable ideas which include health care, millitary, police, art, construction, and almost everything we have now. I'll try and find some links, I lost them a couple years ago when my old harddrive died and haven't been able to find them since.

I hope you guys catch my drift on this idea.

Also, there are already societies which function similarily to what I've mentioned. If you consider a swamps ecosystem for instance it functions quite similar. Everything in it wishes to survive on it's own, nothing goes out it's way to ensure the survival of other living things but do to it's own nature, placement, and function, a harmonious society is formed.

Power to the people. We're not stupid, we're not incapable, and we're free.


----------



## FilXeno

Odal said:


> This idea is connected to a term anyone of you who have done any reading will also know. "Class Struggle." Basically, due to the nature of Capitalism, the ruling class will make their own enemies, the working class, who over time will revolt due to their majority, and over throw the capitalist system, in favor of a socialist system where the needs of the many are met, as they gain control over capital and product.
> 
> In theory, this would in time collapse to form a Pure Communist state, assuming people remembered the lessons they learned.


Not necessarily. He never says that it would fall into a PURE communist state, just like the state we are in now is neither a Pure Democracy or Pure Capitalist state.
Also, to assume people remember the lessons they learn is a giant assumption. Statistically, they probably won't.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

st1tch said:


> Okay, I'm just going to take the devils advocate here. Although I agree that it would be convenient (and perhaps essential) to kill all of the people who would fuck up an anarchist society, it would contradict everything we stand for. You can't say that you have the right to choose who lives and who dies (except for the nazis.. there's a very interesting book- the name escapes me- written by a bunch of pyschologists explaining how the nazis were actually evil in every sense of the word, very few other groups of people have been able to pull that off). I think that individual people might kill rapists and other such scum when they fucked with them, but making a community decision to start a mass-killing is wrong and against everything anarchy stands for. If we don't stick to our morals (equality for _ALL_), then I'm not so sure an anarchist society would be ideal.


I come from the position that there are lives not worth living, IE those that oppress others to an extreme. As for what anarchy stands for, it stands for don't fuck us over. Only recently was it ever pacifist movement.


----------



## derailed

lobotomy3yes said:


> Only recently was it ever pacifist movement.



This is news to me. Anarchy is only a pacifist movement in this country, and that's because the vast majority of anarchists in the United States are non-committed middle class kids. Most of the anarchist groups outside of the US are still very much militant movements.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

Look up anarchists in the US during the 1800s and early 1900s. I should have said, "only recently has there ever been a sizable pacifist anarchist movement."


Seriously though check out the Galleanists and shit like the Haymarket affair, which is the origin of May Day. Yup, May Day dates back to anarchists hucking a bomb at cops and blowing 8 of em to bits.


----------



## adragonfly

Anarchism should be a pacifist movement in my opinion. I see Militant anarchists as hypocrites. Creating an ideology around creating tension within society will create more tension. I don't participate in riots or demonstrations for this reason, since it is just going to create more divided-ness and friction. Anarchism from the idea of peace, love, and community will move towards peace, love, and community.


----------



## st1tch

I would like to point out that there is a difference between militant anarchism and mass-slaughter as lobotomy3yes was suggesting. I'm all for taking it to the streets in the right situation, but it doesn't always solve everything and often just gives the cause a bad name.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

Mass slaughter? Nah. I'm not talking about organized execution. Shit. Just be prepared to have to kill a motherfucker who is going to kill your or die trying before he lets you be free.


----------



## st1tch

Oh, well then there's no disagreement.


----------



## User Name

My idea, without rule.



adragonfly said:


> Anarchy is governance through formal consensus.
> 
> I am still working out the kinks on my ideals tho, like consequences to murder, rape, assault, and theft in an anarchist society.



Anarchy≠governance. Also, consensus is oppression of the individual under the bloated mass of the majority.

The consequence is death.



adragonfly said:


> Anarchism should be a pacifist movement in my opinion. I see Militant anarchists as hypocrites. Creating an ideology around creating tension within society will create more tension. I don't participate in riots or demonstrations for this reason, since it is just going to create more divided-ness and friction. Anarchism from the idea of peace, love, and community will move towards peace, love, and community.



Pacifism is inept. But I'll take the bait here. If you should not revolt or promote insurrection, what are your ideas for destroying a centralized state with an economy and all that goes with that?


----------



## JungleBoots

im a pacifist anarchist on one ground so far, the current psychological climate is not ready yet for a revolution (the proper climate being when people are aware of their status, the evils of the system, and collectively desire to do something about it). anarchism is far to radical for people very comfortable in their current lifestyles to sacrifice such comforts to get in line to throw bricks at police men.

if anyone thinks that inciting riots, bombing mother fuckers, and throwing bricks at police men will lead to anything other than getting themselves in a shit ton of trouble they have something comming.

thats something a lot of communists tell me. while anarchists and communists essentially have the same goal, eliminating a hierarchial system of governance so as to create a system of equality and establish the "workers"/individual self governance. Communists tend to still think that anarchists are too impatient with the revolution, especially violent anarchists, whom attempt to incite riots and are willing to commit terrorist acts. Any action towards the revolution before the psycological climate is in the right place to host a revolution will only be met with reactionaries. Reactionaries whom can very easily detriment the the coming of time when a revolution is a possibility.


I have to agree with the communists. and untill i think the psychologiacal climate is in proper form im going to work towards awareness through passive means. But you had better bet ill be throwing the molotovs with the best of them when the time for revolution does come.


----------



## tallhorseman

The reason I don't consider myself an Anarchist is made clear by this thread, a lack of clear definition of its meaning. The word Anarchy conjures up images from a Mad Max movie. I'm an idealist, and a Utopianist(my word). 

And before I step on any toes I will admit that I a am as clueless as a Bassett Hound as to the proper recipe to bring about said Utopia, if there is one. But I agree that equality is an essential ingredient, a complete eradication of all forms of slavery, hard or soft. But a forced Utopian state is just as oppressive to some as our current state is to others. This IS a rather Utopian state to racist old rich people...successful capitalists. 

I don't believe peace, Utopia, etc., can be forced. It has to be a unified desire. Everyone would have to want unity for it to be successful. 

All I can do is be what I want my world to be. When I feel like I want to pull the trigger on someone I remind myself that that would lower me to their level. I would be taking from them as they are taking from me. I don't participate in racism, or greed, or manipulation, and I hope that others will follow suit. 





christianarchy said:


> I like Guerin's definition of anarchism as "the abolition of exploitation of man by man," which according to him is a goal that can only be realized in the absence of government. That's a fancy way of saying equality. I think that's really central to anarchism. I think most anarchists dislike the state because it brings about injustice and inequality. If somehow a government created equality between everyone (which I don't think is possible in the first place), I don't think anarchists would continue to be discontent with the state just because it's the state. The thing is, gov't can't exist without some people being better than others - which is why anarchism and equality go hand in hand, I do believe.


----------



## User Name

JungleBoots said:


> the current psychological climate is not ready yet for a revolution (the proper climate being when people are aware of their status, the evils of the system, and collectively desire to do something about it).
> 
> if anyone thinks that inciting riots, bombing mother fuckers, and throwing bricks at police men will lead to anything other than getting themselves in a shit ton of trouble they have something comming.
> 
> while anarchists and communists essentially have the same goal, eliminating a hierarchial system of governance so as to create a system of equality and establish the "workers"/individual self governance.



So how does one measure societies "readiness". That kind of "wait and see" attitude seems strangely similar to a lot of Christian principles and I've encountered a lot of both.

Those things in and of themselves are mostly useless in a long term time line. I don't know how efficient passing out literature and speaking down to people about how they should live is any better. Anarchism has been around for hundreds of years and hasn't swayed many people yet.

I don't want *any* system of governance.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I can wait very patiently for that perfect, end-all-be-all anarchy to happen (ha). Seriously though, the "end goal" of anarchy isn't something that can be brought about by a simple revolution. We have to create a culture of anarchy for that. The insurrectionists who think it is just going to happen are just really pissed off and hyped up. I can't hold it against them.

I am an insurrectionist, and I would be one anarchist or not. Any society that suppresses and marginalizes people because they are different, by violent means among others, deserves revolution. When you're deemed a piece of shit by society, things become little bit more drastic. Actually, a fucking lot more drastic.

I don't want to see anyone hurt, I especially don't want to have to hurt anyone, but most of all I don't want to be hurt for being different. Even though that shit, is THEIR fault, I'm not gonna sit around waiting for them to change all the while being victimized. I thought up a saying for myself on this matter, "If violence is their game, let violence be our name." So as long as you, or any other "innocents" aren't threatening me with violence, you don't have to worry about whether I am violent, hence insurrectionary or nor.

But as long as there are piece of shit redneck bigot motherfuckers out there killing queers, I do have to worry about THEM being violent. It's pretty simple. We can't afford to wait for hate crime laws to be passed, or marriage bills to be voted in. If the fuckers want to use force against us then damn right I'm going to be violent. 

That's why I believe in insurrection. Because we aren't truly free until no group is oppressed. And don't even say that I'm oppressing bigots. They don't want ME to exist among many others. When you (not directed at anyone particular) become a target, there is a good chance you will feel the same way, though obviously I can't speak on behalf of any marginalized group as a whole. 


Oh and when I say redneck, I mean the ignorant/bigot usage of the word which is most used. If you consider yourself a redneck by some other standards and aren't these things, I don't mean you. The whole thing with that word is odd, but whatevs.


----------



## christianarchy

JungleBoots said:


> but in reality we as westerners have the ability to build a society like that as well, given it wont be easy and certainly wont be looked kindly upon by 'normal people' one might be able to create a commune type community living in a very similar way. Its kind of a personal dream of mine to do so. though, as a few people that know about the ideas i have say its still in the "napkin stage."



i havent put ideas it on a napkin yet but i feel ya there!


----------



## JungleBoots

User Name said:


> So how does one measure societies "readiness". That kind of "wait and see" attitude seems strangely similar to a lot of Christian principles and I've encountered a lot of both.
> 
> Those things in and of themselves are mostly useless in a long term time line. I don't know how efficient passing out literature and speaking down to people about how they should live is any better. Anarchism has been around for hundreds of years and hasn't swayed many people yet.
> 
> I don't want *any* system of governance.


 
well whatever you want to do, thats your perogative. if you honestly think you can strike up a riot whenever and a revolution will follow you are more than welcome to try, but im pretty sure you know that wont happen today, tomarrow or five years from now.

how you measure readyness depends on the populations awareness of alternatives to the current system. also it depends upon the frustration of the people in said current system and their awareness of such frustrations. and it depends on the people's willingness to support radical alternative groups.

i would say inorder for a revolution to be successful you only need about 10 percent of the population to back the idea of violent revolution. thats about the percent of population in all of russia that backed the Bolsheviks, and it was successful. however about 70 percent of the population of St. Petersburg (the capitol of the Russian Provisional government) backed the Bolsheviks which had a great deal of influence in actually deposing the provisional government and establishing the St. Petersburg soviet in power.

im not suggesting handing pamphlets out, and "talking down" to people. education, and awareness is hardly talking down to people. what i suggest even more than activism is creating a lifestyle for yourself, which we talk about on this site, and in doing that showing people that there are alternatives to the way they live that are completely viable, self-sustaining, and liberating. thus really helping to raise the level of awareness of alternatives to the current system, raising the level of awareness of individual frustration with the current system.

and your reply to my use of the term Governance is simply an issue of symantics.


----------



## BrainWreck

the anarchist movement and community during the spanish civil is a very interesting example of a working anarchistic community.


----------



## adragonfly

User Name said:


> Pacifism is inept. But I'll take the bait here. If you should not revolt or promote insurrection, what are your ideas for destroying a centralized state with an economy and all that goes with that?



The idea is to promote decentralization of the state until it seizes to exists. What if you convinced everybody in your neighborhood to live communally with each other, live closer together to one another (physically and with relationships), stop relying on electricity and gas bills, and became autonomous? That is a whole neighborhood that is not giving money to utility companies, and since the utility companies are taxed by the government, that is less money to the government as well. See how autonomy can be applied in all aspects of life. If enough people lived like this, the government would die like a monster dieing from starvation. promoting peace, love, community, and autonomy is, i believe, the best way.

good and evil are both parts of the same coin. good cannot exist with out evil, and evil cannot exist with out good. By fighting off evil you actually reinforce the notion of war between good and evil. By accepting evil as it is we reinforce peace.


----------



## adragonfly

BTW, I am very happy this topic exists. It is very good to discuss and share our own versions of an idealistic way of life.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

I'm glad it exists too. 


I've thought a lot about what you said dragon, like what if millions of people maxed their credit cards, cleared their banks, took out loans, went into tons of debt, and then just stayed in their foreclosed homes. What would the government do?


Well first of all I think it would be really REALLY hard to get that coordinated without government intervention in the first place. They don't WANT us to all unite, so they will keep us divided. I agree that we should build strong communities. I think that is the first step to this all, BUT I don't see how that would bring anything down. The cops will come for us. If we beat the cops (something actually quite doable), then they will send the military. If there is simply too much for the military to handle or we are too hard to pin down, then what? They will send in the private armies, the repo men, the collectors, and then they will pay even more people to oppose us. In a capitalist society, incentives are a pretty powerful tool...People eat that shit up. There is no way we can outlast their violence with pacifism. Derrick Jensen has it right. This culture is built on widespread violence, and maintained by widespread violence. How the fuck are we supposed to win a battle against not just an army, but an entire civilization based upon violence! 

We need strong communities, and we need to be able to say "no more" and then back it up. It doesn't have to be an insta-fix. At first, the government will just watch us and frustrate us, but they can't out and out slaughter communities feeding, clothing, and helping each other. They will try to pass new laws. We must be willing to break those laws. Maybe we are discreet about it even. But when we finally go to far and the cops roll into our neighborhoods with guns, what then? Either we hide and wait for them to divide & conquer, or we shoot back. Maybe we even shoot them first. When the soldiers come, we unleash all hell like never seen before. Take out the power, take out radio towers, burn the bridges. We turn things so upside down that soldiers will start to wonder if this is even worth winning for. We have to make it dangerous at this point, no choice. Guerilla tactics, and no fucking mercy. If anyone wants to lay down their guns, sure we will let them, but shit has to be made clear. 

Then we wait for the bomb. If it comes, we tried. If it doesn't, hopefully that means others around the country started doing the same thing.


Obviously this isn't a game plan. Just an anecdote to show what we are up against and how they operate. Either we have to make things so BIG and so chaotic that there is nothing left for them to salvage, or we have to make a destructive force BIG with a small amount of people. The second is more realistic considering the state of the anarchist movement today. It's all so divided and aimless that frankly I'm leaning more and more to just waiting til there are no more punks, crimethInc agents, and postlefts in the movement. It's a fad right now, and I am no longer excited by this popularity. Nothing gets done. Once it dies out, then anarchism will once again be a movement of libertarian socialists, anarchocommunists, anarchocollectivists, anarchosyndicalists, etc. just like the rest of the world is today. We will have learned some valuable lessons, and we will take advantage of the good things that the modern movement offered. Until then I'll just focus on issues that actually affect me, as opposed to busting my ass for the newest, hippest convergence or whatever the fuck.


----------



## User Name

JungleBoots said:


> well whatever you want to do, thats your perogative. if you honestly think you can strike up a riot whenever and a revolution will follow you are more than welcome to try, but im pretty sure you know that wont happen today, tomarrow or five years from now.
> 
> how you measure readyness depends on the populations awareness of alternatives to the current system. also it depends upon the frustration of the people in said current system and their awareness of such frustrations. and it depends on the people's willingness to support radical alternative groups.
> 
> i would say inorder for a revolution to be successful you only need about 10 percent of the population to back the idea of violent revolution. thats about the percent of population in all of russia that backed the Bolsheviks, and it was successful. however about 70 percent of the population of St. Petersburg (the capitol of the Russian Provisional government) backed the Bolsheviks which had a great deal of influence in actually deposing the provisional government and establishing the St. Petersburg soviet in power.
> 
> im not suggesting handing pamphlets out, and "talking down" to people. education, and awareness is hardly talking down to people. what i suggest even more than activism is creating a lifestyle for yourself, which we talk about on this site, and in doing that showing people that there are alternatives to the way they live that are completely viable, self-sustaining, and liberating. thus really helping to raise the level of awareness of alternatives to the current system, raising the level of awareness of individual frustration with the current system.
> 
> and your reply to my use of the term Governance is simply an issue of symantics.



I never said I'd want to nor did I mentioned "revolution".

Minus a few extremely short lived examples that doesn't seem to be realistic in civilized society. 

Not only were the Bolshevik ideals different (in that they had organized and hierarchical armies and centralized command) but the difference between Russian society of 1917 and any modern Western post Industrial society are stark. There were a lot of internal and external stresses on a low tech decaying Russian empire. A similar force in say, the US could easily be crushed because of it's centralized structure and visibility. You pulled that 10 percent essentially out of thin air.

People will feel it's talking down. That's also another Christianesque feature of most strains of Anarchy, this evangelical fervor. 

No, I literally want no governance. It's not that we both want "the people" to run a free mass society and we call it different things. I don't want a mass society.


----------



## User Name

adragonfly said:


> The idea is to promote decentralization of the state until it seizes to exists. What if you convinced everybody in your neighborhood to live communally with each other, live closer together to one another (physically and with relationships), stop relying on electricity and gas bills, and became autonomous? That is a whole neighborhood that is not giving money to utility companies, and since the utility companies are taxed by the government, that is less money to the government as well. See how autonomy can be applied in all aspects of life. If enough people lived like this, the government would die like a monster dieing from starvation. promoting peace, love, community, and autonomy is, i believe, the best way.
> 
> good and evil are both parts of the same coin. good cannot exist with out evil, and evil cannot exist with out good. By fighting off evil you actually reinforce the notion of war between good and evil. By accepting evil as it is we reinforce peace.



Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite _some_ examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.

I don't know where good and evil part came from, sounds kind of moralistic.


----------



## User Name

lobotomy3yes said:


> How the fuck are we supposed to win a battle against not just an army, but an entire civilization based upon violence!
> 
> Once it dies out, then anarchism will once again be a movement of libertarian socialists, anarchocommunists, anarchocollectivists, anarchosyndicalists, etc. just like the rest of the world is today. We will have learned some valuable lessons, and we will take advantage of the good things that the modern movement offered.
> 
> I'll just focus on issues that actually affect me.



Then make sure you don't stop at battling Capitalist centralized states, because that violence seems to be inherit in civilization.

Oh you mean the outdated dogmas that have resulted in nothing since their inception? The same ones based on outdated models of capitalist societies? It seems at least a lot of the newer schools of thought at least challenge or seek to challenge the root and move past the shortcomings of well, the past and the dichotomy of the supposed Left and Right because really Anarchy has no relation to Liberalism. There are definitely valuable lessons to move on with. Tons of shit to ditch from the newer schools as well.

That's one of the best things you could do.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

User Name said:


> Then make sure you don't stop at battling Capitalist centralized states, because that violence seems to be inherit in civilization.
> 
> Oh you mean the outdated dogmas that have resulted in nothing since their inception? The same ones based on outdated models of capitalist societies? It seems at least a lot of the newer schools of thought at least challenge or seek to challenge the root and move past the shortcomings of well, the past and the dichotomy of the supposed Left and Right because really Anarchy has no relation to Liberalism. There are definitely valuable lessons to move on with. Tons of shit to ditch from the newer schools as well.
> 
> That's one of the best things you could do.



No. I mean the schools of anarchism practiced everywhere in the world but here. The ones that have caused revolutons in the past, the ones that have taken over cities, the ones that have ACTUALLY CREATED ANARCHIST SOCIETIES (Spanish Catalonia lasted for 2 years til the Communists took power and took it over. Another example was Ukraine), the ones the assassinated the FUCKING PRESIDENT (McKinley), the ones that killed cops when they demonstrated (including Haymarket, where 30 cops were taken out with one bomb. May Day comes from that), the ones that were out of control around the world and still are in places. 

The reason the movement died in the US is because most of the anarchists were deported during the Espionage Act. Many of them went to Soviet Russia and hated it there too.

Look at all the modern movements that actually accomplish anything. Do you think the Zapatistas want anything to do with Crimethinc and other post-leftists? Nope. The Zapatistas are libertarian socialists, and they violently resist the state. They take towns and combat THE MILLITARY. American anarchists can't even handle cops with water guns. You put the Zapatistas, or the Galleanists, or any other actual revolutionary anarchists in the protests against G20 and see what happens (or would have happened). Bits of riot cops would be strewn about for miles. 

All you people who think that anarchy hasn't happened because we haven't obtained that higher truth yet, check out our history. It will really encourage you to know that most of the time it isn't a lost cause. Very real progress was and is being made around the world. Used to here as well. We've had our ups and downs. You win some, you lose some. But we have many a success. The ARA would be shamed, watching the Spanish anarchists utterly humiliate the fascists in an important battle of the Spanish Civil War. Just because the world isn't yet in a permanent state of anarchy doesn't mean we have to come up with a new ideology every 3 years...The thing about libertarian socialists..THEY'RE PATIENT. They are willing to die for the cause in order for their comrades to see it in the future. Of course times change and we need to adjust according, and we have. 


Not to sound like a dick or anything. I'm just surprised that no one talks about this stuff. I never hear the Zapatistas mentioned. Fucking _Leftover Crack_ mentions them, and no word from CrimethInc? 


Oh and by the way, I am anti-civ. That is the most important addition to the anarchist movement yet, though I don't think it is really new. A lot of the original anarchists were fighting in non-industrialized places, so it just wouldn't have occurred to Bakunin to write an anti-civ piece. Anyway, I am totally with you there. I think Derrick Jensen is one of the most important writers of this decade.


----------



## st1tch

lobotomy3yes said:


> I don't want to see anyone hurt, I especially don't want to have to hurt anyone, but most of all I don't want to be hurt for being different. Even though that shit, is THEIR fault, I'm not gonna sit around waiting for them to change all the while being victimized. I thought up a saying for myself on this matter, "If violence is their game, let violence be our name." So as long as you, or any other "innocents" aren't threatening me with violence, you don't have to worry about whether I am violent, hence insurrectionary or nor.
> .



Amen brother.


----------



## JungleBoots

User Name said:


> Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite _some_ examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.


 
a good example, the Paris Commune. a complete direct democracy, a true worker's state, again only lasted three or so months, but it would have held strong against the Royalists if the anarchists and the socialists could get along, and organize proper guerilla skermishes in the streets.


----------



## JungleBoots

User Name said:


> I never said I'd want to nor did I mentioned "revolution".
> 
> Minus a few extremely short lived examples that doesn't seem to be realistic in civilized society.
> 
> Not only were the Bolshevik ideals different (in that they had organized and hierarchical armies and centralized command) but the difference between Russian society of 1917 and any modern Western post Industrial society are stark. There were a lot of internal and external stresses on a low tech decaying Russian empire. A similar force in say, the US could easily be crushed because of it's centralized structure and visibility. You pulled that 10 percent essentially out of thin air.
> 
> People will feel it's talking down. That's also another Christianesque feature of most strains of Anarchy, this evangelical fervor.
> 
> No, I literally want no governance. It's not that we both want "the people" to run a free mass society and we call it different things. I don't want a mass society.


 
without revoltion how do you suppose we dissolve a government?

the bolshies didnt organize the armies, they had the armies already, aside from organizing a red guard of workers. the majority of soldiers on the frontlines against germany were on their side. either way thats irrellevant to your reply. but what i want to know is, other than not having a revolution which i still dont understand, how do you suppose you fight a government without a structured military? ive seen citation of Zapatistas, and guerilla fighters. however, i do not equate the ability or the power of the Mexican Federales to that to the US military. Especially if you are going to fight your war against the government of a post industrial nation, you definately need strategy, finely organized attacks, and the dicipline in your soldeirs to fight the way they need to inorder to not only win, but at least to put a decent dent in the enemy.

and that statistic of 10 percent is straight from the book Ten Days That Shook The World by john reed. (John Reeds own first hand accounts of the bolshevik revolution) only ten percent of the farmer peasantry of russia backed the october revolution, the farmer peasantry made up at least 90% of russia's total population.

but yes, in a modern post industrial nation, its going to need to be a much higher percent of the population, especially one such as US's of whom hold a great deal of personal arms. You cant win them over with out having them understand what the current system is doing to them. and they wont just fall on their knees finally understanding your mission agianst government when they read about the spanish civil war, or even the paris commune.

Awareness within the population, (as i implied) involves a great deal more than just knowing that anarchism can exist, its knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government. and knowing that requires reverting the programming of all the intricacies that bind the people into capitalism and government.

without doing that you have NO chance in hell of getting them on your side. and then whats your alternative? the upper class can burn for all i care, but eliminating the middle class all together the majority of a post industrial nation? the middle class will never give up the security in the lives they live without either death, or slow, reasonable convincing.

i dont see whats evangelical about passive activism.


and lastly? no governance? none at all? in no form what so ever? not even your own self saying "no i probably shouldnt do that"? that sounds to me alot like if while driving you come across red lights at busy intersections and due to your unfliching ideals ran them every time, eventually you are going to get into a very bad accident.

you cant escape governance completely, its called causality. somewhere along the line you have to realize your actions effect things and that can be detrimental to your livlihood.


----------



## adragonfly

User Name said:


> Whoa! You just went and took the classic Communist line there. In every Communist revolution, after adopting Socialist economies as the "transition" from Capitalism to eventual Communism they end up always stopping short of that. That is, Socialism is supposed to be the grabbing of the state from Capitalists so they can slowly dissolve the state into Communism. Not only does that make little sense (why not outright destroy the state after seizing it?) but has never worked. At least Anarchism can cite _some_ examples of "it happening" even if they were a few months at best.
> 
> I don't know where good and evil part came from, sounds kind of moralistic.



pure communism is anarchism, since both are stateless. I believe the best path to a stateless society is one where grassroots community action is happening. I think history has shown that a state controlled communistic path is not the way to go at all, since there will be power struggle at the state level. this sort of path eventually stops progressing when the government is affected by greed and capitalistic virtues.

The whole thing about good and evil is not moralistic. I dont believe in morality, but thats another story. with The whole good evil thing, i meant to say that war begets war and peace begets peace. a lot of anarchists are inclined to a militant view, "your with us or against us," "class war", "riots", but by doing all that it looses focus on what anarchism is. instead of focusin on what is wanted (freedom, peace, love, community), these anarchists focus on what is not wanted (hatred, war, anger, seperation (seperation between us and the current government, for example)). By focusing on what is not wanted, even tho we are fighting against what is not wanted, we fuel what is not wanted in the first place. the government fights back. the word "anarchism" has a social stigma because of this. war begets war. 

so instead of being angry at what ever is wrong, lets dream of the best way to live. What do you want society to be live? how do you want your family, neighbors, community, countrymen, and fellow humans to live like? Id like everybody to be fed, be happy, be loved by one another, and be treated like humans and family. Now that i know what i want, I take steps to towards this direction without ever loosing heart, and if i do lose heart, i just focus again on what i want.


----------



## lobotomy3yes

adragonfly said:


> pure communism is anarchism, since both are stateless. I believe the best path to a stateless society is one where grassroots community action is happening. I think history has shown that a state controlled communistic path is not the way to go at all, since there will be power struggle at the state level. this sort of path eventually stops progressing when the government is affected by greed and capitalistic virtues.
> 
> The whole thing about good and evil is not moralistic. I dont believe in morality, but thats another story. with The whole good evil thing, i meant to say that war begets war and peace begets peace. a lot of anarchists are inclined to a militant view, "your with us or against us," "class war", "riots", but by doing all that it looses focus on what anarchism is. instead of focusin on what is wanted (freedom, peace, love, community), these anarchists focus on what is not wanted (hatred, war, anger, seperation (seperation between us and the current government, for example)). By focusing on what is not wanted, even tho we are fighting against what is not wanted, we fuel what is not wanted in the first place. the government fights back. the word "anarchism" has a social stigma because of this. war begets war.
> 
> so instead of being angry at what ever is wrong, lets dream of the best way to live. What do you want society to be live? how do you want your family, neighbors, community, countrymen, and fellow humans to live like? Id like everybody to be fed, be happy, be loved by one another, and be treated like humans and family. Now that i know what i want, I take steps to towards this direction without ever loosing heart, and if i do lose heart, i just focus again on what i want.


I think a Kropotkin quote is a fitting response. This is from "The Spirit of Revolt."

_One party may have developed more clearly the theories which it defines and the program which it desires to realize; it may have made propaganda actively, by speech and in print. But it may not have sufficiently expressed its aspirations in the open, on the street, by actions which embody the thought it represents; it has done little, or it has done nothing against those who are its principal enemies; it has not attacked the institutions which it wants to demolish; its strength has been in theory, not in action; it has contributed little to awaken the spirit of revolt, or it has neglected to direct that spirit against conditions which it particularly desires to attack at the time of the revolution. As a result, this party is less known; its aspirations have not been daily and continuously affirmed by actions, the glamor of which could reach even the remotest hut; they have not sufficiently penetrated into the consciousness of the people; they have not identified themselves with the crowd and the street; they have never found simple expression in a popular slogan..._
_The party which has made most revolutionary propaganda and which has shown most spirit and daring will be listened to on the day when it is necessary to act, to march in front in order to realize the revolution. But that party which has not had the daring to affirm itself by revolutionary acts in the preparatory periods nor had a driving force strong enough to inspire men and groups to the sentiment of abnegation, to the irresistible desire to put their ideas into practice,--(if this desire had existed it would have expressed itself in action long before the mass of the people had joined the revolt)--and which did not know how to make its flag popular and its aspirations tangible and comprehensive,--that party will have only a small chance of realizing even the least part of its program. It will be pushed aside by the parties of action._


----------



## veraladd

I think anarchy is more valuable as a philosophy or individual lifestyle than as a political agenda. Although one achieves the other.


----------



## BrainWreck

im pretty sure a revolution could turn out baldy...or not in our favor. its easy for for one person to find some sort of authority in the chaos, people will be looking for some sort of guidance. 

The best transition to anarchy is a slow one


----------



## JungleBoots

veraladd said:


> I think anarchy is more valuable as a philosophy or individual lifestyle than as a political agenda. Although one achieves the other.


 

all in all, i think i agree with you most.


----------



## connerR

I liked this:



Delerious said:


> We have 5 people,
> 1, 2, 3, 4, and five.
> 
> 1 likes carpentry(there are people who like carpentry and do so without the provocative of money).
> 
> 2 likes helping other people and is very interested in medicine.
> 
> 3 enjoys being a protector and a physical enforcer
> 
> 4 enjoys music and art, and wishes to play and paint.
> 
> 5 is infatuated with baking and cooking.
> 
> 1 needs things to build and construct since he likes building. 2,3,4, and 5 need homes. 1 now has a very large amount of work that enjoys doing which in turn benefits the rest of the population.
> 
> 2 needs people to help. He likes helping people of course. 1 hurts himself while building houses and 2 now has something to do. 5 also cuts himself while cooking. and 3 injured his leg practicing martial arts. 2 is stocked full of things to do.
> 
> 3 Notices that while 5 was being stitched up by 2, some dogs started trying to eat the meat 5 was cooking. 3, now recovered from his leg injury roundhouse kicks the dogs and they leave...sorry guys I thought it was funny.
> 
> 4 just wrote this beautiful new song on violin and finished her latest painting. She plays music for everyone as they go about their daily activities and decorates their houses with her artwork.
> 
> 5 recovers and with a catchy tune in his head finishes dinner.



I love scenarios:

2 and 3 are attracted to 4. 4 is attracted to 1. With his heart broken, 2 becomes depressed and stops wanting to help people. 3 becomes angry and confronts 1. There's a fight! 2 and 3 leave society. Now 1, 4, and 5 have no protection and no token altruist. Then, persons 6-20 come and take over.


----------



## st1tch

connerR said:


> I liked this:
> 
> 
> 
> I love scenarios:
> 
> 2 and 3 are attracted to 4. 4 is attracted to 1. With his heart broken, 2 becomes depressed and stops wanting to help people. 3 becomes angry and confronts 1. There's a fight! 2 and 3 leave society. Now 1, 4, and 5 have no protection and no token altruist. Then, persons 6-20 come and take over.



Yeah, that's basically the issue.


----------



## User Name

JungleBoots said:


> a good example, the Paris Commune. a complete direct democracy, a true worker's state, again only lasted three or so months, but it would have held strong against the Royalists if the anarchists and the socialists could get along, and organize proper guerilla skermishes in the streets.



The idea of a "Paris Commune" or a "Anarchist Catalonia" or even a "Anarchist Ukraine" is that it still falls short of my desires. A funny conversation that I never hear take place is what would the Anarchists do to each other if they ever won? People more critical of civilization would still have to keep fighting and the "anarchist communists" would have to...repress them?



JungleBoots said:


> without revoltion how do you suppose we dissolve a government?
> 
> the bolshies didnt organize the armies, they had the armies already, aside from organizing a red guard of workers. the majority of soldiers on the frontlines against germany were on their side. either way thats irrellevant to your reply. but what i want to know is, other than not having a revolution which i still dont understand, how do you suppose you fight a government without a structured military? ive seen citation of Zapatistas, and guerilla fighters. however, i do not equate the ability or the power of the Mexican Federales to that to the US military. Especially if you are going to fight your war against the government of a post industrial nation, you definately need strategy, finely organized attacks, and the dicipline in your soldeirs to fight the way they need to inorder to not only win, but at least to put a decent dent in the enemy.
> 
> and that statistic of 10 percent is straight from the book Ten Days That Shook The World by john reed. (John Reeds own first hand accounts of the bolshevik revolution) only ten percent of the farmer peasantry of russia backed the october revolution, the farmer peasantry made up at least 90% of russia's total population.
> 
> but yes, in a modern post industrial nation, its going to need to be a much higher percent of the population, especially one such as US's of whom hold a great deal of personal arms. You cant win them over with out having them understand what the current system is doing to them. and they wont just fall on their knees finally understanding your mission agianst government when they read about the spanish civil war, or even the paris commune.
> 
> Awareness within the population, (as i implied) involves a great deal more than just knowing that anarchism can exist, its knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government. and knowing that requires reverting the programming of all the intricacies that bind the people into capitalism and government.
> 
> without doing that you have NO chance in hell of getting them on your side. and then whats your alternative? the upper class can burn for all i care, but eliminating the middle class all together the majority of a post industrial nation? the middle class will never give up the security in the lives they live without either death, or slow, reasonable convincing.
> 
> i dont see whats evangelical about passive activism.
> 
> 
> and lastly? no governance? none at all? in no form what so ever? not even your own self saying "no i probably shouldnt do that"? that sounds to me alot like if while driving you come across red lights at busy intersections and due to your unfliching ideals ran them every time, eventually you are going to get into a very bad accident.
> 
> you cant escape governance completely, its called causality. somewhere along the line you have to realize your actions effect things and that can be detrimental to your livlihood.



Surely there are other tactics than the outdated revolution? You yourself claimed you only need 10% of the population, do you think you and 10% of America can take on the National Reserve AND (if it got that out of hand) the United States combined military (Air Force, Army, Navy) head on?

If the Reds in Russia didn't organize the revolution, why did the create a Vanguard party? A structured military is susceptible to infiltration and easier to repel because of their visibility. You'll simply be a noticeable troop of poorly armed insurgents easily taken out by a technologically advanced industrial army with all the governments resources at their disposal. The Federal Mexican government isn't a match for the US, true, and the Zapatistas aren't even a match for the Mexican government. They are allowed to exist for fear of international cries at best. Despite that Zapatistas have been killed by federal agents anyway. Their model is useless to me and is more of a "how NOT to do things" than a guide (like most leftist/revolutionary examples). It seems like that's what the US military runs on, so wouldn't disorder throw them off? Sporadic assaults that don't give them time to react. I don't know, the Viet Cong seem to have fared better than the Anarchists in Spain...

I think A LOT has changed since October 1917.

They won't fall to their knees even if you seem to be gaining a foothold (forget an upper hand).

If you think that's best, go for it. I think taking time to study weaknesses and finding out what fulcrums to use to best attack the joints of "the Leviathan" is time better spent.

I don't think I need them on my side. The middle class is already losing their comforts.

If you can't see the comparison, then it's moot to me. It's not just "passive activism" (since when does passivity accomplish anything, even if our daily lives?) but the whole converting people to anarchism. I mean that's what you've advocated through out your piece, and you can't deny that. Whether you want to call it "knowing that it is a BETTER alternative to capitalism and government", you're pitching them something the way a salesman or priest would.

Yes, absolutely none. Personal restraint or personal interests isn't governance, and your metaphor doesn't apply. Organic communities based on common interest based on SELF interest at best. Gatherer/Hunters disband when they no longer agree and go separate ways.



adragonfly said:


> pure communism is anarchism, since both are stateless. I believe the best path to a stateless society is one where grassroots community action is happening. I think history has shown that a state controlled communistic path is not the way to go at all, since there will be power struggle at the state level. this sort of path eventually stops progressing when the government is affected by greed and capitalistic virtues.
> 
> The whole thing about good and evil is not moralistic. I dont believe in morality, but thats another story. with The whole good evil thing, i meant to say that war begets war and peace begets peace. a lot of anarchists are inclined to a militant view, "your with us or against us," "class war", "riots", but by doing all that it looses focus on what anarchism is. instead of focusin on what is wanted (freedom, peace, love, community), these anarchists focus on what is not wanted (hatred, war, anger, seperation (seperation between us and the current government, for example)). By focusing on what is not wanted, even tho we are fighting against what is not wanted, we fuel what is not wanted in the first place. the government fights back. the word "anarchism" has a social stigma because of this. war begets war.
> 
> so instead of being angry at what ever is wrong, lets dream of the best way to live. What do you want society to be live? how do you want your family, neighbors, community, countrymen, and fellow humans to live like? Id like everybody to be fed, be happy, be loved by one another, and be treated like humans and family. Now that i know what i want, I take steps to towards this direction without ever loosing heart, and if i do lose heart, i just focus again on what i want.



You lost me at "stateless society". There's a lot more wrong than just statism and capitalism.

Freedom, peace, and love do not exist solely. There will always be violence and conflict. We are not naturally inclined towards anything, but we are animals and we will fight when threatened. Talking about focusing on what you want won't wish the state away. This isn't about some weird abstract positive energy/thoughts. That's a bigger dead end than some vanguardist army. Plus this whole idea of "violence begets violence" is a little awkward. *Does the violence a victim inflicts on their rapist/attacker/oppressor really mean they're justifying the actions of that rapist/attacker/oppressor? *


----------



## JungleBoots

@ username: Looking at your argument through your philosophy i agree with you on nearly all acounts, however fundimental philosophy is not something we share.

though i feel your attitude towards complete individual autonomy within a community (or not if i still fail to see how you really apply your ideals in living alone) is not so far from what i feel is appealing of an anarcho-communal type lifestyle. the only difference is where (i interpret) you feel completely autonomous individual interests in and of themselves maintain a stable community life via the hopefulness that potential consequences of causality will reign in potentially destructive habits (to the community).

While i feel that in a communal sense the reliance of the individual upon the community, and the community's reliance upon the individual through the potential consequences of causality will reign in potentially destructive habits (to the community) simply through unwritten expectations. such as shame is the only form of law in Semai culture.

maybe i am just fearful that one is too tempted to take advantage (tempted to discard causality and only aim to please one's own interests in one's own habits) of a community that provides livlihood to those with the ideal of perfect individual autonomy. or maybe i just feel more pragmatic and secure in a loose social structure that maintains the habits of the individual minorly through expectaiton alone.

ill admit most of what i was saying in the past loooooooonnng ass posts were in playing devil's advocate. as far as i am concerned anarchy is practicable within, around, and along side any system, so long as one can keep a low enough profile as to not draw the attention of law keepers, and system administrators that might not look kindly on outside alternatives. thus i dont feel revolution, violence, guerilla warfare, rebellion is unneccessary to effectively live in a self designed manner.


----------



## User Name

JungleBoots said:


> @ username: Looking at your argument through your philosophy i agree with you on nearly all acounts, however fundimental philosophy is not something we share.
> 
> though i feel your attitude towards complete individual autonomy within a community (or not if i still fail to see how you really apply your ideals in living alone) is not so far from what i feel is appealing of an anarcho-communal type lifestyle. the only difference is where (i interpret) you feel completely autonomous individual interests in and of themselves maintain a stable community life via the hopefulness that potential consequences of causality will reign in potentially destructive habits (to the community).
> 
> While i feel that in a communal sense the reliance of the individual upon the community, and the community's reliance upon the individual through the potential consequences of causality will reign in potentially destructive habits (to the community) simply through unwritten expectations. such as shame is the only form of law in Semai culture.
> 
> maybe i am just fearful that one is too tempted to take advantage (tempted to discard causality and only aim to please one's own interests in one's own habits) of a community that provides livlihood to those with the ideal of perfect individual autonomy. or maybe i just feel more pragmatic and secure in a loose social structure that maintains the habits of the individual minorly through expectaiton alone.
> 
> ill admit most of what i was saying in the past loooooooonnng ass posts were in playing devil's advocate. as far as i am concerned anarchy is practicable within, around, and along side any system, so long as one can keep a low enough profile as to not draw the attention of law keepers, and system administrators that might not look kindly on outside alternatives.
> 
> thus i dont feel revolution, violence, guerilla warfare, rebellion is *unneccessary *to effectively live in a self designed manner.



That's fine, I never look for agreement or persuasion. 

You've got me pegged, more or less. When the needs of the community or "consensus" override individuality, I lose interest. Now that is not to say that sometimes for individual interest you have to put others interest first. I could provide examples of this rather abstract concept I guess, but I hope my summation will suffice.

Sure, that makes sense. Shame, banishment, dispersing into factions, or killing the person in question (all of which gatherer/hunters do, more so the first 3). The Semai are an interesting people as they are an in between point. Not fully sedentary but not gatherer/hunters. People will often point to them or people like them as non-gatherer/hunters who still retain a lot of what makes the gatherer/hunter bands work. They are few and far between however and that is what makes them so unique. With the evolution of such a culture for millennia, the shame system works. The !kung will make fun of each other if they see someone is getting a big head. This prevents the rise of "big men" (seen in tribes) in band societies. In a situation where we are newly found in a uncivilized world, I think violence will play a role until such a culture begins to reappear. 

Usually, like aforementioned, that is curtailed by culture. It won't be when civilized humans are allowed to be feral/rewild. Shunning or banishment would help, and if all else fails violence or the threat of it (as opposed to monopolized threats of violence by the state) are the only curtailment in that scenario. 

That's fine, because the position you were advocating seems impractical and short sighted to me. I don't believe you're able to have anarchy with other systems in place. By their nature they either have to destroy or absorb that challenge to their system.

I don't know if you meant unnecessary or necessary in that last part. All those things, save revolution, would be necessary in my opinion.


----------



## JungleBoots

squatting is an anachism within the system remeidal, and hardly true anarchism but an anarchism of sorts none the less. collectives, and neighborhood gardens are functionaries of anarchism within the system. generally nothing like what we have discussed in the past few posts entailing anti-civ cultures are really possible without a good breath of distance from a system.

but aside from that a single person can decide to avoid, the functionaries of political, legislative, social, and economic structures. and it may be a streatch but that in itself is a practice of self-sufficiency, autonomy, and so fourth.

hence acts of violence are unneccessary inorder to live such ways.


----------



## User Name

JungleBoots said:


> squatting is an anachism within the system remeidal, and hardly true anarchism but an anarchism of sorts none the less. collectives, and neighborhood gardens are functionaries of anarchism within the system.
> 
> generally nothing like what we have discussed in the past few posts entailing anti-civ cultures are really possible without a good breath of distance from a system.
> 
> but aside from that a single person can decide to avoid, the functionaries of political, legislative, social, and economic structures. and it may be a streatch but that in itself is a practice of self-sufficiency, autonomy, and so fourth.
> 
> hence acts of violence are unneccessary inorder to live such ways.



I'm not sure any of those are forms of anarchy, but rather forms of survival in this system and possibly with the collective housing a way to ease your wallet. Feral Faun wrote a piece that sums this up pretty well. http://www.anti-politics.net/feral-faun/anarchist-subculture.html

I would say anti-civ ideals are still largely impossible even with the greatest distance possible (ask the surviving gatherer/hunters who are constantly harassed and displaced by the civilized). Civilization has to crumble.

I don't think that's possible, especially not in the long term (and really, not that long).

For those avenues I would agree, but you will face the threat of state violence for some of those (especially squatting).


----------



## stanktank

for me, anarchism is a really personal thing. It's like i don't need someone to tell me the proper way of treating other people, i'm pretty empathetic so i can figure that out on my own. I was discussing with a friend not too long ago about this and we came to the conclusion that maybe anarchism is always just doomed to be in the fringes, made up of almost-off-the-map movements. Honestly i don't really have a problem with that. I think that A) to me, bringing something into the mainstream pretty much automatically ruins it, it's like anarchists would be the new hipsters or something? screw that. B) Plus i think people are just super selfish and are way too happy stepping on whoever they have to in order to get what they want.

And on the topic of revolution, as in taking to the streets, storming the proverbial Bastille, blah blah blah, that's cool and all, and i became obsessed that sort of thing when i read Les Miserable, but i just don't really see that solving any problems. i mean look at history, look at the (many) french and russian revolutions. Such indiscriminate bloodshed to me just creates you more enemies and not a very good place in history. It's like, hearing about protests and stuff and kids just fighting cops and breaking things because those things are involved in "state sanctioned terror" or are responsible for "taking advantage of the third world" really really annoys me. it just seems so childish, like throwing a temper tantrum. no one listens to that bullshit, (i don't and i consider myself an anarchist of sorts). And besides, the government is more than capable of handling those instances and loves just turning them around to paint anarchism in a bad light. I've been hearing a lot about a diversity of tactics lately, but why would you want a diversity if half of your tactics fail to produce any results...or lets be truthful, most of your tactics fail to produce results and actually create bad results, (as in people losing respect for your movement).

All this being said. I'm not an anarchist guru and have read little to nothing on anarchism. this is just my two sense as i see it.


----------



## RnJ

OK, I'll keep it "general," but first you should know two things. I have not really read much literature of people who would call themselves anarchists. Second, while in certain instances I would describe myself as anarchaic, I have never yet called myself an Anarchist. It's a term so widely applied, that it could be interepreted as terrorism or something trendy, depending on who you talk to. My opinion is based upon my gatherings from banter over the years, and some books with anarchaic content.

In my opinion, anarchy should be:

-self-responsibility + community (do it ourself, not do it yourself, as well as not reliant on food stamps, but your own community to which you also contribute)

-positive - living the hope of the future in the now, not being a cynical bitch

-pacifistic - pretty much for the reason that i have no authority to deal out what even i believe is a just cause.

-personal lifestyle, not the state of a nation - live it. it can't possible become a political system.

-respect - self-explanatory? maybe not...

-not confined to one social group or sub-culture - um, because anarchy should not be an imperialist force which forces everyone to wear black and ride trains.

-an ideal, and as such, nothing we ever truly embody perfectly - it's about the path it puts you on, not something we'll ever perfectly embody. besides, people are corrupt as ever, myself especially.


----------



## wartomods

*Travelers in the Wrong; My rant on selfish arrogant dirty kids*

Anarchism in Capitalism sounds much nicer than plain Anarchism.
Thats why i support capitalism, ahah.

Some people just want safety and organisation into something bigger, let them do it.


----------



## wartomods

*Travelers in the Wrong; My rant on selfish arrogant dirty kids*

You dont want to be that old "hippie" guy, who is always claiming that anarchism is the answer and the government and jobs , etc, just exist to mess with your mind.


----------

