# Anarchy is



## Teko

Not an idea, but a emotion in all humanity. With saying that I need to explain that I feel today's revolutionary anarchist are caught up in staying within the boundaries they themselves have established. Whereas anarchy having rules is absurd, but at the same time, even natural chaos follows some form of rules. (ie... you will die.)

And with an understanding that hypocrisy is a fundamental aspect of life, that it breeds scenarios for a 'lesson learned', where do you stop being an anarchist and start simply living? At what point does anarchy spill over into life? Into a full on life itself? What I am saying is that I feel that anarchy has lost itself to so many people's regulations of what it should be. When in actuality, it is a natural occurring feeling and to ignore is to deny the primal instinct that has been with us since the dawn.
Why have we turned it into a predictable machine?


----------



## pigpen

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=569&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1


----------



## Teko

so true.


----------



## plagueship

good question and one to which my answer rests in part on the difference between 'anarchy' as phenomenon (whether idea, emotion or something else - ill get to that shortly) and 'anarchism' as a 'movement'/scene/bunch of humans mostly in north america and europe trying to do/be/become 'anarchy'.

it is a predictable machine because most of the people involved in it as anarchists are middle and upper class kids who are using it to work out their emotional issues about their upbringing. anarchy isn't really the issue as much as feeling less guilty cause you're raging against daddy's machine. so i think most anarchists i've met don't really have that clear of an idea what they even mean by that and instead of nihilism and anti-authoritarianism wind up embracing a mish-mash of reheated "left"-overs and subcultural scene politics.

i don't really have a better proposal for what the anarchist scene/'movement' should do. to me, anarchism is or should be neither an idea nor a feeling, but a stance towards the world, a negative reaction to the given conditions and relations of domination and subservience. instead of putting this negation into practice, anarchists submit to a collectivity of their own making which is just as totalitarian as any other ideal and just as dysfunctional as any other human social system, even in the sub-sub-cultures that set up 'negation' as their ideal.

actually, i don't really know what's cool in anarchy these days, or care... it meant a lot to me once, as a stance towards the world, but all it taught me was that it's a losing stance, and that as for most of the people who 'identified' themselves as having that stance, it really didn't mean the same thing to them that it did to me...

i'm forecasting an epic thread with a high chance of trolling


----------



## bryanpaul

pigpen said:


> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/anarchy_theres_a_market_for_it_card-p137785140866936480vdoxr_152.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/hot+topic+cards&usg=__5hcy6FIKcTsgYluAeZP8pRTdetc=&h=152&w=152&sz=8&hl=en&start=9&zoom=1&tbnid=VBw7XQSulUf_qM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&ei=2JcUTqOgL86tgQf7toT-BA&prev=/search?q=hot+topic+anarchy&hl=en&biw=1366&bih=569&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1


bwahahah.....yess!


----------



## Teko

hopefully no trolling, but I would like more intelligent answers like the one you gave
*plagueship *


----------



## CXR1037

abstracted said:


> Not an idea, but a emotion in all humanity. With saying that I need to explain that I feel today's revolutionary anarchist are caught up in staying within the boundaries they themselves have established. Whereas anarchy having rules is absurd, but at the same time, even natural chaos follows some form of rules. (ie... you will die.)



Of course there are rules, you'll never get away from that; it's natural, you'll never get away from that. I also think there's a natural hierarchy. Example: not everyone is equal, it's not necessarily a bad thing, but some people know more or are more talented, and there's not a lot you can do about it.



> And with an understanding that hypocrisy is a fundamental aspect of life, that it breeds scenarios for a 'lesson learned', where do you stop being an anarchist and start simply living?



I can't speak for everyone but I think labeling yourself as a revolutionary anarchist or anything else is just a cry for attention. I think all you can do is _simply live_, be the best person you can be. In my opinion that's how you change things. Lead by example!



> At what point does anarchy spill over into life? Into a full on life itself? What I am saying is that I feel that anarchy has lost itself to so many people's regulations of what it should be. When in actuality, it is a natural occurring feeling and to ignore is to deny the primal instinct that has been with us since the dawn.
> Why have we turned it into a predictable machine?



Perhaps it's because we live in such a mechanistic world, or maybe our minds are just machines themselves and we can disambiguate things by assigning them "predictable" values. To say that anarchy is a feeling, I think, is accurate, and I don't think it's lost in anyone, even hardcore capitalists. I think we all have moments where that lawless, anarchistic tendency breaks out of us, maybe in the form of a fist or a tirade or a long drive.


----------



## Wolf

CXR1037 said:


> I think all you can do is _simply live_, be the best person you can be. In my opinion that's how you change things. Lead by example!


 
To an extent, but not completely. It's true that revolution is impossible if you can't have it in yourself. However it is also impossible if you don't fight for it. Something like this means giving your absolute all, and that requires walking outside your own doors.


----------



## DaisyDoom

The only thing that anarchy means to me is "no government", not "no rules". There will always be natural consequences to your actions and in my opinion those are the only consequences that should take place. The average person's morals are defined by what other people have been telling them, not by what they truly feel is right and wrong. I am an anarchist because I want the freedom to live my life according to my morals. If I make a bad decision I don't want to be "punished" by going to jail or paying fines, I want to learn why I should and shouldn't do things through natural consequences. When the punishment isn't related to the action in any way, whats the point?
I think that anarchy has become trendy and turned into "lets fuck shit up! chaos! woohoo!" when really its a lot more than that....i dont get it.

I have more to say but I'm not sure how to word it so i'll come back after its mustered in my brain a bit.


----------



## plagueship

> The only thing that anarchy means to me is "no government", not "no rules".



then that's anti-statism, not anarchism, and it's what capitalist/right-wing Libertarians believe in, as well as some straight-up racists who have the gall to identify themselves as "national" or "tribalist anarchists".

and if you think that morality doesn't inherently imply relations of domination and submission you should check out some of nietzsche's thoughts on the subject; his book "on the genealogy of morals" is basically an extremely compelling case on how the concept of "right and wrong" originated with, and is arguably inseparable from, class society.


----------



## DaisyDoom

plagueship said:


> then that's anti-statism, not anarchism, and it's what capitalist/right-wing Libertarians believe in, as well as some straight-up racists who have the gall to identify themselves as "national" or "tribalist anarchists"


Yeah I don't know about that man. what do you think the difference between anti-statism and anarchism is? If anti statism just means a state without a government than its the same thing as anarchism because anarchy only means a state without a government. What is your definition of anarchy?

I don't necessarily think that but I will definitely check out that book, thank you.


----------



## Teko

man this thread is taking off!

thanks for all the amazing responses stp!


----------



## CXR1037

plagueship said:


> then that's anti-statism, not anarchism, and it's what capitalist/right-wing Libertarians believe in, as well as some straight-up racists who have the gall to identify themselves as "national" or "tribalist anarchists".



What a fucking leap! I'm anti-government, I guess that makes me a capitalist/right-wing Libertarian racist then?

I fucking love anarchists - they talk about changing the world but they can't even agree on their own cause.


----------



## CXR1037

Wolf said:


> To an extent, but not completely. It's true that revolution is impossible if you can't have it in yourself. However it is also impossible if you don't fight for it. Something like this means giving your absolute all, and that requires walking outside your own doors.



It IS impossible to change things without fighting for it, but I think you have to have a solid ground to fight from. A lot of people like to point fingers but few have solid suggestions as to what to change.


----------



## plagueship

let me clarify a few things...

i should have said that anti-statism is PART of what is embraced by a variety of causes both right and left. anarchy traces its etymology to the greek an + archos, that is, "without rule" - without coercive, hierarchal relationships of domination and submission, might be one way to put it. without authority, which doesn't mean only gov'ts - not only do governments exert rule over people, but so can other hierarchal structures that aren't officially considered governments; for instance, the christian church has played a huge political role in the history of civilization without being a 'government'; there is parental authority, the authority of an employer and so on. these authority-forms don't simply trickle down from the gov't, although they have connections. and there are also more lateral ways in which people enforce oppressive social systems on each other like through race, gender etc. of course as you look back through history, governments and these other related structures and hierarchies haven't always existed nor existed in the same state as they do now. what we think of as states and governments today, for instance, appeared with the bourgeois revolutions 200-300 years ago; feudal societies didn't really 'have' governments as we think of them now but they were governed by interlocking hierarchies. eventually the bourgeois seized control of the economy and then the state and the era of industrialized mass society they created demanded a different political order.

basically i think the governments and other power structures are there as enforcement mechanisms for the division of class society into an elite which controls the means of survival and the rest who have to sell their labor to survive - this is the only thing that has remained more or less constant in terms of how people are controlled by authority. if you want to overcome coercion and subjugation you need to look at the fact of that disposession as primary. sure, the police are in our way but this doesn't disregard the fact that domination and social hierarchy are present in many aspects of life, in 'beneficial' social programs as well as in the batons and bars, the carrot as well as the stick.

i don't know i'm kind of just rambling now. i don't consider myself an anarchist; i used to, and it's still an influence on my ways of thinking and living and i think it's worth talking about.


----------



## Altbro

I think this is a great explanation of anarchy.


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## acrata4ever

Whereas anarchy having rules is absurd, but at the same time, even natural chaos follows some form of rules. (ie... you will die.)

anarchists societys have rules and laws http://struggle.ws/russia/kuzbass_colony.html
the siberian colony is little known. you can also read up on kronstadt, the paris commune, the spanish civil war christiania denmark, and chiapas mexico. anarchy means no rulers not no rules. not go around whacking people in the head with a hammer because its fun. you have the right to be lazy the functioning society has the right to kick you out of town. kats experiment in slab city is an example you can easily understand. NO CIGARETTE BUTTS, YOU DONT WORK YOU PAY FOR THE ONE NIGHT YOU STAY, YOURE A DRUNKEN LAZY PEICE OF SHIFTLESS SHIT YOURE OUT! ok those are rules very reasonable. some lazy fucks may call kat stalin behind his back but thats lazy idealist fucks who think the world owes them something. and anarchy means blowing up mailboxes. anarchy is a respectable form of democracy with no gods or masters. freedom for all with elected leaders both civic and military, recallable by democratic vote if they do a shit job. no 4 year terms no 5 year plans, no eschelons, no elitists. i hope the best for katbastard its gotta be murder putting up with lazy shitheads.


----------



## acrata4ever

DaisyDoom said:


> The only thing that anarchy means to me is "no government", not "no rules".



anarchism is a form of govt (that word leaves a bad taste in my mouth i cant spell it out) what that govt is is debatable. theres anarcho syndicalism (spain), anarcho capitalism (the wild west), anarcho communism, anarcho federalism, even anarcho nationalism (nazis) minarchism is interesting and could be the first baby steps towards a form of anarchist govt.

what brought order to the wild west was the telephone and the automobile. i am for cameras everywhere, robot speed controls, robot cops with non lethal weapons, the abolishment of prisons and banishment for violent criminals. i am also against the public school system, free healthcare (yes even vets and politicians) the tax exemption of the church, ok got off track basically i see a world where KKKops, sKKKool teachers, KKKlergy, demoKKKrats and republiKKKans, oh and KKKorperate crooks are not per say in the unemployment line but living in cardboard boxes spanging for dogfood.


----------



## bryanpaul

acrata4ever said:


> i am for ......... robot cops


----------



## acrata4ever

yeah in dangerous situations, like say a death valley banishee is on the loose and is picked up by his micro chip implant robot cops could spray him with sticky goo till unarmed police arrive or the anarcho scouts (yes i think boys and girls under 16 would make better cops) and they take the convicted rapist/child molestor/murderer back to death valley/bumfuck alaska/ dry tortugas where they belong. there will be no blue wall of silence with robots cops and they wont need lethal weapons because they cant die fuck or have babies. yes in 1840 an armed society is a polite society but if you have cameras everywhere and everyone has a cell phone with a camera you cant get away with much. think how many cops have been suspended with pay after beating a civilian to a pulp because it was caught on camera. i know its not justice but its baby steps. cameras are good everyone is a star.


----------



## happyearthhomes

In the early 90s i came across the jolly rogers cook book of anarchy and my freinds and i proceeded to run amok in the suburbia we lived in and we believed that to be an anarchist we had to to fuck with the established rules of any establishment constantly toeing the line of legality where ever we went but as i grew older i realized that to be an anarchist required following rules and have come to believe there is no such thing as a self proclaimed anarchist because by labeling ones self as one you negate the principle of it but by ''simply living " and not caring what anyone else thinks or by living by your own rules by not actively trying to be one can you be an anarchist I have learned that I am a seperatist and a survivalist and an equal opportunity racist


----------



## Altbro

acrata4ever said:


> anarchism is a form of govt (that word leaves a bad taste in my mouth i cant spell it out) what that govt is is debatable. theres anarcho syndicalism (spain), anarcho capitalism (the wild west), anarcho communism, anarcho federalism, even anarcho nationalism (nazis) minarchism is interesting and could be the first baby steps towards a form of anarchist govt.



Do you really acknowledge anarcho-nationalism as a valid form of anarchism? A fascist by any other name would still smell as vile.


----------



## acrata4ever

no nationalism never leads to anything good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser
strasser insisted that jews were germans and could be national socialists if they converted to christianity. alot of jews took refuge in japan, mussolini never persecuted jews. you can see why strasser ended up in exile in canda he and hitler didnt see eye to eye. but stasser felt hitler took the socialism out of national socialism. and facism and national socialism are two different things. zionism is fascism its just called something else. no anarcho nationalism is a farce so is the american libertarian party. if youre exploting employees it just aint anarcho capitalism.


----------



## acrata4ever

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.'


----------



## plagueship

my last post was a lil simplistic, but looking at this thread again reminded me of something. i know foucault gets written off as another wordy, pretentious, french philosopher type guy, but what i've read in his extensive works on 'power' includes some of the most insightful thoughts on the subject i've ever encountered.

he wrote that power is not "a general system of domination exerted by one element or group over another… [but] a multiplicity of power relations… Power comes from below; that is, at the basis of power relations, and as its general matrix, there is no binary and total opposition between the dominant and the dominated; that duality reverberates from top to bottom."

his books 'discipline and punish' and 'history of sexuality' are a good place to start checking out his analysis on power and its history and operation in capitalist civilization.


----------



## TheHawk

To me, Anarchy is an ideal, and also a way of life. It's essentially the freedom to do whatever the hell you want to do that makes you happy, so long as you aren't infringing upon the happiness of others. There is no government, no elites at the top controlling the poor. Of course there are general rules, but those aren't so much rules and regulations but natural codes of conduct necessary to peaceful living among all the other inhabitants of our planet. This like I said sounds a lot better on paper, for obvious reasons the entire world isn't ready for it, but the ideal is still there to practice for the conscientious individual.


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## acrata4ever

ok too much to reply to. earthhomes said I 6 times pretty egocentric and said absolutely nothing about anarchy. Power comes from below http://imageshack.us/f/252/newcapitalistpyramidnt1.jpg/ lol gotta love those french thinkers. There is no government, no elites at the top controlling the poor. oh no not at all thats obvious just watch faux news. aztecs had the wheel http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/images-1/122_00_2.jpg the mayan calender it 3 gears (wheels) stonehenge is a wheel just because wooden wheels rotted doesnt meant they didnt exist in the past. trains have wheels paleolithic man had no trains. lol


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## acrata4ever

wow thats alot to read you must be a writer. im not flaming im not fighting i cant even spell or write. im just saying anarchy is a form of government and a political theory. there have been and are anarchists societys they have rules, police and militias. some even have churches. thats society dont like society live outside of it like far outside. when you finally meet up with like minded wild people you will set up dwellings, businesses, trade, commerce, there will be long town meetings arguing well past bedtime. you will have to get up early and work for this society. babies will be born you will have obligations doctors engineers will be needed. lazy consumers of chemicals will have no value in this society. you run away from society to set up another society with youre oh so hated rules and laws. no kudos anyone who can avoid paying taxes is helping bring the evil empire down. its great you like drinking fine any idiot can drink them self to death but i shouldnt have to pay for your free healthcare because unfortunatley i do pay some tax. im also poor i roll my own cigarettes dont bum a cigarette from me and expect me to roll it for you because youre used to box cigs. everyone has the right to be lazy as long as they dont depend on anyone else to survive thats anarchy in theory emma goldman. prostitution is work, street theater is work, fortune telling busking etc. shouving a pillow under your shirt and flying a sign saying help hungry and pregnant is not work. theres lots of actions flash mobs could work if they stopped trying to be youtube stars and actually caused a slow down of some type. anonymous is doing the right things. if wikileaks wasnt cia they could be seriously causing change and bringing down the house. but yeah the days of molotov cocktails are gone. everything is gonna be electronic. even politicians are now getting busted with new technology. technology is the way to go. and i understand people need an identity and show their colors. but its also the right of the fbi and cia to dress like that too. im all for the big A im just done putting up flags and making a fucking visual religion out of it. peace!


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## TheHawk

acrata- You sure are quick to criticize, seeing as how you aren't admittedly that educated yourself, maybe look more into what people are saying, not how they said it. When I said "_There is no government, no elites at the top controlling the poor" _that was in context to everything I was saying about ideal Anarchy, not the empire in which we are living in now. What Who the Hell Knows put over a series of threads were essentially similar to my own thoughts, only more elaborated. I was trying to avoid a lengthy explanation, bc honestly, the more we as humans try to define words, every individual's perspective differs, and can be equally valid. But to have a good discussion with good results all perspectives must be understood and respected.

_One thing I can't stand is a know it all hipster._


----------



## dharma bum

a lot of what i've read here sounds a bit like libertarianism... just sayin.


----------



## acrata4ever

TheHawk said:


> acrata- You sure are quick to criticize, seeing as how you aren't admittedly that educated yourself, maybe look more into what people are saying, not how they said it. When I said "_There is no government, no elites at the top controlling the poor" _that was in context to everything I was saying about ideal Anarchy, not the empire in which we are living in now. What Who the Hell Knows put over a series of threads were essentially similar to my own thoughts, only more elaborated. I was trying to avoid a lengthy explanation, bc honestly, the more we as humans try to define words, every individual's perspective differs, and can be equally valid. But to have a good discussion with good results all perspectives must be understood and respected.
> 
> _One thing I can't stand is a know it all hipster._


 hey goes with the territory as much as we hate trots and commies anarchists are absolutely awful to each other. peace!


----------



## TheHawk

"Goes with the territory" ? I'm not so sure you have a grasp on anarchy if you think we are supposed to be awful to eachother. Seriously do you think about what you write when you type it? And please don't speak for me "hating" any other ideals such as communism, that ignorance is reserved for yourself sir. People can make their own judgement, hopefully without the hate.

that's all.


----------



## acrata4ever

im educated i have 8 years of art. i just hate typing and rules of gramar. my rebellion deal with it. im also blind in one eye and falling apart. i have to be in perfect working order to be a fucking anarchist? libertarians own businesses their employees arent always full stock holders in the company. that means they are exploited. this is in violation of the ideal of libertarian communism/collectivism. when they fix that then the LP can be libertarians like the europeans until then theyre just republiKKKans who smoke dope.


----------



## acrata4ever

well if you dont know i will tell you THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMUNIST STATE ever! ther have been and are anarchist societies, and they are sucessful every time. until theyre fucked up by fake communist and nazis.


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## acrata4ever

it is war and it never stops one day im gonna snap and go around pistol whipping people who say "these damn liberals" and when the world doesnt end in 2012 i am so boycotting the hitlery channel. pftttt


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## acrata4ever

yeah gops , dems i tell them to kill each other and quit crying. i dont care if gang bangers kill each other and im all for civil war between these whiners. same shit different assholes.


----------



## TheHawk

let's see... so by your posts I find that you hate any views differing of your own. you advocate violence and war between humans. and you seem to feel that you are the ultimate source of knowledge on all things?

You appear to have the mentality of a 1950's propaganda poster.

Oh no the commies are coming for you!!

acrata- i'm sorry but you sound like a fucking fascist.

does anyone else agree ?


----------



## saje2u

. . . A way of life - not a fad or some fucking trend.


----------



## acrata4ever

TheHawk said:


> let's see... so by your posts I find that you hate any views differing of your own. you advocate violence and war between humans. and you seem to feel that you are the ultimate source of knowledge on all things?
> 
> You appear to have the mentality of a 1950's propaganda poster.
> 
> Oh no the commies are coming for you!!
> 
> acrata- i'm sorry but you sound like a fucking fascist.
> 
> does anyone else agree ?


views? id say i believe half of what i hear and nothing i see. hate is alot of work way too much work like voting and religious rituals. no i dont advocate violence but the gun nut teabaggers should use their guns against the state or stfu imma laugh like hell when the state gasses them all to death. but no i dont advocate violence i hate anything that goes boom including the 4th of july. no i dont know fuck all and i learn new things everyday. i feel like lucifer have i said I five times yet? enough of me, talk about anarchy. im not famous or interesting. me against them them who are those united we stand black against white ultimate good vs ultimate evil. quite laughable. i have freinds in the CP i call them fake asses to their face theyre still freinds. mao posters on walls dont offend me. and what exactly is a fascist? and plese dont reply YOU!!!!!


----------



## Who the hell knows

===


----------



## MrClean4Ever

The only true rules, or laws, are what the universe imposes on us, these are rules we must live by, because we only exist, because they exist.. One could argue that at this very moment, globally, we are experiencing anarchy.. People are doing what ever the fuck they want, and that's what's gotten us to this point.. What keeps you from committing an action? The law? Or your fear of it?


----------



## acrata4ever

anarchy is doing what you want as long as it harms no one else. for instance a married couple who openly live in adultery and hide it from their children arent harming anyone. now if you lie to your partner this can lead to problems like mental illness even suicide and murder. being a deadbeat divorced parent causes harm. it takes alot of thought and introspect to not cause harm. my taxes cause harm that really pisses me off. all i can do is try to pay less. my cigs work out to 1.20 a pack including taxes. i get 115 mpg. im really trying but having a loaded gun to my head and being foreced to pay the war tax is really gettin on my fuckin nerves. no i cant do what i want.


----------



## MrClean4Ever

Yes you can do what ever you want, you just have to work for it. You don't want to pay taxes? There are ways around taxes. And don't tell me you still can't do what you want because you don't want to work for it.. As I said, there are universal laws we must follow.. You are in a physical body, and getting shit done in it means work, even if that work is for yourself, and yourself alone. When I say everyone is doing whatever they fuck they want, I mean that, sometimes their actions impose obstacles for you, but isn't it, in a sense, anarchy that brought that about? We have "criminals" working within government, ignoring law. We're all individuals, shit isn't going to work perfectly unless humanity becomes a hive mind, and even then, there'd be glitches now and then.. Complex subject, as imperfect as everything else humanity creates. Whichever angle you come at it from, Anarchy either is, or isn't. We have conciousness, and so it is subjected to our brand of it, as individuals.


----------



## MrClean4Ever

Haha, I can't believe I'm talking about this again.. I took a vow to stay way from political (or lack thereof) chat.. Then again, it was to avoid physically damning consequences.. Guess it can't hurt over the net, with someone I'll probably never meet.


----------



## acrata4ever

well see thats what im getting out 2 or more people comuning means rules. and rules can be contradictory. like right wing xtians want the 10 commandments plastered everywhere on govt buildings. yet the govt lies steals commits adultery murders. the wiccan rede if it harm none, do what you will yet the frosts wrote about the ritual molestation of children. i dont harm anyone i piss people off but i dont need the state to hold a gun to my head to behave.


----------



## MrClean4Ever

And that's why either Anarchy doesn't exist, because there have to be rules with individuals, or it does when you factor the rules and friction in as part of anarchy, since in a sense, we're all just doing as we please, regardless. You still choose to follow a rule or law, you just have to bare the consequence.. Equal and opposite reaction, and all that jazz.

For instance, governmental politics impose their will upon the citizens with stealth laws or operations.. The people find out, and they rebel.. It's all a matter of choices made by individuals.. Nothing's really governing what we can and can't do, people just try and get in eachothers way, why? Because they have the free will to do so.. As long as there's free will, there's anarchy, in my opinion.. How much free will you have, depends on how iron yours is.


----------



## acrata4ever

what do you mean free will? like i said there is no freedom of speech. there are eschelons to shut you up. there is no right to life, you can be executed for talking, there is no liberty you cant smoke weed in front of a police station without getting arrested. there is no pursuit of happiness if you dont have the right family freinds and connections. ameriKKKa has never signed the geneva accord and has the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world that they have only used once (they sold it to saddam) go ahead rebel (waco) lol. the only way you can fight city hall is by consuming less and paying less taxes. go free will yourself a million bucks. i will say it again anarchy exists chiapas. anarchy has influence on politicians (ghandi, jefferson) and anarchy has worked each and every time it is applied. it is a political ideal of society with no ruling elites or bosses. peoples govt true democracy, autonomous city states with people getting off their lazy fat asses and volunteering for their community govt. it mean long meetings lots of voting and staggering shit detail. it means thinking reasonably with simple solutions to problems. without some big corperate fucks thinking for you and keeping you stupid with public school, media fake religion and fake politics. now i will say I a 3rd time. i am against the death penalty it would be better and more cost effective to banish rapists murderers and child molesters from society and let the non violent offenders go free. heres another example of idocy right wing xtians hate communism, jesus was against the death penalty. fundys want to execute 15 year olds (the non white ones) stalin executed children as young as 12. this is not the age of reason. and again the word anarchy is greek for no rulers no anarchist thinkers ever said an anarchist society will have no rules. this is what you see at christiania before you walk in http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljox4a7L1g1qbelkgo1_500.jpg thats the laws on their books about a half a page.


----------



## MrClean4Ever

Free will, you can do as you please, unless of course, destiny is real, but there's no proving that.. You can still do whatever the hell you want, but like I said, with consequences.. Sometimes you must find a workaround, in cases of government figures and agencies trying to halt activities, but under what pretenses do they do this? Free will, of course, unless others stop THEM, but that would be the stoppers will, you say anarchy is a world with no bosses or elite, but we all know that the free will of humanity, doing as it pleases, is what brings these things about, and that in itself IS anarchic.. Take away the rulers, and more will rise, on their own free will. I guess this is one of those things you have to think *outside* of the picture to understand, but it's hard, as humans are often socially programmed in whichever series of events brought about their programming as a conscious being. I myself programmed myself to think that anarchy is freedom, but conscious beings with freedom will take the freedom of others, as a symptom of anarchy, and so it could only work in a perfect world, but as we all know, there's no such thing as utopia. It's a tough subject, and it's why anarchy is so often argued.. To simplify, anarchy to me, is a living being simply living within the constructs of the universe, to whatever extent they please, which is why I brought up will.. How iron is yours? You seemto be allowing consequences to stand in your way of what it is you wish to do with life, and your happiness in it.

Anarchy can be such a nebulous, paradoxical subject.. Freedom and lack of rules, bringing about rules.. It's not anarchy that's problematic, it's us, as humans.


----------



## acrata4ever

what gives you the idea i want to run willy nilly with a gun shooting everyone i see? what consequences? im talking about anarchy not myself. ok to get into myself the only thing i really wanna do is ride in a hot air balloon before i die. that takes money wealth, wealth is aquired im not a theif. not all men are theives some are the sons and grandsons of theives. freedom is freedom and freedom begins in the mind. anarchy is a political ideal not utopia. just as democracy is a political ideal. and democracy is a good idea, i think it MIGHT work.

this is old read the fuck up http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/bakunincw.html
you got the largest library in the world at your fingertips and you use it to jack off and play games. READ (the state doesnt want you to)


----------



## MrClean4Ever

I didn't say anything about guns, or thievery, you're getting a little too worked up for me, haha, but no, you don't need money or wealth to fly in a hot air balloon, why don't you study a little, learn how to make one, and ride in it? All you need are the right materials, bet you could scrounge them up.. If people made homemade air balloons out of every day stuff back in the day, why can't you? Hell, do what that one guy did and get a bunch of helium balloons and tie them to a lawn chair (Just kidding, try a big basket.)

Also, I have read, plenty of texts on anarchy.. And most, if not all, are different. Which brings us back to the fact that it's all theory.. The only difference between you and I is that I'm not bitching about everything wrong with the world. At its base, most will argue that anarchy means zero rules, because to have rules, you need a ruler, everyone is going to agree and disagree on what rules are and aren't good, so there will always be someone who feels like they're being ruled over, in one form or another. I choose to have no rulers, because I am free. Free to do as I please, just like governments, and the people who make them. I just accept the consequences of living as a physical being around other individual beings, without whining about it I might add.. Don't tell me what I need to read the fuck up on, you just need to chill the fuck out. I respect your opinion, I thought we were just conversing.


----------



## acrata4ever

look people died jumping off mountains with homemade wings. i just want to ride. why dont you build a train. anarchy at its base doesnt mean zero rules. you dont need a central charismastic leader or cult of personality. sometimes there are two like the hunnish confederation. no im not butt hurt and im not a man bitch im just very grounded in reality and like pissing people off. enough of me i could give two fucks if i die tomorrow. back to anarchy. ok heres some bullshit in anarchy 101: "For their first million years or more, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers in small bands of equals, withouthierarchy or authority. These are our ancestors. Anarchist societies must have been successful, otherwise none of us would be here. The state is only a few thousand years old, and it has taken that long for it to subdue the last anarchist societies, such as the San (Bushmen), the Pygmies and the Australian aborigines.
this is complete bullshit written by an anarcho primitivist which i see alot of here and its all good. but these societys like mountain gorillas have a heirarchy. now yes the strongest warrior in a clan is king. he gets all the pussy and best cuts of meat. and yes i said warrior not hunter. tribes war native americans are a good source to study. wars are about economics never about freedom or religion. like i think it doubtful stone age tribes fought over the pig god vs the horse god. it probably had something to do with poaching pigs or horses on another tribes turf. there wasnt alot of hippy peace and understanding in stoneage times. babies who couldnt be fed in lean times were simply dumped in a pit. they had to conserve calories to make it through winter. also old people werent valued like being a male at 41 today you have to military value or labor value, old people were simply left behind to die if they couldnt keep up. women outlive men by 9 years. grandmothers were needed as baby sitters they had some value. so old men who were smarter from experience from young men needed a way to not be left behind once they were lame. so religion was invented. it may have started with a simple hustle like make a stone disappear in the hand or drawing amazing paintings. or knowing the stars and seasons and when was the best time to hunt and claiming to remote view where the buffalo herds were. but even small governments have leaders and clergy control freaks. we are modern we have technology and the ability to improve on technology. imagine all the great ideas being held back by capitalists and people in positions of power. it was ok to replace cotton pickers by machines, it was ok to replace accountants with quick books. politicians and police will never want to be replaced with robots and pick cotton. now back to your free will thing and consequences. imagine youre a small hairy proto human on the serengetti you see a total eclipse this looks like a giant eye an iris and pupil looking down on you. you see a shadow its dark and you see meteor showers. you may have even seen a few rocks hit the earth. then you think of yourself dropping stones on ants for fun. this could lead you to beleive in an invisible proto human in the sky. now if you thought a giant lives in the sky who could kill you with rocks or even flaming spears of fire, or whos breath could blow you away off the face of the flat earth, you may behave and not kill people and poach their animals at least in the daytime while god is watching. anarchist theory can put an end to the present stone age system.
anyone who thinks anarchy means no rules is confusing anarchy with laissez-faire individialism and or mob rule.


----------



## blackswan

I am terribly sorry, but I must interrupt you gentlemen with an important bulletin, Riddle me this. Anarchism and all ism and ist suffix holding ideology's can be logically dissected, thus reveled to be paradigms; paradigms of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, these paradigm`s are full of intersecting circular arguments that have Irrelevant conclusions that incorrectly assume one thing is the cause of another, these ideology's seem to support propositions with arguments that presuppose other propositions within the paradigm. Within this paradigm, truth can`t ever actually be reached; Each paradigm which only gives way to another paradigm, ultimately leaving understanding tied to some semblance of assumptions, there is no getting beyond the assumptions. In a whole, this paradigm serves as Affirmative conclusions from negative premise`s vs Negative conclusions from affirmative premise`s, The only thing that can be properly inferred from this paradigm is willful hate and egotistic debauchery.
Thank you for your time, have a nice day..


----------



## oki

one can explain anarchism in a milllion different ways, just as one can do with religon. anarchists will never stop arguing with eachother, but thats not bad. i think, as a joined attitude, people do need to be able to tolerate different views on it, and different actions. if you dont, then you are undermining the nature of anarchism, which is, that everybody can be free.

but thats just talk about some kind of imaginairy state of freedom. reality is, that you will have anarchists, and people who are against that, and endless different viewpoints in between. and if everybody claims to be the true voice of anarchism, they will oppose the others, and it will be a fight.

therefore, i think anarchism as a political system, is a rather pointless effort.
let it just be an ideal, our longing for freedom from repression, whatever that means.


----------



## acrata4ever

swan i think you suffer from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergraphia
ok oki i hate to disagree with you but anarchy means antichrist and all antarchists wanna do is run around willy nilly with guns and shooting everyone up and shit. the goal is the last man shoots the next to the last man and he wins. you have to have a long black beard a long black coat a black hat and a small round bomb with bomb written on it in white letters to be an anarchist or youre just a wanna be fuckin poser.


----------



## oki

lol. those names are more fitting indeed.
let me ask you this, is anarchism an act of resistance or is it something acheaveble?


----------



## acrata4ever

anarchism is an ideal resistance is a common tool to achieve any goal. a state or organised anarchy could be a goal.


----------



## oki

MrClean4Ever said:


> Free will, you can do as you please, unless of course, destiny is real, but there's no proving that.. You can still do whatever the hell you want, but like I said, with consequences.. Sometimes you must find a workaround, in cases of government figures and agencies trying to halt activities, but under what pretenses do they do this? Free will, of course, unless others stop THEM, but that would be the stoppers will, you say anarchy is a world with no bosses or elite, but we all know that the free will of humanity, doing as it pleases, is what brings these things about, and that in itself IS anarchic.. Take away the rulers, and more will rise, on their own free will. I guess this is one of those things you have to think *outside* of the picture to understand, but it's hard, as humans are often socially programmed in whichever series of events brought about their programming as a conscious being. I myself programmed myself to think that anarchy is freedom, but conscious beings with freedom will take the freedom of others, as a symptom of anarchy, and so it could only work in a perfect world, but as we all know, there's no such thing as utopia. It's a tough subject, and it's why anarchy is so often argued.. To simplify, anarchy to me, is a living being simply living within the constructs of the universe, to whatever extent they please, which is why I brought up will.. How iron is yours? You seemto be allowing consequences to stand in your way of what it is you wish to do with life, and your happiness in it.
> 
> Anarchy can be such a nebulous, paradoxical subject.. Freedom and lack of rules, bringing about rules.. It's not anarchy that's problematic, it's us, as humans.


i think one has to make a seperation between anarchy and anarchism. anarchy is a state of chaos, while anarchism is an attempt to come up with a system that moves towards that goal. like you said, if we are all free without limits, lots of people will abuse that and try to be more free by repressing others. so its vital to make at least one rule, that we all should be equally free.

thats okay, it cant be a system if you dont limit anything. thats what a system does. and like i said in my last post, its not so important to reach the ultimate state of perfectness, anarchy is the ideal, anarchism is a means to get as close to that as possible.

anarchists will always argue and agrue, because different minds will think different things are nessesairy to approach the same goal. so then you also need a system to let everybody have their voice and to come to a conclusion. thats where direct democracy comes in, and it simply depends on the group of individuals, what the outcome of an anarchist system is.
its pointless to undermine that by demanding more purist anarchist values, you have to deal with people.
to put it simple, an anarchist system can never reach pure anarchy. but it can regulate a bunch of people who try.


----------



## oki

acrata4ever said:


> anarchism is an ideal resistance is a common tool to achieve any goal. a state or organised anarchy could be a goal.


okay never mind, i misunderstood some things i red the other day. i wanted to object to violence as an anarchist icon.


----------



## acrata4ever

yeah violence sux, like if it wasnt for those cops joining hands and blocking our left flank we would have beat the shit out of those nazis mindlessly and blew the whole protest for everyone. so in effect the ghandian cops with no weapons that day saved the protest for the people and not the state. i mean we dont want to pay taxes the big corperations dont pay a dime in tax. corperations are globalists we claim to be internationals. its the same thing if we can do it without exploitation and throw irresistably cheap anarchist products out at these fuckers. we might get some power and some clout politically. their system is failing and common sense has to come into play. they cant just keep building jails and letting empty dwellings fill up with disease causing vermin. youre talking major heath epidemics.unemployed people with no disposable income cant buy these shitty things they make. i hate to say it we need to look like them. even the hippie anarchists realized this by the 80s.


----------



## William

Who here would actually want anarchy after experiencing or seeing other places where it has been the norm? With the initial collapse of a regulating government would be complete chaos followed by a relapse into closely knit bands of people who view outsiders as enemies. It would be 'tribal warfare' on a massive scale. Your food and property would be looted by other bands who'd then kill and rape your family members.

With the absence of the systems 'civilized' controls, humans would return to a more natural state that you rarely hear anarchists mention.


----------



## acrata4ever

fisrt off im sick of that word chaos. the universe runs on chaos and so far its kept alot of assholes alive. you have elected leaders in an anarchist govt such as mayors and governors cheif of police and sanitation and water management. these elected leaders have no fringe benefits and are recallable by a democratic vote. no bullshit time wasting of impeachment proceedings you dont like the job they do after 4 weeks someone else is voted in. there will be no bosses all corperations will be owned by the stockholders the workers themselves. like the GM situation. the govt could have bought them fired all the ceos and bosses who made it fail in the first place, then tell the workers they all own it make it work. done simple. you will have police depts who are again policed by citizens for corruption. you will have a military with elected leaders recallable on democratic vote. there will be no officer privlege they will eat and sleep the same way as privates. there will be no president i mean cmon this is the 21st century you can have talking garbage can for a president that speaks like stephen hawking repeating what professional speech writers write. you see chaos as a world with no one holding a gun to your head making you do shit you dont want to do. the greeks didnt have the ultimate system. and the system ultimately fails. you really cant see a workplace of equals and no bosses can you?


----------



## William

The reason we are alive is because of our ability to manipulate chaos.

While describing the system above you seem to forget that human social circles naturally fall into states of hierarchy. There is always someone more competent than you, and their ability to manipulate chaos to their advantage brings them to the top (usually at your expense). Safety or freedom? It's a sacrifice either way, you cannot be free without feeling terrified and you can't be safe without feeling bored and restricted. You see, there is no ideal system, you have to make a choice.


----------



## acrata4ever

then why dont you manipulate space so its less hot next summer?
i guess you never heard the anarchist slogan an injury to one is an injury to all. more people die on the job than in any crimes. the anarchists in barcelona brought train safety that hasnt been seen since 1938. now if your talking personal safety your govt and police dept is under no contract to protect you. they protect property not people. if you get stabbed you better get to a hospital quick because the police and ambulance wont show up for 10-15 minutes. exactly the time you need to bleed to death. the only thing that can protect you from harm is a firearm not a govt. most gun nuts already know this and carry concealed firearms. if theres no fringe benefits at the top like say a congressman makes what a janitor does has to pay for his own vacation and transportation needs. there is no incentive for a heirachy. im free im not terrified. boredom from safety? i obey traffic laws and go the speed limit im not bored. what choice asshole #1 or asshole #2? thats not a choice its a threat. if this is the best system then your system is full of shit and you need an enema.


----------



## oki

true, but maybe its the subtile differences that count. someone might be more qualified then others to have a leading job, but that doesnt mean that you should let this person then decide everything while you sit back, as it is now. current democracies are lazy. your voice should be heard allways, and if someone leads a group of people, then his job is to know what the group wants, and execute that. if he doesnt, teh group must be able to give someone else the job, and the first person is once again just one individual, who maybe has a little more insight and therefore can still help shape ideas. hirarchy doesnt have to mean that some get more priveledges, and it doesnt have to mean that some have more power. it just means that some are fit for a specific task, within the group. our repressive systems have ALLWAYS ment that some can place themselves above others, and stay there, even if they get detatched from teh group and start to repress them. if the group keeps the power, you turn that around, and our current democracies are only doing a halfassed job at that.


----------



## acrata4ever

yeah workplaces purposely pit workers against each other and make them compete so they wont befreind each other and form unions. i had a boss tell me he couldnt give me a raise because the democrats made him hire a black guy and a puerto rican. i wonder what bullshit he told them. and if you play into this two party black and white thinking and never see gray areas the boss and leaders got you where they want you. stupid and voting.


----------



## oki

yea , traditionally bosses have the power, not the workers. it can really only be solved if workers themselves start buisnesses, or if bosses are enlightened enough to make everybody associates. which rarely happens, because everybody wants to get rich all by themselves instead of doing good as a group.


----------



## RVLG

Anarchy is freedom from hierarchy. Anarchism is the denial of the legitimacy of existing power structures.


----------



## Cardboard

Truth. In reality, the only thing which governs the masses. Laws and governments have existed for a long time, and havent stopped anything. Democracy is an illusion. Anarchy reigns supreme. It seems science continues to prove it, even "God's" laws don't exist.


----------



## GetOutOf717

I like to see Anarchy as a personal thing. Everyone has their own view on it.

I see it as a mind set. A mind set of having nothing above you, being able to make your own rules, and living by what YOU think is right. What I see as the "right" way to live my life could be different from your idea of it.

I'm tired of abiding to society's "rules". Law is something that is supposed to be collectively decided by the people of a nation to be morally right. Do I agree with most of the United State's Laws? Yes. However, there are thing I do disagree with.

People are like sheep. They tend to fallow what the greater society believes to be the right thing. For example, I believe people should be able to make their own decisions on what they can and cannot do. Does this mean people should go out and rape and murder each other? No .However, do I think thousands of people should be sent to prison each year over marijuana charges, and petty theft charges? No. Although I don't think anyone should feel they have a moral obligation to steal from a grocery store because they're "poor" or homeless, I do think everyone should be able to eat.

In John Lennon's song Imagine, he talks about no countries, no religions, no possessions, etc. This would be an anarchist's perfect world. With nothing but people, and people getting along in perfect harmony, this world would be a very different place. This is a very unrealistic vision as well. Moving towards a world with no rules and equality is a difficult thing to do, especially during times when everyone is out for themselves. People are selfish and cruel. Why would everyone unite together when they're so used to fending for themselves? Do you really think we could drop all government and expect to be fine? As long as government exists, no matter what kind it is, we will be slaves to the wage. We will be working 9-5 jobs the rest of lives accepting the ideals of whatever our master tells us.

We are working towards a greater goal, whether it be our children, making this country a better place, our families, our selves. Why? Because that is what is right. Everyone has their own goals in life. Life is too short to be worrying about everything all the time.


----------



## ped

Anarchy in the sense of a culture milieu, is really a revolutionary play on collective conscience. On the superego. Anarchism in the purest sense seeks to disolve societal morals. A rejection of conformity. Not a rejection of ethical behaviour for the individual perse. Anarchism was the goal of Marx. We have been propagandized to associate socialism with bolshevik totalitarianism though. But as with the problem of communism it does not take into account human psychology. Many anarchist posit that a will to power is a product of the state and that is putting the cart before the horse. The will to power, or the will towards novelty as Terrance McKenna puts it, leads to government and social organization of morality. Not the other way around. Never in any revolution since the dawn of agrarian culture has the new order not sought its own power.

So what do we do if were in world where no regulatory body exists and a group decides that a salt deposit is theirs? And they will not let anyone have salt unless they have something to barter for it? They restricted free access to a natural resource that is needed for everyone. Well you can form a local posse to get rid of them. But then you just formed a government. You restricted free will of those restricting access to resources.

Humans are animals, period. We're glorified, narcissistic primates. Our nature is generally self-interested, aggressive and sexual. To restrict this by anarchist order is to apply a collective morality upon the individual that is merely an inverse to governmental organization. There will never be anarchy as the masses do not want it. Their psychology does not allow for it. If it did we would already have it.

Even within the confines of the anarcho-punk culture we see a glarring hypocrisy that stems from human aggression. Look how compartmentalized and divided it all becomes within a short period of time. Look how guarded everyone is about who is real or in and who is not. That's because the movement in general is more about a need for identity and meaning for the individual. A unconscious rejection of chaos for ego based order while at the same time upholding a cognitive appreciation for the exact opposite. The entire scene is dominated by shadow. We put others "in their place" socially as a mechanism of fight or flight in reaction to a percieved cultural-status threat to our identity. In other words the other person is seen as a threat to the subjects sense of relevency in the cultural heiracrhy and the subject immediately goes into either a state of adoration or acceptance to some degree (sexual passivity) or a state of devaluation (aggression) where the threat is labeled, compartmentalized and wrapped up in order for the subjects ego to justify and preserve its sense of uniqueness and meaning.

The entire charade is the antithesis of nihilistic anarchism. A game. Monkey politics.


----------



## Kabukimono

a word.


----------



## Earth

The CRASS model of Anarchy was being who you want to be, doing what you want to do so long as nothing / no one is harmed.
That works for me, and is in a way exactly how I live each and every day, for quite sometime now....


----------



## Teko

William said:


> Who here would actually want anarchy after experiencing or seeing other places where it has been the norm? With the initial collapse of a regulating government would be complete chaos followed by a relapse into closely knit bands of people who view outsiders as enemies. It would be 'tribal warfare' on a massive scale. Your food and property would be looted by other bands who'd then kill and rape your family members.
> 
> With the absence of the systems 'civilized' controls, humans would return to a more natural state that you rarely hear anarchists mention.



Maybe, but maybe not. There has been generations and generations of morals established unto society. Those morals are (with some extent) passed on to future generations and from that moral get diluted, carried on, changed, completely done away with, but most importantly, they leave a residue. That residue is what shapes the generations to come. Ethics. Of course there would be looting, for some people just like to take advantage of others, but once the initial chaos thins out, the people will pull together just as they have done so many times before. The war will never be over, but peace isnt out of the question( when the corporations no longer decide who lives and who dies) that will be peace. But there will always be someone, some group, whom will want more power, and with that power comes harmful, selfish actions that we experience today...

I lost my train of though due to all the yapping college kids currently surrounding me in this coffee shop. Sorry STP.


----------



## NorFormaTality

plagueship said:


> let me clarify a few things...
> 
> i should have said that anti-statism is PART of what is embraced by a variety of causes both right and left. anarchy traces its etymology to the greek an + archos, that is, "without rule" - without coercive, hierarchal relationships of domination and submission, might be one way to put it. without authority, which doesn't mean only gov'ts - not only do governments exert rule over people, but so can other hierarchal structures that aren't officially considered governments; for instance, the christian church has played a huge political role in the history of civilization without being a 'government'; there is parental authority, the authority of an employer and so on. these authority-forms don't simply trickle down from the gov't, although they have connections. and there are also more lateral ways in which people enforce oppressive social systems on each other like through race, gender etc. of course as you look back through history, governments and these other related structures and hierarchies haven't always existed nor existed in the same state as they do now. what we think of as states and governments today, for instance, appeared with the bourgeois revolutions 200-300 years ago; feudal societies didn't really 'have' governments as we think of them now but they were governed by interlocking hierarchies. eventually the bourgeois seized control of the economy and then the state and the era of industrialized mass society they created demanded a different political order.
> 
> basically i think the governments and other power structures are there as enforcement mechanisms for the division of class society into an elite which controls the means of survival and the rest who have to sell their labor to survive - this is the only thing that has remained more or less constant in terms of how people are controlled by authority. if you want to overcome coercion and subjugation you need to look at the fact of that disposession as primary. sure, the police are in our way but this doesn't disregard the fact that domination and social hierarchy are present in many aspects of life, in 'beneficial' social programs as well as in the batons and bars, the carrot as well as the stick.
> 
> i don't know i'm kind of just rambling now. i don't consider myself an anarchist; i used to, and it's still an influence on my ways of thinking and living and i think it's worth talking about.


 
The only reason I call myself a anarchist is simply because of what you put there. I am pretty much just anti heirarchy. To me that doesnt necessarily mean that there cant be rules or laws agains lets say raping and pillaging. But if i want to hurt myself who the fuck are you to stop me. Or if i want to do something thats not hurting anyone but you just dont like it what makes you think you version of correct behavior is any better then mine. I kinda like michael bakunins (probably spelled wrong) version. As in there is not government. Its almost the purest example of direct democracy. Granted it can be combined with other ideas. That one of the bueaties of a anarchistic society. I dont know how many of you have read any anarchistic philosophy books but i did shortly after discovering they even existed. (before i had started making my own which i was going to call constitutional anarchy but that was before when i thought anarchy really only met no government or laws or anything, you know the general misconception of anarchism. I was trying to combine it with the ideas that people should be raped and pillaged. Because they teach us in school thats what government is there for. But then i found people that were already way ahead of me on the subject. Not that i might not make my own or expand on there theories some day or something.) But i guess the main thing i want to see is a non heirarchical society that has just enough order to keep things from turning into complete choas. the world needs balance. Right now supposed "order" is out of control. And its shown by the destruction of the world. The same thing would happen if choas got out of control. Thats why the anarchy symbol i normaly use for stuff is a combination of it and the yin yang symbol. So i guess to some of you i am not a "pure" anarchist. But in all honestly i dont care. I would say that litteraly so system is not neccesarily anarchistic but more choasistic (yeah i know doesnt exist) because in that system someone is going is going to end up having the biggest stick so to speak. And we are right back to opressive hierarchies. I dont know if what i said made any sense. Normaly i would go back over it and refine it some instead of leaving it the way it came out the first time but seeing as i am at a library and dont really have time for such shenanigans peace.


----------



## shiftingGEARS

Anarchy is a warm fireplace we created from the rubble of the institutions that control us.


----------



## Earth

crass said it best thirty years ago, and then some....
anarchy is being who you want to be, doing what you want to do... so long nobody or thing gets harmed in the process.
works for me......


----------



## ped

Earth said:


> crass said it best thirty years ago, and then some....
> anarchy is being who you want to be, doing what you want to do... so long nobody or thing gets harmed in the process.
> works for me......


 

What if it's your dog shitting at the far corners of someones chemically fertilized yard?


----------



## Noble Savage

Anarcho-primitivism


----------



## billyriot

As with any ideal, Anarchism can be interpreted in various ways, all falling back to the basic tenet of there being no greater authority than yourself, in the appropriate context.

In my own life, as well as others, I feel that most forms of coercion (government, religion, and class division) are inherently damaging in the light of coexistence. I do have views that 'stray' out of what would be considered the "traditional" Anarchist standpoint, but if it has to stay confined to one definition, then wouldn't that cancel itself out?

I feel no one should be in control of how I live my life, if I choose to live interdependently amongst other like-minded, and even differing demographics; so long as we all understand and respect that we are here together and what we do, or choose not to do, can affect everyone as a whole.

I may sound idealistic in my views, but if I can't hope and apply these ideas in my own life, then what chance do I stand to see change?


----------



## ericwild

anarchism is ...do to others as you have them do to you .........think about it before you call me a holy roller


----------



## Margin Walker

acrata4ever said:


> anarchism is a form of govt (that word leaves a bad taste in my mouth i cant spell it out) what that govt is is debatable. theres anarcho syndicalism (spain), anarcho capitalism (the wild west), anarcho communism, anarcho federalism, even anarcho nationalism (nazis) minarchism is interesting and could be the first baby steps towards a form of anarchist govt.



Anarchism is a body of anti-authoritarian political philosophy. It isn't a government, unless you're alluding to ideology. Granted, most classical anarchist critique fell/falls short of anarchist. Much of it is leftist in it's thought and praxis. In practice, syndicalism, capitalism, communism, federalism, nationalism, and minarchism, even with the disingenuous prefix, all require the existence of a state to function, whether or not it exists in name. Advanced division of labor, commerce, mass society, industrialism, technology, and other hallmarks of modernity imply authoritarianism and the state.

The anarcho prefix, applied to non-anarchic tendencies or philosophies, is reformist. It's equivalent to greenwashing.


----------



## Margin Walker

ericwild said:


> anarchism is ...do to others as you have them do to you .........think about it before you call me a holy roller



I'd sooner call you a fan of Confucius.


----------



## Margin Walker

Anyone want to discuss green anarchist-egoist-nihilist tensions?


----------



## Primitive

goddamn there's alot of uneducated bullshit posts on this thread! but there are a few good ones to.

anarchy is: abscense of hierarchy and equal distribution of power. anyone who thinks it's only anti-statism is a fuckin idiot, but at the same time anyone who thinks (saw it mentioned... wow) it's compatible with statism is even more of an idiot. and most of all anarchy implies no rulers, NOT NO RULES! for fucks sakes before you make a thread called "anarchism is..." and start talking about what you think it is, read a goddamn book first, if not that at least an article... a paragraph even, about anarchism. or you could always just... ask an anarchist!


----------



## Matt Derrick

Primitive said:


> goddamn there's alot of uneducated bullshit posts on this thread! but there are a few good ones to.
> 
> anarchy is: abscense of hierarchy and equal distribution of power. anyone who thinks it's only anti-statism is a fuckin idiot, but at the same time anyone who thinks (saw it mentioned... wow) it's compatible with statism is even more of an idiot. and most of all anarchy implies no rulers, NOT NO RULES! for fucks sakes before you make a thread called "anarchism is..." and start talking about what you think it is, read a goddamn book first, if not that at least an article... a paragraph even, about anarchism. or you could always just... ask an anarchist!



haha i'm totally on board with your frustrations man! but please remember to keep the discussion civil


----------



## Primitive

also i might add that anarchism is not a "mindset", or a term that can be simplified in a dictionary. it's a movement that's been in existence well over 100 years filled with countless historical revolutionarys, activists, authors, artists, musicians, philopsphers, and social structure changing moments in history. therfor making this whole collaberation of "anarcho"-capitalists, "minimalists", "voluntaryists", etc etc absolete. these things have never, and will never have anything to do with anarchism. they're as much anarchists as nazi's are skinheads, by that i mean they stole the name, and without respect to it's long existence which always stood violently opposed to all the base philosophys of anarcho-capitalism.


----------



## creature

uhmm.. the thing that can be said is not the thing that is...?


----------

