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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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