Anarchy is

[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]

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]

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]

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.