fuck politics

[drizl]

why cant we get over politics? we are told utopia is a fantasy. we are told that anarchy would never work. we are told that we need leaders. fuck them all, they are all a bunch of corrupt assholes. red or blue? which is it to you? on the day to decide what are you going to do?
lesser of evils?
blue because the red cant be trusted?
red because the blues are too soft?
green because we cant trust the red or the blue?

it will always be the same, it will always be unfair so long as the rich are rich and the poor are poor. so long as we are divided, we are conquered.

the greatest moments in history have been when the people took it all back, and for that short time of anarchy, there was no control.

but then again, we are free, we are born free and we dont need anyone to tell us that so why not start the revolution within our own selves and see it through....

we can work together

cooperative self determination=anarchy.

[GreenEarthAl]

nice

[Bob]

the greatest moments in history have been when the people took it all back, and for that short time of anarchy, there was no control.

when?

[drizl]

the greatest moments in history are when individuals get together
regardless of differences
regardless of opinions
and work together to empower themselves.

because
they have realized what is real and important
and given up on everything else.

[Bob]

right, but which points in history?

[drizl]

why bob, do you want to argue?

[drizl]

you are not going to read about them in a history book.

[drizl]

it happens all the time.

[drizl]

its happening right now.

[drizl]

but you are not going to hear about it in the news.

[Bob]

you don't know, do you?

drizl, come on. it's not like i'm trying to trap you here. you said in your opening post, "the greatest moments in history have been when the people took it all back, and for that short time of anarchy, there was no control." which moments? it's a central part of your argument, your strongest part, if you can tell me when there was anarchy, and when it was great, this'll be a decent post.

which moments?

[drizl]

:eek:

[Bob]

i don't know what you're....

i'm genuinely curious, when was there anarchy? when did it work?

i'd love for anarchy to be a good idea, i really would, but i just don't think humanity's ready for it. tell me, when did it happen? when did it work? i'm not antagonizing you, i really would like to know. you seem to think that it did, so please, tell me.

my beliefs? anarchy would be ideal. i'd love for humankind to not need leaders, to do what's right of its own volition, to have order for order's sake, not out of fear or whatever. but i don't think we're ready. i don't think we've ever been ready, and i don't think we're ready now.

when did it happen?

[drizl]

bob, let me explain because it obviously flew right over you.
the most beautiful moments in history, throughout all of humanity
is in the moment an individual realizes what is real
when they realize what is important
when individuals come together as a community and empower themselves
take freedom into their own hands- not by vote or ballot, but through love
life
liberty, zionism, nuclear weapons, liberation, treaty, democrat, republican
those are all words
and we listen to the words that they tell us, day in and day out
and we think about those words and figure out what we are going to do
and what we are going to say.
the greatest moments in history are when people come together
through love
to survive and live life together.

the native americans, the tribes of the amazon, sustainable communities throughout the world, farmers markets, music, tree sitters, revolutions (true revolutions where it is by and for the people, not coups, or invasions)

when we can get beyond words, beyond politics and media
when we can live in harmony with eachother and our earth
that is beautiful, that is real, that is what being human is all about
that is human potential.
that is anarchy.


and we will never reach that point as a country, as a nation, no matter how "strong and brave" we are. the closest we will ever get as a country is to overthrow the whole system and rebuild it ourselves, to wait only until it becomes corrupted again, to be overthrown again. the greatest beauty is in the individual, in the capacity to love and feel and act freely as a living being alive and full of life.

[Bob]

bob, let me explain because it obviously flew right over you.

that was condescending

the native americans, the tribes of the amazon, sustainable communities throughout the world, farmers markets, music, tree sitters, revolutions (true revolutions where it is by and for the people, not coups, or invasions)

that came close to an answer, but say more. i'm not asking you what anarchy is, i know what anarchy is, i'm asking you when anarchy happened.

[drizl]

its happening right now

[Bob]

convince me

[Bob]

it's just....

how many times has it "happened" already, only to unhappen?

[drizl]

you will never have anarchy on a mass scale with this many people on the planet. there will always be people trying to grab power and exploit others.

anarchy is in the individual and in the relationship of the individual to other individuals, it is not on the scale of the country or society. like all sustainable and real things in nature, it works independent, within its own web of energies, creating its own energies to provide to other webs of energies, sharing in the unfolding of life and evolution. anarchy can only be sustainable if it is real and heart-felt by the people who wish to participate.
it is not about guns and war.
it is not about looting and raping
it is about working together and sharing in life.
it happens everyday, everywhere. we just dont recognize it.

[drizl]

it's just....

how many times has it "happened" already, only to unhappen?

we all die.

[Bob]

anarchy can only be sustainable if it is real and heart-felt by the people who wish to participate.

what about the people who don't, though?

[drizl]

then dont.

but you are participating right now bob, the internet is a form of anarchistic expression.

we dont see anarchy as self sustaining because everywhere it happens, it comes under attack. organic farmers gain more power because people are starting to like organic over GMO's-the FDA clouds the definition of organic and lets in corporate farmers, monsanto gains more power.
they use science and words to confuse and mislead, and take away the power.
everywhere you find anarchy, you find someone who wants to take it away.

anarchy is the purest form of freedom.

harmony is balanced chaos
anarchy and harmony is natural order

[drizl]

what about the people who don't, though?

anarchy isnt about excluding, isolating, or conquering. it is about the freedom to live and express your life as you wish. we all have that within us, regardless of who our leaders are. we can choose at any moment civil disobedience, hunger strike, to grow our own food, to protest, to overthrow.

anarchy is the biggest threat to the system which says its free.

[Miho]

drizl - Nice thread you made. I enjoyed reading it. I agree also. We all create our own personal anarchy, that affect our surroundings, whether the intent was positive or negative. It all begins within each of us, day to day.

Edit: Well, it doesn't have to affect our surroundings, but on a personal level, it affects you, anyway. Unless you make your words or actions known to those around you daily.

[drizl]

drizl - Nice thread you made. I enjoyed reading it. I agree also. We all create our own personal anarchy, that affect our surroundings, whether the intent was positive or negative. It all begins within each of us, day to day.

Edit: Well, it doesn't have to affect our surroundings, but on a personal level, it affects you, anyway. Unless you make your words or actions known to those around you daily.

thanks, mio. i think what you said about we creating our own personal anarchy, that affect our surroundings, is right on. i was watching colbert the other day and he had deepak chopra on, and i dont know much about him, other than my mother has every single one of his books, but he said something that made a lot of sense:

"reality is a projection of our consciousness. our perception, our cognition, our emotions, our biology, our behavior, our personal relationships, our social interactions, our environment, are all projections of our consciousness.
so if my consciousness is restricted and afraid, then all of those things will reflect fear. on the otherhand, if i have love, compassion and expansion, then all perceptions, cognitions and relationships will reflect that. so reality is a projection of a deeper self. and if you get in touch with that, you realize, that reality has infinite possibilities..."

i might have to go grab one of those books over the holidays! but i think you do wear what you are, what you feel, everything that has made you as a living being...its your karma, and it is recorded on every level of your being. when you feel and realize anarchy, or anything for that matter, you can see it, it becomes your reality, and it becomes reflected in the world.

[Pres Zount]

from capitalism to anarchism? Never going to happen.

[drizl]

i think that anarchy and money can work together. we need to trade, barter, buy or sell for things that we cannot produce on our own. that is part of what makes a community work- people with different skills and abilities throwing in their share to the benefit of the community. thats totally anarchy right there.

we can make a transition from this overpowered contralized gigantic corporate machine in to interconnected and sustainable local economies, do away with "allegiance to tax paing and war mongering" and embrace the art of human community building and self empowerment.

we can change from corporate agro-chem monoculture systems which destroy the planet, to localized organic/biodynamic food production which doesnt need to be mass-transported and actually revitalizes the earth.

we can switch from dominating hierarchical power structures to shared responsibility and sustainable communities.

we can change from non-renewable, polluting energy companies which are centralized and power entire states, to local, personal and practical apropriate technologies which use the sun, or wind or water as a renewable resource.

we can cut our consumption from that of a consumer based capitolistic exploitative society to that of a wise, intelligent and wasteless sustainable society.


but the thing is.... this will never happen with centralized heirarchical systems which have their basis and foundation on greed and corruption.

it can only happen, and will only happen when the cookie crumbles, and we decentralize and get back to living as humans, working together to survive, not for someone to survive.


that my friend, is anarchy.

[drizl]

from capitalism to anarchism? Never going to happen.

capitolism kills.

[Pres Zount]

yeah.

[GreenEarthAl]

The American Revolution was considered to be anarchy relative to what came before it and it was likened to anarchy by every self-respecting monarchist at the time.

The beginnings of the French Revolution definitely had many key ingreedients of anarchy.

Many indigenous cultures of the Americas were described as anarchy and most were anarchistic relative to the European cultures attempting to subjugate them.

Anyone really interested in the topic can easily do the research on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

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

[The Notorious LOL]

Capitalism is pretty similar to human instinct and most of the animal kingdom for that matter. There will always be success and competition coexisting with failure and apathy. Its always been that way, and always will be, even before capitalism existed. The very idea that a format of government should somehow change the general lack of equality in the world is laughable.


While other forms of government are a nice idea, they are just that.

[GreenEarthAl]

Every advocate of every system describes it as "natural". And usually as "the most natural".

Anarchists are no different of course, the latest flavor of neo-primitivist-anarcho-greens and what have you will point to the last 100,000 years of bipedal primate history and describe everything since the advent of cities as unnatural.

Usually when the neuvaux economists try all of that "some people are born losers" schpeil as the most expedient way to abdocate any responsability for their fellow human beings, and extoll the virtues of competition and greed as the most efficient way to advance human societies, I just smile and agree. And then I speculate on the possibility that individuals seeking out communalism and finding the effective means of valuing the talents and compensating for the weaknesses of the whole community and unlocking the potential of human cooperation may, in fact, be the next wave of how to be "winners" on the community level. And perhaps all of the "every man for himself", "dog eat dog world", "get the next 'man', before the next man gets you" communities will find themselves unable to compete in the new millenium, and will rapidly discover their power in decline. Time will tell.

[Pres Zount]

Capitalism is pretty similar to human instinct and most of the animal kingdom for that matter. There will always be success and competition coexisting with failure and apathy. Its always been that way, and always will be, even before capitalism existed. The very idea that a format of government should somehow change the general lack of equality in the world is laughable.

While other forms of government are a nice idea, they are just that.
Capitalism doesn't mean competition, and lack of capitalism doesn't mean lack of competition. Capitalism refers to the 'capitalists' owning the means of production.

Who owns the means of production in the animal kingdom? It's the lions, isn't it?

humans lived communaly for thousands of years pre-history. There is no "human instinct" that could prevent us doing it again.

[D_Raay]

Every advocate of every system describes it as "natural". And usually as "the most natural".

Anarchists are no different of course, the latest flavor of neo-primitivist-anarcho-greens and what have you will point to the last 100,000 years of bipedal primate history and describe everything since the advent of cities as unnatural.

Usually when the neuvaux economists try all of that "some people are born losers" schpeil as the most expedient way to abdocate any responsability for their fellow human beings, and extoll the virtues of competition and greed as the most efficient way to advance human societies, I just smile and agree. And then I speculate on the possibility that individuals seeking out communalism and finding the effective means of valuing the talents and compensating for the weaknesses of the whole community and unlocking the potential of human cooperation may, in fact, be the next wave of how to be "winners" on the community level. And perhaps all of the "every man for himself", "dog eat dog world", "get the next 'man', before the next man gets you" communities will find themselves unable to compete in the new millenium, and will rapidly discover their power in decline. Time will tell.
Some will say this is a pipe dream, not that I don't agree... It's so very frustrating.

[drizl]

Capitalism is pretty similar to human instinct and most of the animal kingdom for that matter. There will always be success and competition coexisting with failure and apathy. Its always been that way, and always will be, even before capitalism existed. The very idea that a format of government should somehow change the general lack of equality in the world is laughable.


While other forms of government are a nice idea, they are just that.

i would disagree with you in that human beings are capable of cooperation, community building, and have a capacity to love. we are only in an age where these values have been tossed for the sake of prosperity and growth.
the idea of economies and economic growth is only a recent one in human history. perhaps since the development of the city, and the organization of societies for the sake of growth and dominance.

modern capitolism isnt more natural than small-scale sustainable communal living. its only less evolved because it is based on competion and exploitation rather than the ideas of love and harmony. we have a capacity as human beings which can seek love and harmony, and in the future, our survival will depend upon the development of those expressions.

we can say that greed and power struggle and capitolism put people at the top, and that is a reflection of evolution and the food web and all of that. but we are not animals, we are human beings.

Capitalism doesn't mean competition, and lack of capitalism doesn't mean lack of competition. Capitalism refers to the 'capitalists' owning the means of production.

Who owns the means of production in the animal kingdom? It's the lions, isn't it?

humans lived communaly for thousands of years pre-history. There is no "human instinct" that could prevent us doing it again.

i dont agree with that either. in order to get to the top and own the means of production you have to compete for the position. corporate executives were not born with the power and the role to "lead us, and own the means of production" they fought to get where they did, they made sacrifices, and some of them even sell their own soul to reap the benefits of our sweat and toil. the very basis of capitolism as we know it in modern society is greed and competition.
and as for lions owning the means of production, that doesnt really make any sense, and is only a reflection of a mistaken understanding of nature and how the universe unfolds. lions dont own anything, no one does. ownership is an illusion. cooperation and sharing, even when taking for the sake of survival, is the reality of the situation. the lion kills a gazella and brings it back to the pride. there is no money involved, no needless and wasteful exploitation involved. in nature there is no concept of waste. everything is used, everything is efficient and everything is embedded in the cycle of existence and the evolution of life.
as human beings we have mastered the art of survival, but have forgotten our connection to nature. and we are killing the planet, and hundreds of species go extinct every year. it is time for cooperation and sustainability, the system has proven itself to be self destructive. EVOLVE.









in addition, i just want to say this:
there is always a better way, and so long as we keep on about our daily lives without seeking this better way, and without reflecting, creating and growing, we will only continue to perpetuate the problems and short comings of the system. we might not be aware of it because as productive members of western society we are the benefactors, we are the richest and fattest.
but to those who work in the mines, who struggle for every peice of bread, bowl of rice, those who dig in the garbage for food and shelter, you tell them that capitolism is righteous and great.

[Documad]

I really like rules. There are bad rules, but I'd rather change them into good rules than have no rules.

I'm not being a smart ass, but I'm with Bob and wish that someone would explain when anarchy was beautiful.

This is off the topic, but I keep running into populist movements in the books I've been reading. I've gotten so used to those movements being doomed that I wait for the law and order types to shut them down as soon as they get started.

[DroppinScience]

I really like rules. There are bad rules, but I'd rather change them into good rules than have no rules.

I'm not being a smart ass, but I'm with Bob and wish that someone would explain when anarchy was beautiful.

This is off the topic, but I keep running into populist movements in the books I've been reading. I've gotten so used to those movements being doomed that I wait for the law and order types to shut them down as soon as they get started.

Well said. I fail to see how no government and rules will somehow "benefit" us. If you want a beneficial society, you amend the bad rules. You have to constantly self-correct yourself.

As for when anarchy was beautiful, the very closest to an answer that's been presented here are the Native American societies before Columbus set foot on the New World (but does that really count as "anarchy"?).

[Pres Zount]

As for when anarchy was beautiful, the very closest to an answer that's been presented here are the Native American societies before Columbus set foot on the New World (but does that really count as "anarchy"?).

All pre-history was anarchy. Yeah, it does count, but it wasn't beautiful. A life expectancy of 20, whilst living in a mud cave isn't something to aspire to. All modern attempts at anarchy have been failed insurections by anarchist groups (EDIT: the CNT during the Spanish Civil war - fought the fascists, beat them, refused to hold power, lost it). There has never been a major anarchist revolution, certainly not one to give as a good example, although anarchist groups all over the world have supported/helped various socialist ones.


drizl, the 'lion' comment was sarcasm. Duh.

[drizl]

as al said, most revolutions have elements of anarchy. i dont think anarchy could ever happen on mass scale, could never sustain itself.

once again, anarchy is a very personal thing, it is not about "no government run around all crazy and rape and pillage". it is about realizing true freedom and independence and empowering yourself to live life, in the expression that is true for you.

examples of anarchy:
-sustainable communities (earthhaven, the farm, etc...there are hundreds in the U.S.)
-farmers markets
-civil disobedience (MLK, Gandhi, womens suffrage etc...)
-protesting
-boycotting
-anytime anyone makes the conscious decision to not play by "the rules"
-the 50's60'sand70's were hugely important for our country, and could not have happened if it wasnt for the anarchists who led the civil rights movement, hippies, and the pyschadelic revolution.
-it is anarchy that has lead, is leading and will lead to the sustainable revolution.

anarchy is not a political system, it is the anti-political system. political systems rob their citizens in exchange for "benefits", most of which, are unnecessary and individuals are capable of taking care of and doing on their own, and most often times, more efficiently through community building and compassion.

anarchy seeks the fullest expression of individual beings. truth, love, wisdom, freedom. centralized, hierarchical political systems seek to destroy all elements of anarchical societies because they are a threat. competition is the basis for american capitolism because you need competition to support economic growth. cooperation is the basis for human anarchy, because you need to cooperate in order to survive within but without this system.

i find anarchy beautiful, and politics terribly depressing and hopeless in these times of globalization, nuclear weaponry, war, mass media, etc.....and its only going to get worse with global warming, resources dwindling, fresh water polluting, mass extinctions of species, military mobilization and god knows what else.

anarchy is more of a state of being, than anything else. and it has led to the most important movements in political history- and the political system only embraces the movements and the desires of the people, when it fears losing its own power. it mutates to save itself.

[Documad]

Well, it all depends on how you define anarchy I guess. I think that the native americans, and many of the other movements referenced aren't what I consider examples of anarchy. They had defined social roles and hierarchies and they banded together in an organized way to defeat foes. People in successful movements, like the civil rights movement in the US, were following defined rules, they just weren't the rules of their local government at the time. And those movements can have big impact to change the larger government, but they can't last, they don't replace the government, and they can't work against every foe.


Anytime you start to talk about collectives in history, I get the same picture in my head. It seems like just about every collective -- no matter what high and mighty ideals it aspires to -- ends up with the charismatic male leader having sex with his female followers while lower-ranking members abstain from pleasure.

[drizl]

Well, it all depends on how you define anarchy I guess. I think that the native americans, and many of the other movements referenced aren't what I consider examples of anarchy. They had defined social roles and hierarchies and they banded together in an organized way to defeat foes. People in successful movements, like the civil rights movement in the US, were following defined rules, they just weren't the rules of their local government at the time. And those movements can have big impact to change the larger government, but they can't last, they don't replace the government, and they can't work against every foe.


Anytime you start to talk about collectives in history, I get the same picture in my head. It seems like just about every collective -- no matter what high and mighty ideals it aspires to -- ends up with the charismatic male leader having sex with his female followers while lower-ranking members abstain from pleasure.

well, i think you have a twisted idea of community. perhaps the one fed to you by the media, as we are led to believe anarchy is a terrible thing, and that communes are like cults- like david koresh or heavens gate.

native americans didnt band together in an organized way, for the defeating of foes. they did it to preserve their culture and traditions, for survival and becaue it is human nature to seek out other humans and cooperate to achieve security and share love.

many of us have this notion that natives, indigenous and aboriginal cultures were violent and ignorant. we equate primitive with stupidity. they didnt have sciences and technologies as we do today. but they did have sciences. they didnt have art and religion as we do today, but they had their beliefs and the art. they were/are human just like us, and express human beingness in the same ways, just with differing views. our cultures today are much more violent and destructive than any native culture has ever been.

[Documad]

I'm not an expert on native american history by a long shot, but I've read about native american tribes that worked together to take on other tribes. And then when european men came, they worked with europeans to defeat the rival tribes and figured rival tribes for extermination. I'm not talking about prehistory hunter gatherers, but later than that. It didn't resemble the european model, but there was a hierarcy and they battled for turf, etc. It's natural that there are fewer turf battles when people are spread out and that battles intensify as they get more crowded. I wasn't saying they were savages -- I was saying that they were more advanced than we think but that it doesn't fit our idea of being organized. I don't see anything that fits my definition of anarchy.

I'm not getting ideas from modern media -- it's from reading history. There are lots of goofy commune-like separatist societies with a flawed and charismatic male leader in the 19th century and early 20th century. I was reading about another one yesterday whose leader was making everyone follow a stoic and self-sacrificing lifestyle while he was fathering kids with all the other guy's wives. It's a pattern you see all the time. Humans are humans and crazy didn't start in the late 20th century. These groups seem to arise in response to a perception that the rest of society is progressing too fast or getting off track. Sometimes there is a religious base but often it's got a more humanist bent.

[ms.peachy]

our cultures today are much more violent and destructive than any native culture has ever been.
Ah, do I detect a whiff of the noble savage?

[drizl]

noble savage:) yes, and maybe i am romanticising a little too much. i tend to do that. but i think that the scale of our violence is much broader, and when we look at what our children and younger generations value (violent movies, violent music, violent video games, violent media, etc...) i think it can be said that our culture is much more bent on violent tendencies.


doc: anarchy is a response to government.

for me, anarchy is about choosing to find your own truth. and choosing to express your own truth. now, where that manifests as in relation between ourselves and the outer world is what we are discussing.

those who follow strange leaders, are not being totally independent and empowered. those who are their own leaders and work together with others who are their own leaders, those are anarchists. its one thing to simply drop out. its another thing to simply drop out and follow another. its a completely seperate thing to drop out, and work together. thats what i advocate.

i believe i romanticized the native americans a little too much, i really didnt want to do it, but i have a tendency, im a romantic:) when i think of native americans, i think of people who lived in tune with nature, had developed a culture in and out of nature. so i equate that type of lifestyle as being "more natural", and i lost it with equating anarchy, towards my romantic view of them being "more natural". i do believe anarchy is more natural, that we are born as independent human beings, and we have capacities to understand and realize and ultimately, to harmonize. and for me, that is what anarchy is all about, striving for independence, for the better way, for harmony.

[EN[i]GMA]

What does it even mean to call yourself an 'anarchist'? You support a ridiculously idealized notion of human society where everyone works together in solidarity?

I look around, and I don't see much human kindness. All I really see is ignorance. I don't think the average person off the street has any capability (or desire) to make important decisions. This doesn't mean I support capitalism or hierarchical decision making, or anything like that, because I believe it's been reasonably demonstrated that those systems are terrible and certainly are not satisfactory answers to the question of how to best run a human society.

Nevertheless, I can't see how having everyone at work on vote on everything makes sense; what do they know about which model of printer to buy? More importantly, who fucking cares?

How would anarchism solve problems like poverty? People would vote to send all their excess shit to Africa and live like ascetics? Fuck, they could do that tommorow. But they won't. Why would they under anarchism?

Just because capitalism causes problems doesn't mean it's antithesis will solve them. Maybe those problems are born out of a simple disregard for the concern of others that is unable to be amended without coercive force: take the idiot's bread if they won't give it away. We call that taxation, right? Maybe confiscation is ultimately preferable to everyone deciding to say "fuck it." I don't know, but I do you don't know either.

So really, what is 'anarchism'? I know the definitions, I've read up on it, I've argued with anarchists before, I even relate to their concerns most of the time, I just don't see it as a serious solution to serious problems. If we have to feed the poor in Africa, why not just do it? Why twirl around in a million fucking circles debating "Marx vs. Proudhon"? Why not just ship some fucking bread to Nigeria?

And then look at me, petulant cynical asshole that I am. This is human society. Beware.

[GreenEarthAl]

There is no one agreed upon meaning when one calls themselves an anarchist. The idea's more than 100 years old now, so 100 different flavors have had their way with the notion.

Mainly I think the idea is predicated on the assertion that hierarchys and governments KEEP people from having the capacity or the desire to make decisions for themselves. That aristocracies and oligarchies stupify the masses and condition them to remain dependant and that anarchy is the ultimate step in releasing them.

Among anarchists that I've heard philosophising about it who've put in major time thinking about it, it boils down to every person being responsable for their own actions and no one having jurisdiction over anyone else. In a sense, a forced implementation of the golden rule universally. Everyone arives at a point where they do not do evil unto others because they do not want it done back. Basically the ultimate in decentralized government. 6 Billion governments of one.

As I imagine it, it would preclude people from selecting a person to specialize in this and that, or pick temporary leaders to implement a task. No one would have the authority to stop a small group wishing to do so. It was born of people's having had enough of monarchies and nobles and fiefdoms and the like, as were capitalism and communism and all of the other bold new ideas of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Sad that it eventually turned into a bunch of pedantic rantings of Marx & Engles vs Bakunin and the like. And maybe the only guy who every really lived up to the title was Leon Frank Czolgosz (the guy who shot President McKinley).

[EN[i]GMA]

Mainly I think the idea is predicated on the assertion that hierarchys and governments KEEP people from having the capacity or the desire to make decisions for themselves. That aristocracies and oligarchies stupify the masses and condition them to remain dependant and that anarchy is the ultimate step in releasing them.

I can certainly see a valid point here. Any feeling tending towards responsibility, care, or concern atrophies when you live in a world based on silly goals and meaningless production.

But again, I don't know if this is systematic or just one part of the human psyche kicking the shit out of another; the barbaric and base gang-tackling Enlightenment values in the back-alley of society.


Among anarchists that I've heard philosophising about it who've put in major time thinking about it, it boils down to every person being responsable for their own actions and no one having jurisdiction over anyone else.

Well I can see two problems right there: most people aren't very responsible and at least some people desire control over others.

We know that people are already very susceptible to authority; we have the experiments to demonstrate. Again, is this society's fault or are people generally just pretty gullible, naive, and irresponsible, willing to believe any dethroned Nigerian prince or guy in a white lab coat? Or could this perhaps been seen as a natural lack of guile and general trustworthiness? A hindrance or an asset?


In a sense, a forced implementation of the golden rule universally.

Forced by whom?

Everyone arives at a point where they do not do evil unto others because they do not want it done back. Basically the ultimate in decentralized government. 6 Billion governments of one.

Personal responsibility. I'm all for that. But is it practical? Are people capable of rationally deciding to be responsible?


As I imagine it, it would preclude people from selecting a person to specialize in this and that, or pick temporary leaders to implement a task.

This is, I think, an ideological facet of anarchism that I'll never "get."

I don't, out of the spirit of solidarity, want everyone to have an equal, democratic shot at doing important things: I want talented people to have a monopoly.

I think, consequentially, this makes more sense; I'm not beholden, or even particularly amenable to, ideas about forcing everyone to 'take turns' at jobs. That clearly goes against specialization of labor, probably the single greatest achievement of modern capitalism.


No one would have the authority to stop a small group wishing to do so. It was born of people's having had enough of monarchies and nobles and fiefdoms and the like, as were capitalism and communism and all of the other bold new ideas of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Sad that it eventually turned into a bunch of pedantic rantings of Marx & Engles vs Bakunin and the like. And maybe the only guy who every really lived up to the title was Leon Frank Czolgosz (the guy who shot President McKinley).

I guess we're all really pussies inside, unable to go down firing like we all feel in our guts we should.

Fuck the system, right, smash the apparatus. Or go to my room and read a book. Whatever.

[Pres Zount]

GMA']

I look around, and I don't see much human kindness. All I really see is ignorance.

Humanity has the capability for inteligence, kindeness and all that jazz. There is no reason to write of a better future by realising how negative things are in the present. I believe there is no chance in hell that you can smash the capitalist state and expect everyone to get along like good little anarchists, but that doesn't mean that the capacity to get along is hard wired out of the human brain. It's just not very likely under a capitalist system. A more advanced system perhaps? A few tweaks here, and there. Still make big leaps, but not any blind ones.

human history is one of an evolving society and economy. Always gradually, and always under the guidance of the most powerfull economic force at the time; the feudal lords and monarchs pushed for feudalism over a slave society, the capitalists revolted for capitalist democracy. The class with the most potential today is the working class, the majority.

Replace the capitalist state system not with a hope that everyone will get along and take instant responsibility, but with a workers democracy where the majority can improve their lives, intelligence, living standards and political responsibility gradually. The state is a tool in the hands of those in power, so it should be used to achieve those afformentioned goals, not smashed simply because the capitalists use it only to stay in power.

Also, as Enigma said, there is nothing wrong with specialisation of labour. Why wouldn't you want the best mechanic fixing your car? There is no reason for everyone to vote for a desicion on everything. But that argument is neither here nor there.

There is no hope for humanity to leave capitalism behind if the only opposition to it is the reliance on people to suddenly become more intelligent people. For the most powerful economic force to achieve it's wants, they must take political force, so that the far away dream of equality and anarchy is not so far away - rather than the joke that most people see it as.

[drizl]

i always think of anarchy as a deeply personal approach to life.

you dont go around shouting to everyone that you are an anarchist, you just become one once you have found the emptiness in modern society, and the great big machine.

when you become dissatisfied with the world you have two basic choices.

1. forget about it, give in and just continue to go about your life, denying your true feelings of dissatisfaction- which are totally justified. (sheeple)
2. decide to change your life, which can lead you to an infinite number of possibilities. (anarchist)

that is why it is personal, because it is YOUR life, and YOU have the right to say, do feel and express any which way you want.





i put a lot of hope in to the idea of sustainable communities as the antithesis, which yes, can be based on anarchy. certainly, the decision to slip away from society, and become a productive member of an alternative society can be a decision grounded in anarchist-thought. but thats just me, that is just one idea, of one expression of anarchy.

[monkey]

entropy is the only "natural" order of things.

[The Notorious LOL]

i always think of anarchy as a deeply personal approach to life.

you dont go around shouting to everyone that you are an anarchist, you just become one once you have found the emptiness in modern society, and the great big machine.

when you become dissatisfied with the world you have two basic choices.

1. forget about it, give in and just continue to go about your life, denying your true feelings of dissatisfaction- which are totally justified. (sheeple)
2. decide to change your life, which can lead you to an infinite number of possibilities. (anarchist)

that is why it is personal, because it is YOUR life, and YOU have the right to say, do feel and express any which way you want.





i put a lot of hope in to the idea of sustainable communities as the antithesis, which yes, can be based on anarchy. certainly, the decision to slip away from society, and become a productive member of an alternative society can be a decision grounded in anarchist-thought. but thats just me, that is just one idea, of one expression of anarchy.




maybe you should have carved this on a tree then rather than typing it on a PC purchased with currency.

[drizl]

entropy is the only "natural" order of things.


the world is composed of the bipolar, of opposites. the opposite of entropy is ectropy, and in living organisms which experience growth and evolution, ectropy is predominant. in living organisms which follow the laws of entropy, decomposition and decay are predominent.

see gaia theory.

[drizl]

maybe you should have carved this on a tree then rather than typing it on a PC purchased with currency.


well, this pc was recycled if you really want to know- it was from my fathers past job. so at least i got that going for me.

[sam i am]

well, this pc was recycled if you really want to know. so at least i got that going for me.

Can that be the new catch slogan for anarchy?

[EN[i]GMA]

Can that be the new catch slogan for anarchy?

It's fitting, though I think "I got this Geo Metro used, so...yeah." might pack a bit more punch.

Or maybe "It's cool man, I lifted these Doritos from the 7/11."

Either of those, or "Labor produces all wealth. Wealth belongs to the producer thereof."

Myself, I prefer the first or second.

[drizl]

oh fuck off. i was only saying that because notorious was talking shit.

[drizl]

stick to the roles, and the rules. you'll be fine.

me, im going for a walk.

[The Notorious LOL]

oh fuck off. i was only saying that because notorious was talking shit.


I was merely talking shit because of the irony in your statement being posted on a message board via the internet from a computer...all of which are provided to you by the working class and the modern day marvels of capitalism, which pampers you daily.

[drizl]

the internet might be brought to you by communications corporations, but for now, it is anarchy. people are allowed to post ans say what ever they want, and even greater, it can link individuals together. it is a threat to power-mongers and that is why they want it controlled.

and im not saying that i am a pure anarchist, because im not. so dont assume thats what i am trying to say. i just love the idea and i have thought about it, and it makes sense to me.

[Schmeltz]

you dont go around shouting to everyone that you are an anarchist


Yeah, no anarchist ever does that

[The Notorious LOL]

the internet might be brought to you by communications corporations, but for now, it is anarchy. people are allowed to post ans say what ever they want, and even greater, it can link individuals together. it is a threat to power-mongers and that is why they want it controlled.



actually its an asset to power mongers, otherwise they wouldnt have bought up sites like Youtube and Myspace.


and it certainly isnt anarchy. It may be more difficult to control or regulate than say, television or the radio...but if you say or do certain illicit things online there are consequences for it. Last I checked Tommy Chong was busted for selling bongs online...shit like that doesnt happen in Anarchyland!

[QueenAdrock]

the internet might be brought to you by communications corporations

It was actually brought to you by the Department of Defense, which is kinda ironic seeing as how anarchists are so anti-establishment. Truth is, everyday that these anti-military people go online, they're using something that was originally created by the military for soldiers to keep up communications.

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) was responsible for funding development of many technologies which have had a major impact on the world, including computer networking (starting with the ARPANET, which eventually grew into the Internet).

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

[drizl]

blogging, message boards, emailing, forums etc etc etc

sure, created by the government, sure companies profit off of it, but i can go to my library, and not have to pay. i can chat in real time with someone from across the globe. i can search the internet for information, for news, for upcoming protests. i can open up a chatroom and sit down with thirty people from across the world, and freely speak about iraq, about the president, about other peoples president, about the world. i can write or say anything that i want.

that doesnt mean someone isnt watching, or that it might not get me in trouble...
but that is why it has to be protected, because it is so important at this point, where media is so controlled and restricted.

the internet has linked us global, and enabled us to communicate, reach out and expand our minds. it is a giant library of information, global, translatable, a web of information and communication. and it is that which scares leaders and politicians who wish to keep us controlled, and restriced.

it is another way for someone who understands and believes in what anarchy is, to express themselves. and that is where anarchy exists on the internet.

[drizl]

actually its an asset to power mongers, otherwise they wouldnt have bought up sites like Youtube and Myspace.


and it certainly isnt anarchy. It may be more difficult to control or regulate than say, television or the radio...but if you say or do certain illicit things online there are consequences for it. Last I checked Tommy Chong was busted for selling bongs online...shit like that doesnt happen in Anarchyland!

a lot of those big websites were created by individuals who just had a good idea and it got big, as well.
i dont know where anarchyland is...i think its a figment of your imagination. control and government claims ownership of every square inch of this planet. they think that they have the right to ownership of everything. and that if you fall in their territory, they can control you. and that is wrong. because control and ownership are an illusion, and especially so when it involves a belief that someone contols or owns a living being. we are all created independent, created to live and create and not to be controlled.

you should be allowed to sell bongs online, you should be allowed to sell them in stores, on corners, everywhere. its wrong that he had to go to jail for that, and unfortunate for him and his family- but it sounds like he made it through the experience ok.

you can use the internet however you want, and its up to the user to decide. there definately are risks, and it definately isnt anarchyland. but there is a lot of uncontrolled territory (which is becoming more controlled everyday) where you are free to express yourself.

[monkey]

. in living organisms which follow the laws of entropy, decomposition and decay are predominent.



*singing* the ciiiiiiircle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!

(youre just having fun contradicting yourself, man. entropy is the basis of anarchy.)

[drizl]

entropy means disorganization
ectropy means reorganization

they both exist, and either one can be expressed in anarchy. my idea of anarchy is that it leads towards evolution, whereas our systems are threatening not only evolution, but all forms and qualities of life. ectropy represents that side of the coin which leads to growth and expansion, towards levity and higher being. entropy leads towards gravity, towards destruction, decay etc...

if you want to say that anarchy is the destruction of an organized system, then yes, its entropic and not at all ectropic- which is only looking at one single aspect of organized systems and entropy.

however, if you assume, as i do, that anarchy is a good thing, and you understand it as that, and also understand that in every phenomena there are an infinite number of influences, and that the result of something being entropic/ectropic rests in the overall tendency or sum total of these influences and results leaning toward one or the other (entropy or ectropy), then you can understand why for me, anarchy is an ectropic process.

in the end, you call it entropy because you see it as being a bad thing. i call it ectropy because i see it as a good thing. and that is why there is so much disagreement about anarchy, about the word itself.

[The Notorious LOL]

no Pauli was right...you're contradicting yourself.

[monkey]

i love entropy. it's my favorite law of the universe. you're ASSUMING i dont like it because youre ASSUMING i disagree with what youve said in this thread. the only point i made is that in nature, the physical laws dictate that entropy rules. things tend to go towards RANDOMNESS. it's one of the few laws that cannot be contradicted when switched from macro to micro worlds. that's all. but you're having a ball assuming everyone disagrees with you, therefore making yourself a lot less willing to accept the concepts you're putting out there of internet people supporting each other and starting a revolution.

you know what, i agree with you, politics suck. but just saying that aint helping nobody. being a learned individual who can accept other points of views as willingly as they're willing to dish their own, that's anarchy of the spirit. we have to change the way we think (in black and white) before we can change the way we live, all polarized.

[drizl]

entropy and ectropy both exist notorious, and in living things, things tend towards more organized systems, not towards disorganization. gaia theory came out and was one of many studies which disproved the dominance of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics which is related.

[cattronic]

f politics... how about forget suicide. jey sorry i'm booku for 1 post

see the day before the election i felt all suicidal but actually it was an immense feeling of regret at not being able to sacrifice more for my party...

more like sue-idal

i wonder whether you guys aren't going through some sort of post-election stress where you're feeling you've gotten a Democrat congress that makes some of you happy so you're just overcome and don't want to do anything.

You can stop staring at the bear head on your bed post and get up and decide how to write that letter to get polar bears on the endangered species list.... remember pollution hunting and the prez acknowledging global warming going down in factors

and you can figure out why Kofi Annan isn't doing his job in Sudan and ways to help China be comfortable.

[Doobiebee]

errr, back to the bit about the world not being ready for "anarchy", yeah, i don't think it is... because so much in history has happened for people to have preconceptions and defence mechanisms and such everyone has different perceptions, experiences and versions of their "truth." but hmmm but perhaps we will get there one day when like individual humans are able to like evolve to their own potential...it seems like that is where the ideas of heaven or Nirvana or whatever came from...except seems more like more primal, like being and existing separate from everything, whereas the other is more like, of the interconnectedness with everything....except there seems to be like problems with like an extreme of these, like, it seems kinda like autism or schizoprenia for example like, not saying i know heaps about it or anything, and it's weird like, the thing that seems to separate humans from other animals who prolly like only are aware of their own immediate existence, is that we evolve through the mind, like we can imagine, like, what another animals feels or something, we have a perception of self and others and how to invent things, tools and bla bla bla, and so like, i don't think the goal of "human evolution" is completely like technology and modernization and capitalism, and it sorta seems like capitalism, of being concerned with your own existence, like other animals, is one way of dealing with that in a more creative way and defining the self, and such, but also like, there have been different cultures art, science, and the mind in order to deal with that, of like this "imagination" and so they are all like important and okay, i totally lost where i was going with this lol because i like kinda made it up lol. but i guess, as people as individuals evolve, it will prolly just continue to evolve humanity, which seems to be kinda..uh..."immature" right now? but who knows to what, and what the ultimate "perfect vision" or "utopia" would be...maybe it would even be the end, because there would be no more room to "evolve" but i think that's like a long way off and so i guess it is up to the individual and like also we already seem to have like the knowledge of past histories as well. and um, i don't know if i explained that right, lol.

[Doobiebee]

omg, now i have that song "i am a Revolution" or whatever by the Veronica's stuck in my head. Ew.

[Funkaloyd]

gaia theory came out and was one of many studies which disproved the dominance of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics which is related.
Disproved the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[drizl]

yup. not so much disproved, but showed how ectropy is real, how not ALL things dissipate and lead to greater disorder. and in fact, that living closed systems such as the earth, and living organisms within the biosphere are ectropic- they tend towards greater complexity organization and diversity as a means of stability.
now governments can be said to be organizational, but how are they organized. is it sustainable? do they willingly promote diversity and quality? or do they promote degeneration? most governments are entropic, my anarchy is ectropic.

[Funkaloyd]

I wasn't aware that Earth is a closed system.

[drizl]

far out huh

[Funkaloyd]

I still don't think it is, based on what I see on a day to day basis.

[drizl]

surely there isnt much evidence, because we have only recognized entropy and continue to ambrace only entropy in our sciences and philosophies.

entropy is explosion:
devolution
deterioration
increasing disorder
decay
instability
inefficiency
bankruptcy


ectropy is implosion:
evolution
development
increasing order
growth
stability
efficiency
superior economy

[drizl]

there are two sides to every coin, the world is made of polarities, phenomena are the result of mixing polarities, and whether the tendency is constructive or destructive is decided by the side which is made stronger.
we can have ectropy if we recognize it, or we can continue to devolve.

ectropy is anarchy in that anarchy is about self empowerment and freedom.

entropy is government in that government is about division and control.

RISE UP

[Ali]

be careful what you wish for

anarchy is usually followed by totalitarianism

cf post-colonial Africa, USSR, China.

Imperialism/monarchy - revolution (anarchy) - totalitarianism.

the Wheel turns.

[sam i am]

be careful what you wish for

anarchy is usually followed by totalitarianism

cf post-colonial Africa, USSR, China.

Imperialism/monarchy - revolution (anarchy) - totalitarianism.

the Wheel turns.

VERY WELL STATED.

Every once in a while, man, you come up with a post like this and make both anarchists and law-and-order types stand up and pay attention.

Kudos.

[drizl]

american democracy is a myth. we only appear to have control and freedom here in the states. the peices are being put in place for our president to take away all freedoms. the president is able to authorize war, property search and seizure, spying, illegal imprisonment without charges or evidence, martial law, forced vaccinations, internment camps (concentration camps) and pretty much get away with anything he wants without the authority of congress. thats a dictatorship my friend. we just havent seen it rear its ugly head. soon we will.
national id cards rfid chips....
we are headed there regardless of my desire for anarchy. anarchy is protesting, is fighting power and corruption, is the answer and the solution to this terrible system. it is the alternative.

[sam i am]

Interesting take.

Seems to me, from American history, that much of what you fear actually occurred several times in American history, followed by periods of periodic retrenchment of civil rights.

I'm thinking the Civil War, when habeaus corpus was suspended, or FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

The problem with viewing current events through the lens of anarchy is that you relegate your opinion to the fringes when not looking at the actual history behind your assertions.

See Ali's comment above for more...