The Pop Anarchism Sham

[Moral_Imbalance]

As Written By Freydis-

The Sham of Pop-Anarchism

Anarchists have a good spirit, they have a motivated attitude but what they apply that energy towards is rarely if ever useful but generally serves the opposite of their stated desire - it doesn't defeat authority it empowers it! Besides that it's no better than the machine it replaces and even worse than capitalism because it's a manufactured ideology that has no basis in reality or human nature. After years of abuse, exploitation and poor leadership, Anarchist ideals are so watered down as to be laughable. Today "Libertarian Socialists" run for public office while others throw rocks and deface public monuments. No wonder the word anarchy itself has become just another word for mindless juvenile delinquency with a sugarcoating of political self-importance.

The fact that anarchists never want to listen to reason or alternate opinion but usually respond with invective and heated rhetoric is a screaming klaxon testifying to the religious dogma that they adhere to. Nor do they stop and question the legitimacy or usefulness of the apocryphal causes they inveigh against, a testament to their faith in anarchism. Two prime examples of these hallowed yet hollow causes are 'Western culture' and Mumia.

Long a favorite punching bag for Marxists and their Anarchist dupes alike, "Western culture" has that quality of being sufficiently vague yet redolent of evil inequity that always pushes the red rebellion button while bypassing the brain entirely. If they just substituted 'Hollywood' or 'American' for 'Western' thus sufficiently delineating the important differences between the two it would certainly simplify the debate. Nonetheless, whatever it's called, there's no denying this culture is quite popular. So think about it, if this culture is so thoroughly despicable, why does the world gobble it up and want more; it's obviously providing them with something they think they need or they wouldn't keep coming back for a super-sized second helping. By attacking the superficial elements, anarchists gain nothing but a harmless contrarian appeal that remains impotent to rectify the underlying root problems.

Western Culture is not the problem, it's produced heroes and zeros yes, great and small alike over thousands of years true, but to condemn it in toto is the height of absurdity, not to mention a useless criticism. So let's lay the blame where it belongs, on the aberrant Hollywood culture which has not been around for thousands of years but merely a few decades. And after all, anarchism itself is a product of Western civilization! Maybe they should declare war on themselves?

Favorite bumper sticker opinion and Hollywood approved cause, freeing the imprisoned Mumia Abu-Jamal saturates anarchist discussions. Free Mumia? While ignoring the thousands of other wrongly accused and wrongly imprisoned persons out there? But why? What for? What difference would it make? Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient. What a waste and such a typical pointless diversion from what matters! Can't you see your just being dragged by the nose by a clique with a shallow political agenda? Probably not, because if they could they wouldn't be pop-anarchists! Sadly, today's anarchism is just a Trojan Horse that hijacks youthful aggression and understandable anger so as to rail against safe causes and aimless convictions.

We all dislike abusive authority, wage slavery, the excess's of capitalism and the mind control of Hollywood, but anarchism has never solved any of those problems even though it's had plenty of opportunities in it's 200 or so years of history. The failure of anarchism is a direct product of the inherent flaws within it's very own fictional beliefs, especially the anarchist concept of authority, after all - the leaderless group is most influenced by it's worst elements.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak

The people that become anarchists have energy, activist efficacy and intelligence, all highly commendable. But if it's wasted on the trivial and counterproductive it's not admirable, it's worse than doing nothing because it's just making the world worse while setting the stage for the victory of the despotic authorities they claim to oppose!

Some of the things that today's anarchists claim to stand against:

* Authority
* Intolerance
* Bigotry
* "Homophobia"
* Racism
* Hate
* Violence, etc.

Yeah those are real rebellious and gutsy positions to take a stand against. Hell, why not just drop the phony pretext and join a church? You'd get the same message and the people would be friendlier! Yeah, and it turns out Jesus wasn't just a hippy he was an anarchist too.

If anyone wants to be an anarchist, a nihilist won't be standing in their way, but they will be there to point out their mountains of fallacies and delusions. I think it wise anarchists demand more of their ideological representation than just fashionable platitudes and childish rebellion. Nihilists destroy what needs to be destroyed, the structures, people and beliefs that obstruct freedom, nihilism and well-being; we'll burn it all down, dead to the root. And to do that nihilists use that which is observable, consistent and verifiable, not simply what one WANTS to see or believe in. For example, every individual is egotistically motivated be it rational independent behavior or mass psychology - the dynamics are different but the self-interest is a constant, revolution is just a variable. This does not suggest a complete rejection of revolution here, now or anywhere, but any belief in the ultimate justice or righteousness of any revolution is a very dangerous thing, just as all faith is. We will have a revolution, but one based upon reason, planning and cold-analysis of the situation. We'll have a revolution but not just another fake effort to empower dictators and bankers, one that doesn't burn the superstructure but the very root of belief, the source of all evil.

Revolution is tougher than you think

But more important than even that pragmatic assessment is the actual mechanics of a real revolution. Do the "revolutionaries" realize what they are up against? It's easy to toss a rock through a Starbucks window, but how many of those hotheads have ever fired a rifle? The revolution won't be fun for long when you've got police SWAT teams (or worse) barking down your snorkel. Is my point fairly clear? Who will really be by your side when the rubber hits the road? Study your history, anarchists are just the dupes who helped put the communists into power in Russia and elsewhere and nearly in Germany. Do you want to play games and get arrested or do you want to pragmatically asses your capabilities and work within those boundaries? Are we in it for the ephemeral action or the strategic solution? If you really what to take down the system you've got to know how to do it right and in order to do it right, you've got to know what your up against and the realities of the situation. Whenever anarchism and authority meet, authority always wins because authority is organized, disciplined and focused while anarchism is not and cannot be without violating its own manufactured values. This is the foolishness of being guided by fantasy instead of fact and by transient morality instead of reality; a Nihilist may be cynical but at least they're under no such delusions or limitations.

The same outcome as traditional revolution can be achieved through other means; it's crucial to realize that violent revolution is a means to an end, not a cause in itself. It's also important to fit your environment, one because you blend in and don't get picked out for persecution and two because you can often get much, much further by cooperation and legality than mindless rebellion. Anarchist are very useful, I'm not standing in their way. But it is really irrelevant whether they have a name, a costume or any boilerplate self-righteous jargon backing them up. It's what they do that matters - they keep authorities occupied with minor threats.

So am I saying that Nihilism is the ultimate answer, the panacea for all our ills? No, of course not but it's a start, and why believe in something that isn't true? Why continue to stick with a losing team? Why continue to beat your head against a brick wall of pointless causes only becoming a nuisance to authorities rather than a viable threat? Negate your faith, don't believe in anarchism. If it doesn't provide you with a real, substantive benefit then dump it. If you get something out of it then go for it but don't lie to yourself that it will save the world or solve the problems of authority or that your fellow anarchist will really be there to bail you out when the serious heat is on!

Anarchist are always most prevalent when police forces are at their weakest and lawyers are at their strongest.

Anarchists are to Capitalism what Satanists are to Christianity - contrarians. Take away their countervailing opposition and both cease to exist. Nihilism isn't a contrarian effort against whatever the latest outrage is, be it abusive cops or a locked up celebrity. Nihilism would be fundamentally the same whether it was in Communist China, free America or the Garden of Eden. Nihilism would have different priorities in each situation but the concepts would remain unchanged, such as the skepticism of popular assumptions. Nihilism is something anyone can do, you don't have to look a certain way or associate with certain people because it's deeper than that, it's an attitude, an awareness and a world-view. Nihilism is home, work or play. Rejection of faith, idealism, philosophy, theology and teleology; while building from the simple, the observable, the verifiable. Nihilism is the vaccine against BS - whenever, wherever and whatever it is, and the best anyone has to date. 24.09.02

They [anti-authoritarians] demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. ... Have these gentlemen never seen a revolution? A revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, which are authoritarian means if ever there were any. And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.

Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed population against the bourgeoisie? Should we not on the contrary reproach it for not having made more extensive use of this authority? Therefore either one of two things is possible: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they are saying, and in this case they sow nothing but confusion, or they do know, and in this case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. Friedrich Engels, Neue Zeit, Vol XXXII, 1, 1913-14.

[LSD]

Anarchists have a good spirit, they have a motivated attitude but what they apply that energy towards is rarely if ever useful but generally serves the opposite of their stated desire - it doesn't defeat authority it empowers it!

As opposed to nihilism which says nothing matters, nothing's real, fuck it all, smash and grab?

Advocating a complete destruction of society is so fundamentally counterintuitive and, frankly, insane, that it only empowers those who promise to fight against such lunacy.

Nihilism strengthens authority.


Besides that it's no better than the machine it replaces and even worse than capitalism because it's a manufactured ideology

"manufactured ideology"?

What?!?

What ideology isn't manufactured. Nihilism is just as "manufactured" as anything. A bunch of people in the 19th century got together and decided that nothing was real and society is wrong. Fine. That's their whacked out theory, but how is it any less "manufactured" than anything else?


that has no basis in reality or human nature.

Oh good, the "human nature" argument.

I don't suppose you want to, I don't know, BACK UP that claim?


The fact that anarchists never want to listen to reason or alternate opinion but usually respond with invective and heated rhetoric is a screaming klaxon testifying to the religious dogma that they adhere to.

A "screaming klaxon", eh? Looks like someone's got themselves a new thesaurus! :lol:

In terms of "religious dogma", Anarchists are more than willing to debate and discuss. We are constantly revising and reconsidering positions. Nihilism, by contrast, is predicated on the unwavering assumption that all society is wrong and artificial. If anyone is "dogmatic", it's you.


Long a favorite punching bag for Marxists and their Anarchist dupes alike, "Western culture"

:huh:

That one you pulled completely out of your ass.

Anarchists don't oppose western culture, we oppose western imperialism, we don't make "cultural" arguments.

I think you may have confused Anarchism with National Bolshevism! :lol:


* Authority
* Intolerance
* Bigotry
* "Homophobia"
* Racism
* Hate
* Violence, etc.

:blink:

Why is homophobia in quotation marks?

Are you insinuating that there's "no such thing"? :o


Yeah those are real rebellious and gutsy positions to take a stand against.


Yes they are.

What are you standing up against? Society!?

Yeah, that's real "gutsy"! :rolleyes:


Hell, why not just drop the phony pretext and join a church? You'd get the same message and the people would be friendlier!

Except that religion promotes authority, intolerance, bigotry, homophobia, racism, hate, and, often, violence. So... no.


And to do that nihilists use that which is observable, consistent and verifiable, not simply what one WANTS to see or believe in.

No. Nihilism is based on the ludicrous assumption that nothing is true ...except its assumption that nothing is true.

How is that "observable", "consistant", or "verifiable"?


For example, every individual is egotistically motivated be it rational independent behavior or mass psychology

And where is the "observable, consistent and verifiable" evidence for that?

Oh, wait, it&#39;s just another Nihilist assumption. <_<


Whenever anarchism and authority meet, authority always wins because authority is organized, disciplined and focused while anarchism is not and cannot be without violating its own manufactured values.

And when has nihilism been succesfull, historically?

When was the last Great Nihilist Revolution?

Whereas Anarchism has sucessfully been employed only to be defeated by superior military might, nihilism has never even remotely succeded..

...so if I were you, I wouldn&#39;t be talking about history&#33;


The same outcome as traditional revolution can be achieved through other means; it&#39;s crucial to realize that violent revolution is a means to an end, not a cause in itself.

And you&#39;re telling us that? :o

Anarchism has a clearly laid out model for how a society should function and aims to bring that model about. Nihilism belives in ...nothing.


Why continue to stick with a losing team?

:P

Yeah, right...

Join the winning team&#33; Join the team that NO ONE IN THE WORLD TAKES SERIOUSLY&#33;

:lol:


Anarchists are to Capitalism what Satanists are to Christianity - contrarians. Take away their countervailing opposition and both cease to exist.

Bullshit.

Nihilism is, by definition, contrarian. It wants to destroy... well... everything.

Anarchism is predicated on a specific set of ideals and a specific kind of society that it wants to create.


Nihilism is something anyone can do

Sort of like "go fetch". It&#39;s so moronically simple that a chipmunk could figure it out.

Nothing&#39;s real&#33; Destroy everything&#33; Down with society&#33;

Yeah, "anyone can do it", but is that really something you should be proud of?

[Moral_Imbalance]

Damn&#33; That was Brutal&#33;
In Anycase u know nothing of what Nihilism is about.......
u speak of Definitons form Fucking Dictionarys......
Thats Like saying Anarchist only wish to create chaos&#33;


Nothing&#39;s real&#33; Destroy everything&#33; Down with society&#33;

My point exactly ........... you know nothing of Nihilism&#33;
Learn the god Damn theory before you *****.........


What are you standing up against? Society&#33;?

Yeah, that&#39;s real "gutsy"&#33; rolleyes.gif

Once again please learn your god damn material&#33;

[LSD]

All nihilists throughout history have advocated the destruction of society and societal rules because they are "artificial".

If you have a different definition of Nihilism from its standard meaning, please provide it&#33;

[Moral_Imbalance]

Well i assume u can some everything up to death to society....
Though that would include everything in it.......
This seems far more gusty the u seem to believe

[LSD]

Well i assume u can some everything up to death to society....
Though that would include everything in it......

I didn&#39;t say "death to society" I said "down with society" which seems to sumarize the Nihilist position quite well.


This seems far more gusty the u seem to believe

:lol:

Yeah, "gutsy" in the way that advocating Feudalism is "gutsy". It&#39;s so fucking nuts that no one will take you seriously.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:13 PM
Damn&#33; That was Brutal&#33;
In Anycase u know nothing of what Nihilism is about.......
u speak of Definitons form Fucking Dictionarys......
Thats Like saying Anarchist only wish to create chaos&#33;


Nothing&#39;s real&#33; Destroy everything&#33; Down with society&#33;

My point exactly ........... you know nothing of Nihilism&#33;
Learn the god Damn theory before you *****.........


What are you standing up against? Society&#33;?

Yeah, that&#39;s real "gutsy"&#33; rolleyes.gif

Once again please learn your god damn material&#33;
heh, the dictionary i have defines anarchism as without government, it doesnt say anything about chaos, oh and that little essay was a pile of crap. how do you go about doing all of this? you say anarchists cant win yet you plan on destroying the "evils" of society, good luck.

[Xvall]

u speak of Definitons form Fucking Dictionarys......

And you&#39;ve apparently never used one.

Learn to spell. People will take you a lot more seriously.

Now, you consider yourself a nihilist in what manner? Is it a simple matter of philosophically believing in absolutely nothing, or is this some sort of pseudo-political movement for you?

[slim]

Nihilism appears to be an "ideology" that exists in a world that is and never will be. For example, how would nihilism ever be enforced? Would capitalism and idealism suddenly turn into a mass resentment for any form of government? How would you make sure no-one sets up their own form of autonomous community with an authority figure like clans and tribes? Shoot them all using authority?

[The Feral Underclass]

I have one word for that: Bollocks&#33;

[Moral_Imbalance]

Now, you consider yourself a nihilist in what manner? Is it a simple matter of philosophically believing in absolutely nothing, or is this some sort of pseudo-political movement for you?

I am A political Nihilist.


Nihilism appears to be an "ideology" that exists in a world that is and never will be. For example, how would nihilism ever be enforced? Would capitalism and idealism suddenly turn into a mass resentment for any form of government? How would you make sure no-one sets up their own form of autonomous community with an authority figure like clans and tribes? Shoot them all using authority?

Let me show the Vision we Nihilists share..........

From CounterOrder.com

Many ask &#39;what are the benefits of nihilism, what do I get out of it&#39;? &#39;isn&#39;t it all just darkness and futility&#39;? Hardly&#33; Catch a glimpse, imbibe the nihilistic vision&#33; Although these images and ideas may seem anachronistic, their power and significance should not be underestimated. It&#39;s about a chance to begin again without the shackles of history and the burden of accumulated lies and myths. A new world where you matter because of what you are and what you can do not where you are or what you own. The vision is crucial because one can&#39;t conquer the flaws of the present without first imagining the form of the future.

The CounterOrder credo: To invert consensus, extract the reciprocal of orthodoxy, turn the world upside down, shake it and see what fails and what remains.

The nihilistic vision is a positive result extracted from a negative event. This vision is very much an apocalypse but only for those that have had their chance and ruined it for everyone, the failing, ruling-elite. Yet for everyone else interested in health and renewal it is a brilliant new dawn. This momentous change is of the near future, looming and portentous angry and promising like a storm on the horizon. People fear the consequences but the shrewd revel in the bountiful opportunities bestowed by the aftermath for the best time to rebuild is after the storm. For those who heed - prepare for the beginning, it&#39;s closer than you think.

The beginning is the end of sin. All transgressions both individual and collective are forgiven and national crimes annulled. There is no redemption ... but there is no guilt ; there is flawed, human conduct ... but no false justifications.

Level the cities those putrid piles of poison. Dense population concentrations characteristic of metropolis&#39; only serve to provide ideal incubators for new and ever more pernicious sickness&#39;. While deforestation and urban sprawl scatter and disturb natural wildlife allowing disease and vectors to thrive and spread when they would otherwise be kept in check by the natural balance of life. Once these cancers are razed regionalism will finally triumph over globalism. Instead of blanket edicts from on high rules and solutions will start and address where they&#39;re needed - locally.

Time will no longer accrue into infinity but rather will count down to the next beginning. The calendar will no longer start at 1 but end there. 100-1? 500-1? Details, details... At the top of time, all chains broken, all previous debts public and private will be annulled, all currency voided, all laws deleted.

All paper and electronic money will be zeroed out while title records will be burned and destroyed to reset property ownership and eliminate the tyranny of fictional wealth and the institutions that perpetuate it. Faceless bureaucrats can&#39;t manage your care in old age or any age without theft or mismanagement because they have no inherent concern for your well being as only the self does. All buildup, all waste legislation, paperwork, and currency emptied and distributed for recycling and fuel for warming homes.

Instead of building mechanical machines without care or spirit we will build humans using what we have and what has already been perfected by millennia. It will be death to the cog and piston, life to the living. The beauty of organic carbon life will be appreciated rather than the artificial lifelessness of the silicon chip. Progress will mean gradually improving near-perfection rather than reinventing from scratch what can never be but imperfect mechanical machines. A respect for life and it&#39;s infinite potential rather than paving over it. Your greatest gift is your mind and body; don&#39;t waste it - utilize it.

Sexual intercourse as reproduction is the worship of life and natural human behaviour. Through the acceptance of instinct rather than the futile attempt to ignore it forcing it out as perversion, repression and mental illness, the genetic imperative is finally unshackled as the one true owner of the human soul. An effort to break the binders that restrict our society meaninglessly, creating a realm of freedom to say what you feel and expound what you believe for a life to be used but not abused while seeking sensations and smarts amid the unclouded clarity of cogent comprehension.

Everyone will have a new name, finally every individual will have the opportunity to describe themselves not as someone else decides but as they decide. What will matter is not what role you play in the dramatic farce of contemporary society but who you are and what you can contribute. This will finally divide the parasites and the producers. Only those that can and do participate to rebuild will receive any reward or status. The parasites receive nothing but ostracism and death.

Safe havens for solitude and sanity will exist in a physical and non-literal sense allowing for introspection imagination and reasoning unfettered or oppressed by the intrusive presence of authority. This freedom of the mind is as important to human life as air and water.

Destruction to the false protectors of harmony and society.All police and military dissolved with their weapons distributed to the participatory social contributors; because the only person that can really defend you is yourself. Through a network of individual &#39;armies&#39; collective and individual defense assumes its proper role. Thus we each gain freedom, self-sufficiency, purpose and safety which makes for healthier minds and bodies.

A plan is secondary to the ideas because the artificial structures around us, the outcome is a product of the collective vision and once concepts are implemented details sort themselves out afterwards. New and superior product will grow on the ash heaps of the old.

The events of the 21st century will not be written by the powers of the 20th. These forces though appearing unstoppable today are nevertheless doomed by their very own endogenous flaws; their day in the sun is about to be done. Many will try to revive and reuse but they will all fail, merely replaying the same destructive inevitable. The weakness&#39; of authorities are the strengths of freedom.

World history is punctuated by deluded masters of conflict, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon even Hitler. What are they known for? Conquering everything and unifying nothing. The nihilistic vision will conquer nothing and unify everything. Today you have the luxury of making the decision your descendants can&#39;t, choose carefully which side of the bulldozer to be on.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Political Nihilism - radical denial of material conditions that shape society in favour of anachronistic Jeffersonianism-on-crack.

Political Nihilists&#39; Criticism of Anarchists - If we ignore every meaningful historical and current example of anarchist practice, we can call them shallow and accuse them of not being daring. eg. Saying "Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient," and intentionally ignoring completely the Anarchist Black Cross, among other organizations doing meaningful work for political prisoners, and the facts of the larger theoretical anarchist approach to prisons.

[Moral_Imbalance]

Correct me if im wrong but Anarchists are working towards the End of Capitalism and Goverment correct?
I see a Possible Alliance here.....
Why not join up we have some common Goals and ideas......... Not everything is the same but we can work around it.....
I see the real diffrence bettween Nihilists and Anarchists in the way we carry out things....
well do whatever it takes to get the job done....
With the Spirt and Morale of the Anarchists and the Die-hard Demetination and lack of distraction of the Nihlists we may be able to finaly get this done.........
We Could abolish Capitalism And Goverment in one blow Taking out a Major Chunk for both of our Goals.....

[Bazarov0]

As opposed to nihilism which says nothing matters, nothing&#39;s real, fuck it all, smash and grab? First of all, Nihilism doesn&#39;t say nothing&#39;s real because this contradicts the other Nihilist statement: "nothing can be known", anyway Nihilists key in on to the things there is proof for not for things that have no reasonable backup whatsoever. "fuck it all"? we can&#39;t fuck it all, we can never be free, we can&#39;t say fuck everything because only in death will we be free of our experiences and our bodily restraints, values are still made in our heads, but this doesn&#39;t prevent a nihilist from having devaluation of all value. The only real Nihilist statement you made was nothing matters.
Advocating a complete destruction of society is so fundamentally counterintuitive and, frankly, insane, that it only empowers those who promise to fight against such lunacy.Its not possible to destroy all society because even interacting with each other and being in social groups makes a society, but maybe you were thinking of another word which would be the social organization, but of course that is what I thought anarchists are advocating already. Nihilism is more focused on destroying traditional value, ethics, morality, and other faith based subjectivity that the social organization rests on, thereby destroying the social organization without needing to destroy the superficial parts which anarchism attacks but fails to recognize that they are missing the mark.
Nihilism strengthens authority.Have any proof?

What ideology isn&#39;t manufactured. Nihilism is just as "manufactured" as anything. A bunch of people in the 19th century got together and decided that nothing was real and society is wrong. Fine. That&#39;s their whacked out theory, but how is it any less "manufactured" than anything else?Actually, the Nihilists of the 1800&#39;s never said &#39;nothing was real&#39;, they did, however, have a more materialistic view while saying artificial subjectivity isn&#39;t real. Again, replace society with &#39;social organization&#39;. The Russian Nihilists conducted assassinations on the czars and other revolutionary activities to overthrow the government and destroy it(along with religion, value in family, and other things I can&#39;t remember at the moment).

The Nihilist view now, though, is very different. Society nor the social organization is called wrong, Nihilists don&#39;t concede that there is any wrong. Its more like &#39;the social organization needs to be destroyed because it has made people blind slaves to a subjective fantasy based on faith&#39;


In terms of "religious dogma", Anarchists are more than willing to debate and discuss. We are constantly revising and reconsidering positions. Nihilism, by contrast, is predicated on the unwavering assumption that all society is wrong and artificial. If anyone is "dogmatic", it&#39;s you.I believe the topic was "Pop Anarchism Sham", what that name was referring to was mostly young rebellious teenagers who are just latching to a clique, going to rallies where they just break windows and other property yelling useless statements like "whose streets, our streets&#33;" I do not doubt that there is Anarchists that are willing to debate, but this article is focusing on those anarchists who don&#39;t really need a label for themselves at all, but the sham of the rest of the teleological bull shit of anarchism is provided as well.


Whenever anarchism and authority meet, authority always wins because authority is organized, disciplined and focused while anarchism is not and cannot be without violating its own manufactured values.And when has nihilism been succesfull, historically?

When was the last Great Nihilist Revolution?

Whereas Anarchism has sucessfully been employed only to be defeated by superior military might, nihilism has never even remotely succeded..

...so if I were you, I wouldn&#39;t be talking about history&#33;That was simply an observance by the author. Nihilists aren&#39;t totally focused on achieving a goal as most ideologies. Nihilism is more of an personal perception of reality rather than a ideology that says this is &#39;how the world works and how it needs to be&#39;, this is exactly the reason why the chaos vision is desired by Nihilists. Although most Nihilists want that vision, its not there primary focus, so no &#39;Great Nihilist Revolution&#39; doesn&#39;t make any nihilist have feelings they don&#39;t like because not all of their primary goals is that revolution.

Nihilism is, by definition, contrarian. It wants to destroy... well... everything.Reexamine Nihilism doctrine and definition because its not possible to destroy everything.
Nihilism appears to be an "ideology" that exists in a world that is and never will be. For example, how would nihilism ever be enforced? Would capitalism and idealism suddenly turn into a mass resentment for any form of government? How would you make sure no-one sets up their own form of autonomous community with an authority figure like clans and tribes? Shoot them all using authority? Why would we need to enforce it? Let the chips fall where they may. The destruction once it comes, doesn&#39;t have any guarantee as it is predicated on what circumstances of the revolution is, and enforcement clearly contradicts the Nihilist vision because its not order that is desired its chaos.

[LSD]

Its not possible to destroy all society because even interacting with each other and being in social groups makes a society, but maybe you were thinking of another word which would be the social organization, but of course that is what I thought anarchists are advocating already.

No&#33;

Anarchists oppose hiereachy in society, not societal organiation itself. Societal organization is essential.

Without organization where do you expect your food to come from or your garbage to go?


Nihilism is more focused on destroying traditional value, ethics, morality, and other faith based subjectivity that the social organization rests on, thereby destroying the social organization without needing to destroy the superficial parts which anarchism attacks but fails to recognize that they are missing the mark.

We "fail to recognize" that because it&#39;s crap&#33;

We don&#39;t want to "destroy social organization", such a goal is quite frankly insane.

The "superficial parts", as you call them, are the attributes of society which we oppose. Hierarchy, exploitation, oppression, bigotry. We are not attacking them because we think "society rests" on them, we are attacking them because we think that they are the problem&#33;

Nihilists have convinced themselves that society is the problem.


The Nihilist view now, though, is very different. Society nor the social organization is called wrong, Nihilists don&#39;t concede that there is any wrong. Its more like &#39;the social organization needs to be destroyed because it has made people blind slaves to a subjective fantasy based on faith&#39;

...which is "bad".

You can&#39;t avoid the issue that, fundamentally, you are making the normative judgement that society is ...bad.

And it&#39;s an assumption completely devoid of evidence&#33;

"made people blind"?

What the fuck&#33;? People in society live better than people out of it. They have access to more and diverse resources, they are more able to accomplish their desires, they live longer, healthier, they are more exposed to alternative concepts...

You call it "blindness", I call it maximized bennefit. Your desire to fight it does not come from a rational analysis of the situation, because a rational analysis would tell you that people are generally better off in organized society than out of it.

No, you oppose society because you think it is based on "artificial" concepts. Fine, but that&#39;s an assertion and it&#39;s an assertion that is deeply based on normative faith. It&#39;s based in the almost religious nihilist opposition to "artificiality" and "contrivances". Whether you adhere to this faith or not is your choice, but don&#39;t you dare claim that it isn&#39;t faith&#33;

There is simply no reason to say, firstly, that society is in any way more artifical than anything else, or, secondly, that even if it were artificial, that&#39;s a "bad" thing&#33;

Frankly, who cares if societal organizations are not "natural"? They work better than the alternative.

That&#39;s rational analysis. What you&#39;re doing is called dogma.


I believe the topic was "Pop Anarchism Sham", what that name was referring to was mostly young rebellious teenagers who are just latching to a clique, going to rallies where they just break windows and other property yelling useless statements like "whose streets, our streets&#33;"

Oh come on, it was fairly obvious that that piece was claiming that those are characteristis of all Anarchists if not Anarchism in general.


That was simply an observance by the author. Nihilists aren&#39;t totally focused on achieving a goal as most ideologies. Nihilism is more of an personal perception of reality rather than a ideology that says this is &#39;how the world works and how it needs to be&#39;, this is exactly the reason why the chaos vision is desired by Nihilists.

....right.

But the fact remains that while there have been Anarchist revolutions, there has never been a nihilist revolution, in fact nihilism has never accomplished anything&#33;

Now, that doesn&#39;t in and of itself negate the value of the ideoloy. It is, of course, possible for an ideological framework to be correct even if its never been implemented.

But it is somewhat ironic for a piece defending nihilism to complain that Anarchism has never been long-term successful when nihilism has never been successful at all.

[Moral_Imbalance]

We "fail to recognize" that because it&#39;s crap&#33;

We don&#39;t want to "destroy social organization", such a goal is quite frankly insane.

The "superficial parts", as you call them, are the attributes of society which we oppose. Hierarchy, exploitation, oppression, bigotry. We are not attacking them because we think "society rests" on them, we are attacking them because we think that they are the problem&#33;

Nihilists have convinced themselves that society is the problem.

"Hierarchy, exploitation, oppression, bigotry." got a guess as to where these came from?


which is "bad".

You can&#39;t avoid the issue that, fundamentally, you are making the normative judgement that society is ...bad.

And it&#39;s an assumption completely devoid of evidence&#33;

We oppose Regional Morality not Individual Morality(this is impossible to rid yourself of).


What the fuck&#33;? People in society live better than people out of it. They have access to more and diverse resources, they are more able to accomplish their desires, they live longer, healthier, they are more exposed to alternative concepts...

You call it "blindness", I call it maximized bennefit. Your desire to fight it does not come from a rational analysis of the situation, because a rational analysis would tell you that people are generally better off in organized society than out of it.

No, you oppose society because you think it is based on "artificial" concepts. Fine, but that&#39;s an assertion and it&#39;s an assertion that is deeply based on normative faith. It&#39;s based in the almost religious nihilist opposition to "artificiality" and "contrivances". Whether you adhere to this faith or not is your choice, but don&#39;t you dare claim that it isn&#39;t faith&#33;

There is simply no reason to say, firstly, that society is in any way more artifical than anything else, or, secondly, that even if it were artificial, that&#39;s a "bad" thing&#33;

Frankly, who cares if societal organizations are not "natural"? They work better than the alternative.

That&#39;s rational analysis. What you&#39;re doing is called dogma.

It is a failing effort to try and destroy society the only way would be the isolation of everyone living........

We oppose the artifical concpets of society........

We want the destruction of all the meaningless things in it..........


Oh come on, it was fairly obvious that that piece was claiming that those are characteristis of all Anarchists if not Anarchism in general.

All this article wishes to show is how Anarchists have run away from The older Anarchism.........


But the fact remains that while there have been Anarchist revolutions, there has never been a nihilist revolution, in fact nihilism has never accomplished anything&#33;

The Russian nihilists (the Russian word for nihilist is nigilist) tend to be associated with violence, revolution and terrorist acts such as the assassination of Czar Alexander II by the ‘Will of the People’ group. Student-Nihilist by Ilya Repin, 1883.But although violent acts get recorded in the history books, often the lasting impact is carried through non-violent ideas and identities. The Russian Nihilists were intriguing in this regard for their history is like that of an iceberg – only a small portion of their total character is readily visible. Indeed, much of the violent acts associated with the attempted overthrow of the monarchy occurred under the auspices of other groups such as anarchists, Marxists and narodnichestvo populists in the 1870s, rather than those directly associated with the Nihilists themselves who were much more complex than the over-simplified ‘terrorist’ label attached to them by autocratic authorities.


But it is somewhat ironic for a piece defending nihilism to complain that Anarchism has never been long-term successful when nihilism has never been successful at all.

Please Define success.....

I see not The Anarchist world you speak of........

Nor anyhing remotly close to it........

[LSD]

"Hierarchy, exploitation, oppression, bigotry." got a guess as to where these came from?

Frankly, I don&#39;t care.

Their origins, while perhaps academically interesting, is irrelevent to a political movement.

Nihilism&#39;s problem is that it is obsessed with nebulous theoretical absolutes. Hierarchy comes from society therefore society must be bad.

Sorry, but the world isn&#39;t that simple. There are good things that have come out of organized society and there are bad things that have come out of organized society. Our goal should be the elimination of the bad not the elimination of society itself. It may not be as ideologically "sexy" as "smashing society", but it&#39;s the practical choice.


We oppose the artifical concpets of society........

...such as?

From what you have said you seem to oppose any societal organization. Certainly that is how traditional nihilism works.

And, again, who gives a fuck if organization is "artificial" when people are universally better off with it?


All this article wishes to show is how Anarchists have run away from The older Anarchism.........

No, it claims that Anarchists are dogmatic, irrational, unrealistic, contrarian, short-sighted, and "religious".


Please Define success.....

I see not The Anarchist world you speak of........

Nor anyhing remotly close to it........

Anarchism has not been long-term successful, there have, however, been temporary successes, notably in Spain and Paris.

Again, I am not saying that the failure of nihilism to achieve anything ressembling the above examples negates the theory of nihilism. Just that it&#39;s ludicrous to claim that history favours nihilism when nihilism has, historically, accomplished less than Anarchism.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29 2005, 07:47 AM
I have one word for that: Bollocks&#33;
Bollocks indeed my friend bollocks indeed...

[A Demoralised Mortal]

Originally posted by Moral_Imbalance+Jun 28 2005, 11:13 PM--> (Moral_Imbalance &#064; Jun 28 2005, 11:13 PM)
Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected]
Nothing&#39;s real&#33; Destroy everything&#33; Down with society&#33;
My point exactly ........... you know nothing of Nihilism&#33;
Learn the god Damn theory before you *****.........


Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
What are you standing up against? Society&#33;?
Yeah, that&#39;s real "gutsy"&#33; rolleyes.gif
Once again please learn your god damn material&#33;[/b]
Instead of "*****ing" about Lysergic Acid Diethylamide&#39;s lack of understanding of nilhilism, why did you not concentrate your energy in a positive way by creating a thread outlining nilhilism in a simple and easy-to-understand way (devoid of snipes towards other ideologies)?

If you want people to be receptive about your nihilist ideas, adding a positive contribution will go a long way to help you, and so will refraining from copying and pasting what even I can recognise as an article that is devoid from a reasonable understanding of anarchism&#33;

It lost me early on when the author mentioned that anarchists adhere to "religious dogma".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Sorry for being so self-absorbed, but I&#39;m interested to read some sort of response to my snarky little jabs. Really, let&#39;s hear some rebuttal to my last post&#33;


Political Nihilism - radical denial of material conditions that shape society in favour of anachronistic Jeffersonianism-on-crack.

Political Nihilists&#39; Criticism of Anarchists - If we ignore every meaningful historical and current example of anarchist practice, we can call them shallow and accuse them of not being daring. eg. Saying "Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient," and intentionally ignoring completely the Anarchist Black Cross, among other organizations doing meaningful work for political prisoners, and the facts of the larger theoretical anarchist approach to prisons.

[bombeverything]

Anarchists have a good spirit, they have a motivated attitude but what they apply that energy towards is rarely if ever useful but generally serves the
opposite of their stated desire - it doesn&#39;t defeat authority it empowers it&#33; Besides that it&#39;s no better than the machine it replaces and even worse than capitalism because it&#39;s a manufactured ideology that has no basis in reality or human nature. After years of abuse, exploitation and poor leadership, Anarchist ideals are so watered down as to be laughable. Today "Libertarian Socialists" run for public office while others throw rocks and deface public monuments. No wonder the word anarchy itself has become just another word for mindless juvenile delinquency with a sugarcoating of political self-importance

I thought you were a nihilist. What then do you mean by &#39;human nature&#39; or &#39;reality&#39;? You seem to have a limited understanding of anarchism. This post is laughable. Do you honestly believe that the word anarchy has been associated with chaos simply because of some scattered acts of violence or property destruction by anarchists? Rather than, say, oh I don&#39;t know, the fact that anarchism is opposed to the states very existence?


The fact that anarchists never want to listen to reason or alternate opinion but usually respond with invective and heated rhetoric is a screaming klaxon testifying to the religious dogma that they adhere to. Nor do they stop and
question the legitimacy or usefulness of the apocryphal causes they inveigh
against, a testament to their faith in anarchism. Two prime examples of these
hallowed yet hollow causes are &#39;Western culture&#39; and Mumia.

We listen to alternative opinions, but disagree with them. Claiming that we are religious once again signifies a lack of understanding of anarchism. Anarchists are materialists meaning that they believe that the ideas in people’s heads are shaped by the social and economic conditions in which we live. This is the opposite of idealism and the reason that most anarchists are atheists.


Long a favorite punching bag for Marxists and their Anarchist dupes alike,
"Western culture" has that quality of being sufficiently vague yet redolent of evil
inequity that always pushes the red rebellion button while bypassing the brain
entirely. If they just substituted &#39;Hollywood&#39; or &#39;American&#39; for &#39;Western&#39; thus
sufficiently delineating the important differences between the two it would certainly simplify the debate. Nonetheless, whatever it&#39;s called, there&#39;s no denying this culture is quite popular. So think about it, if this culture is so thoroughly despicable, why does the world gobble it up and want more; it&#39;s obviously providing them with something they think they need or they wouldn&#39;t keep coming back for a super-sized second helping. By attacking the superficial elements, anarchists gain nothing but a harmless contrarian appeal that remains impotent to rectify the underlying root problems".

Haha. What &#39;root&#39; problems are you referring to? You seem once again to be implying that &#39;human nature&#39; is the problem. As Lysergic Acid Diethylamide mentioned, we are not against western culture, but western imperialism.


Western Culture is not the problem, it&#39;s produced heroes and zeros yes, great and small alike over thousands of years true, but to condemn it in toto is the
height of absurdity, not to mention a useless criticism. So let&#39;s lay the blame where it belongs, on the aberrant Hollywood culture which has not been around for thousands of years but merely a few decades. And after all, anarchism itself is a product of Western civilization&#33; Maybe they should declare war on themselves?

Sure, anarchism is usually considered a modern, western phenomenon. Yet in
reality it has it&#39;s roots deep in the ancient civilizations of the East. Anarchist thought can be traced back to the Taoists in ancient China from about the sixth
century BC.



We all dislike abusive authority, wage slavery, the excess&#39;s of capitalism and the mind control of Hollywood, but anarchism has never solved any of those problems even though it&#39;s had plenty of opportunities in it&#39;s 200 or so years of history. The failure of anarchism is a direct product of the inherent flaws within it&#39;s very own fictional beliefs, especially the anarchist concept of authority, after all - the leaderless group is most influenced by it&#39;s worst elements"

Really? You might claim to hate it yet you are constantly defending it. What inherent flaws are you referring to? The flaws of ‘human nature’? Also, if human beings are so despicible, then why leave the power in the hands of the few?


Some of the things that today&#39;s anarchists claim to stand against:

* Authority
* Intolerance
* Bigotry
* "Homophobia"
* Racism
* Hate
* Violence, etc.

Yeah those are real rebellious and gutsy positions to take a stand against. Hell,
why not just drop the phony pretext and join a church? You&#39;d get the same message and the people would be friendlier&#33; Yeah, and it turns out Jesus wasn&#39;t
just a hippy he was an anarchist too".

Why did you but quotation marks around homophobia? We wish to know. Are you
claiming that these things are not worth fighting for? Are you claiming that they
are impossible? If so, why? You always seem to revert to the human nature argument that lacks any substantial proof whatsoever.


"For example, every individual is egotistically motivated be it rational independent behavior or mass psychology - the dynamics are different but the self-interest is a constant, revolution is just a variable".

Your claim that people are motivated purely by self-interest is inaccurate. It could be argued that as members of society, egoistic ‘free will’ ceases to exist.


If you really what to take down the system you&#39;ve got to know how to do it right and in order to do it right, you&#39;ve got to know what your up against and
the realities of the situation. Whenever anarchism and authority meet, authority
always wins because authority is organized, disciplined and focused while anarchism is not and cannot be without violating its own manufactured values.
This is the foolishness of being guided by fantasy instead of fact and by transient morality instead of reality; a Nihilist may be cynical but at least they&#39;re under no such delusions or limitations".

Talk about belief in ones own opinions&#33; You think you have the right to tell us (or
others) how to carry out a &#39;revolution&#39;? True revolutions are spontaneous and come only from the masses from the bottom up -- that very &#39;root&#39; that you seem to hate. The masses. Your views are arrogant and reactionary.


It&#39;s also important to fit your environment, one because you blend in and don&#39;t get picked out for persecution and two because you can often get much, much further by cooperation and legality than mindless rebellion"

Change from above? That is exactly our point: we do not wish to fit into our social environment, we wish to change the environment so it benefits all. How is a blind acceptance of the system going to contribute to change?


"Anarchists are to Capitalism what Satanists are to Christianity - contrarians. Take away their countervailing opposition and both cease to exist".

Are you claiming that our ideas are not influenced by social and economic conditions? If not, where do you think these ideas come from? The idea that eliminating anarchism would somehow also eliminate capitalism is beyond comprehension. Though I would like you to develop this argument.


And the victorious party, if it does not wish to have fought in vain, must
maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries".

So you are arguing that opposing authority is itself authoritarian? Anarchists are fighting for the freedom to make decisions for themselves, without having others imposing their opinions on them through the use of force. In contrast to your assumption, anarchism is the negation of all authority, and will oppose it in all it&#39;s forms.

[Bazarov0]

Well it definetely seems that many of your opinions and values are very clearly defined. As neither me nor moral imbalance wrote the article, and because I do disagree with some of it(though I am still against idealism such as Anarchism) I don&#39;t want to take on such a burden as to make rebuttals to what everyone is saying because one, im too lazy, and since the author can define some of the reason he wrote the things he did and I&#39;m not the author, I can&#39;t give you an assurance on what I would be making rebuttals about is what the author agree with. But I do agree with most of it, but maybe we can agree to disagree, since its seems you all think are own conception of anarchism isn&#39;t right while we don&#39;t find your concept of Nihilism to be right.

"Political Nihilism - radical denial of material conditions that shape society in favour of anachronistic Jeffersonianism-on-crack.

Political Nihilists&#39; Criticism of Anarchists - If we ignore every meaningful historical and current example of anarchist practice, we can call them shallow and accuse them of not being daring. eg. Saying "Freeing Mumia is like giving a Band-Aid to a cancer patient," and intentionally ignoring completely the Anarchist Black Cross, among other organizations doing meaningful work for political prisoners, and the facts of the larger theoretical anarchist approach to prisons."

Anachronistic Jeffersoniasm-on-crack? Jeffersoniasm, if you mean as in the ideology of democracy, doesn&#39;t apply because Nihilism rejects idealism(and the chaos vision is not an ideal, because it is not conceded as making the world better or being what everyone needs to go towards its simply what political nihilists want because its destroying the values, principles, ethics, morality and other faith based subjective concepts which civilization rests on. I have a desire to destroy civilization and this is based on my perceptions, but because objectivity is impossible and I would be contradicting myself if I said its best to have this, I want it simply because of my perceptions. Its not justified or unjustified in my mind.) Maybe you could tell me more about this first definition you gave.

Maybe I missed something about anarchism, but no matter what I hear my rejection of ideology stands. But I will be willing to analyze your own concepts on anarchism more, but I still think this article is focusing a lot on anarchists that are just smashing shit up and breaking windows and clinging on to the concepts of anarchism just through faith and not analyzing the reasons behind there wanting to make the government to collapse.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:22 PM
Correct me if im wrong but Anarchists are working towards the End of Capitalism and Goverment correct?
I see a Possible Alliance here.....
Why not join up we have some common Goals and ideas......... Not everything is the same but we can work around it.....
I see the real diffrence bettween Nihilists and Anarchists in the way we carry out things....
well do whatever it takes to get the job done....
With the Spirt and Morale of the Anarchists and the Die-hard Demetination and lack of distraction of the Nihlists we may be able to finaly get this done.........
We Could abolish Capitalism And Goverment in one blow Taking out a Major Chunk for both of our Goals.....
werent you just calling the anarchist movment a bunch of brainwashed idiots... now your recanting...great... hurrah for nihllism

[Bazarov0]

Again, all say it again for everyone, neither of us wrote this article although we agree with all or most of it.

[bombeverything]

Well it definetely seems that many of your opinions and values are very clearly defined.

Yes, I guess they are. Although isn&#39;t that the case with most people? I was just replying to the comments in this particular article, my post was not in any way intended as an argument against nihilism itself.


Nihilism rejects idealism(and the chaos vision is not an ideal, because it is not conceded as making the world better or being what everyone needs to go towards its simply what political nihilists want because its destroying the values, principles, ethics, morality and other faith based subjective concepts which civilization rests on. I have a desire to destroy civilization and this is based on my perceptions, but because objectivity is impossible and I would be contradicting myself if I said its best to have this, I want it simply because of my perceptions. Its not justified or unjustified in my mind.) Maybe you could tell me more about this first definition you gave.

I agree with most of this and do not consider it to be in opposition to anarchism in any serious way. I will try to elaborate on this tomorrow. I am tired and must sleep.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Our nihilist friends are still butchering the word idealism. Anarchism, or at least any anarchism worth talking about, is necessarily not idealistic, but arises from analysis of material conditions. Conclusions follow reality.
This flies in contrast with nihilism, as espoused by yr "crew" - it begins with certain conclusions (about "human nature", about anarchism, etc.) and then attempts to fit reality around them.


Jeffersoniasm, if you mean as in the ideology of democracy

No, I mean the ideology of petit-bourgeois ultra-individualism. The nifty little manifesto on the last page attacks globalism, technology, cities, and calls not for the abolishion of private property, but for "reset[ing] property ownership".

[bombeverything]

Our nihilist friends are still butchering the word idealism. Anarchism, or at least any anarchism worth talking about, is necessarily not idealistic, but arises from analysis of material conditions. Conclusions follow reality.
This flies in contrast with nihilism, as espoused by yr "crew" - it begins with certain conclusions (about "human nature", about anarchism, etc.) and then attempts to fit reality around them.

Well said. Their belief in the logic of their own &#39;perception&#39; seems illogical as it denies the role that material conditions play in actually shaping this perception. Surely this is an error? I would like to hear the nihilist view on this difference.

[Bazarov0]

No, I mean the ideology of petit-bourgeois ultra-individualism. The nifty little manifesto on the last page attacks globalism, technology, cities, and calls not for the abolishion of private property, but for "reset[ing] property ownership". Certain Nihilists draw certain concepts based on that Nihilism gives them. So I will only say my view which does not apply to all Nihilists. It&#39;s not ultra-individualism, I don&#39;t believe that there is individuality because everyone is living myths and is enmeshed in some kind of culture which influences them in many ways. We are different that is definetely true, but we all have experiences, biological restraints, and our own conceptions of reality which prevent individuality. Absolute individuality is impossible. You can say you are an individual but this doesn&#39;t mean you are devoid of influence and experience. Equality as well as rejected by Nihilism and not just me because saying we are all equal again requires the concoction of absolute or long term value which has no meaning or objective substance.

Their belief in the logic of their own &#39;perception&#39; seems illogical as it denies the role that material conditions play in actually shaping this perception. What do you mean by material conditions?

Our nihilist friends are still butchering the word idealism. Anarchism, or at least any anarchism worth talking about, is necessarily not idealistic, but arises from analysis of material conditions. Conclusions follow reality.
This flies in contrast with nihilism, as espoused by yr "crew" - it begins with certain conclusions (about "human nature", about anarchism, etc.) and then attempts to fit reality around them. Ok, correct me if I am wrong but aren&#39;t these some of the things Anarchism is trying to go towards?: "Peace, Justice, Equality"

Nihilism doesn&#39;t exactly draw conclusions about human nature, it recognizes the subjective nothingness which humans indulge in but this is not really conceding to know the full scope of human nature.

[Moral_Imbalance]

Theres seems to be a mutual Misunderstanding on Both Our parts........

Im Going to Open Up Another Topic in Theory to allow us to understand as much as possible about both Nihilism And Anarchism........
Once we havee got a good understanding of eachother i believe our little conversations like this one will be smoother and more profitable......

[enigma2517]

What do you mean by material conditions?

*blank stare*

rofl

Exactly

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:42 PM
What do you mean by material conditions?


When you describe anarchists as idealists you are mistaken. We are materialists. Materialism argues that all our ideas and thoughts are shaped by material conditions: for example the natural world that existed prior to the evolution of human beings. Our perception of the world will be shaped by these conditions, as our ideas are formed only by our interaction with this world. You admit that your views are subjective, yet to follow them without analyzing where these views came from is dangerous. The development of ideas did not precede history.

[bombeverything]

Ok, correct me if I am wrong but aren&#39;t these some of the things Anarchism is trying to go towards?: "Peace, Justice, Equality"

Nihilism doesn&#39;t exactly draw conclusions about human nature, it recognizes the subjective nothingness which humans indulge in but this is not really conceding to know the full scope of human nature.

Anarchists do not believe in human nature. By material we are referring to everything that takes place in the material world, both within and outside of human beings. By the term ideal on the other hand we are referring only to the ideas and thoughts produced by the human mind. It is these thoughts and ideas that we wish to develop, and this is only possible when we rid our minds of falsities produced by religious dogma. If a belief in the progress of human reason is idealistic, then call us idealistic, yet technically we are the opposite.

[Bazarov0]

Okay I think I&#39;m understanding the concept of Anarchism better now. I have also been reading God and the State, so maybe this will give me more of conception of what Anarchism really is. Okay so you said Anarchism wants to go towards the progress of human reason. And another factor is overthrowing the government. When you say progress, are you saying anarchists are trying to go towards individualism devoid of governmental and religious authority? Nihilists also want this but it goes farther(except for the belief in individualism) so what anarchism could be called is a teleology, that is a belief in final purpose or goal that mankind or other patterns in the world must or are going towards. This is one of the things Nihilism rejects. If this is not what anarchism is trying do(that is, go towards a goal that anarchists believe everyone needs and should go toward) tell me please.

[Black Dagger]

If this is not what anarchism is trying do(that is, go towards a goal that anarchists believe everyone needs and should go toward) tell me please.

That is not what anarchism is trying to do. Anarchism is not a &#39;utopian&#39; conception of the future, there is no fixed point that is to be established, there is no &#39;end of history&#39; or preordained purpose that will &#39;inevitably&#39; be established. There will be continual evolution of society in a post-capitalist (there must be), anarchist world. &#39;anarchism&#39; is not a static form of society that is to be established once and for all time, im sure there will be developments beyond hitherto conceptions of society and organisation.

As has already been stated, anarchism is a materialist philosophy, to suggest that anarchists advocate an external &#39;force&#39; driving history, beyond people and the conditions in which they act is incorrect. There is no &#39;high&#39; purpose to history or to existence in any flowery, philosophical sense.

In terms of your efforts to build a coalition between nihilism and anarchism- dont bother. Nihilism will forever be the enemy of anarchism and of communism, anti-statism must go hand-in-hand with anti-capitalism and unwavering support for direct-democracy/workers self-management- concepts nihilists care little for. If you wish to build an &#39;alliance&#39;, go find a primitivist message-board, they too desire anti-human social destruction.

[emma gg]

I just think that this chum can&#39;t really write. i don&#39;t follow so well.
maybe it&#39;s because i&#39;m american and have a short attention span.
...
what were we talking about?
oh, gotta go. charmed is on...
go pop culture&#33;

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 6 2005, 07:44 AM
That is not what anarchism is trying to do. Anarchism is not a &#39;utopian&#39; conception of the future, there is no fixed point that is to be established, there is no &#39;end of history&#39; or preordained purpose that will &#39;inevitably&#39; be established. There will be continual evolution of society in a post-capitalist (there must be), anarchist world. &#39;anarchism&#39; is not a static form of society that is to be established once and for all time, im sure there will be developments beyond hitherto conceptions of society and organisation.

As has already been stated, anarchism is a materialist philosophy, to suggest that anarchists advocate an external &#39;force&#39; driving history, beyond people and the conditions in which they act is incorrect. There is no &#39;high&#39; purpose to history or to existence in any flowery, philosophical sense.



Well said. I actually forgot about this post until now.

[Raisa]

NIhilism is stupid.

Yes, I think your beliefs are stupid. No lie.

You dont believe nothings real or matters.
WHo cares if its real or not?

It effects us and thats all that matters.