Nationalist Anarchist?

[AnnieAngel]

Hey all! Long time no see. Hope everyone is well and happy.

I've been posting on another board, not an anarchist board just a normal politics board and there is this guy who claims to be an anarchist and who is demanding everyone accept his ideas on anarchy as truth.

He's a super nationalist, he's like "I love America and I want to see revolution here so we can all live in an anarchist state with the freedoms envisioned by our forefathers!"

I was like America after an anarchist revolution would not be America so how can he be Nationalistic and yet want to destroy what makes America an entity???

Confused as hell,

Annie :ph34r:

[Dyst]

Most anarchists are confused in some way.

[AnnieAngel]

I don't think that's true.....

[Hegemonicretribution]

Boundaries exist to explain the division between either; the rule of a particular group, or the area which is owned by an individual or group.

Neither is really compatible with anarchy, and there fore anarchy is not somnething to be undertaken as a nationalist enterprise.

To me it seems that they claim to be anarchist, but are a nationalist free-marketer... In other words they are confused, very confused.

Of course I can't make absolute judgements because I am only working off what you posted.

I suggest that you have a look at the anarchst archives in the learning forum, if only to learn a few key names. Throw them into discussion with them, and then their responses will show whether or not they have no basic understanding of anarchism, or whether they have a very deep misunderstanding of it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:26 PM
Most anarchists are confused in some way.
Agreed.

However in this case he's probably one of those "Anarcho-Capitalists" you keep hearing about.

[AnnieAngel]

Well he says he's anti-captialism, claims to have found his computer in the garbage and to not have a tv or a job but he has a Lexus and they ain't cheap.

Every time someone asks something about anarchism, he copies and pastes big long stuff about classical anarchism and if anyone questions futher he tells them they are ignorant and they need to search it out for themselves.

I used to think he was actually NSA, because his big lecture topic is how burning stuff during environmental protest is ok and not violence or terrorism or arson. So I thought he was trying to trap people and his Nationalism was just slipping through now and then.

Now others are saying he's a Mossad agent because he's all into conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 but if you mention the dancing Mossad guys who were picked up on 9/11 he gets all controlling and changes the suject or gets in a fight to stop the discussion.

It's creepy.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 21 2006, 04:56 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 21 2006, 04:56 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:26 PM
Most anarchists are confused in some way.
Agreed.

[/b]
First you make an unfounded and ignorant accusation like that, then move on to express your own confusion and un-intelligence....


However in this case he's probably one of those "Anarcho-Capitalists" you keep hearing about.

No. 'National anarchism' is a derivative of 'third-positionism' which is a developed form of Mussolini's writings and principals.

there must be like, a handful of these idiots around in the world, maybe it could be defined as a physiological condition :lol:

From Wiki:


National Anarchists tend to advocate economic practices which can be loosely described as varieties of Distributism, where the emphasis is placed on small government and small businesses. Many National Anarchists are thusly influenced by Medieval economic models and advocate a position sometimes known as neo-feudalism.

No one really considers these people "anarchists" except themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 21 2006, 04:56 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 21 2006, 04:56 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:26 PM
Most anarchists are confused in some way.
Agreed. [/b]
Enough of this sectarian bullshit. Next time I see it, warning points. If you can't add anything constructive, shut it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:28 PM
Enough of this sectarian bullshit. Next time I see it, warning points. If you can't add anything constructive, shut it.
You mean we should all agree that anarchists are great? Do me a favour and count the number of threads in the past week slandering Leninism. Then talk to me about sectarian bullshit.

I'll admit that I've never heard of this national anarchism though. Just when you think that fascists and neo-nazis can't get any stupider...

[Don't Change Your Name]

Spam

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:26 PM
Most anarchists are confused in some way.
At least we admit to it unlike some Communists who insanely believe they are all knowing and never wrong :o Most of us do not defend dictators such as Lenin, Mao, and Stalin. Talk about being confused. Pot, Kettle, black.

He is no Anarchist, just a confused flag waving moron. With out a state, what is the point of nationalism?

Comrade Om Lenin was a dictator and no Socialist, deal with it :)

[JudeObscure84]

A national anarchist is simply a Fascist. A National Synicalist. The syndicalist camp split into two groups in the early 20's; the anarchist and the nationalist. The nationalists went on to become the Fascists.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:11 PM
Well he says he's anti-captialism, claims to have found his computer in the garbage and to not have a tv or a job but he has a Lexus and they ain't cheap.

Every time someone asks something about anarchism, he copies and pastes big long stuff about classical anarchism and if anyone questions futher he tells them they are ignorant and they need to search it out for themselves.

I used to think he was actually NSA, because his big lecture topic is how burning stuff during environmental protest is ok and not violence or terrorism or arson. So I thought he was trying to trap people and his Nationalism was just slipping through now and then.

Now others are saying he's a Mossad agent because he's all into conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 but if you mention the dancing Mossad guys who were picked up on 9/11 he gets all controlling and changes the suject or gets in a fight to stop the discussion.

It's creepy.

i know this is completely irrelevant whatsoever but i couldnt resist

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/847362/sexycrucifix.jpg

i also love christ darling :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 07:33 PM
A national anarchist is simply a Fascist. A National Synicalist. The syndicalist camp split into two groups in the early 20's; the anarchist and the nationalist. The nationalists went on to become the Fascists.
You are wrong in one thing.

National anarchism has nothing to do with national syndicalism. Besides, my history book told me that national syndicalism was not a split of the anarchists, and actually it was created by the fascists themselves as a reaction toward revolutionary syndicalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Mar 21 2006, 06:55 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Mar 21 2006, 06:55 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 05:28 PM
Enough of this sectarian bullshit. Next time I see it, warning points. If you can't add anything constructive, shut it.
You mean we should all agree that anarchists are great? Do me a favour and count the number of threads in the past week slandering Leninism. Then talk to me about sectarian bullshit. [/b]
That doesn't give you an excuse to do the same.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I've always loved this comment on National Anarchism. Emphasis added....


Originally posted by Antifa+--> (Antifa)The National Anarchists

As an ideology National-Anarchism would appear to be about as logical as the creation of an organisation of Catholic Orangemen. That does not stop Troy Southgate however.

Attempts at finding anyone in the Anarchist movement to speak to them have been unsuccessful (can anyone forget Jamie DeBayo/Damji leaving the Anarchist Bookfair in 1998 head first?) whilst Southgate and co are just a little bit too weird for the rest of the British far-right. More years in no-mans land beckon.

Do say "National-Anarchism - now that is a brave innovation"
Don't say "But how can you be a nationalist and an Anarchist?"[/b]

http://www.antifa.org.uk/

:lol: :lol: :lol:


ComradeOm
....slandering Leninism.

"Slandering"??? :lol:

[Ironhammer]

Do you guys think syndicalism is left-wing or right-wing. Not national syndicalism of course, but just plain old syndicalism.

[Chicken of Bristol]

National Anarchists make me laugh.

They support voluntary racial separatism and see what they call "racial miscegenation" as a serious threat. They feel that the mixing of cultures destroys the cultures involved. National Anarchism is little more than a nationalist front designed to recruit the anarcho-curious into a neo-nazi ideology. Hell, most of their spokespeople are former members of neo-fascist groups.

[AnnieAngel]

Thanks for all the replies. So National Anarchism = Fascism. I guess then that could apply to like the Militia groups and the Neo-Nazi/White Pride whatever crap they call themselves as well.

I will so remember that to throw at the next Stormfronter I come across. :)

The guy I'm talking about doesn't seem racist, except he will call you anti-semetic if you speak agaisnt Israel. He said once that all of his friends were Jewish as if that explained why. But he also said he had 600 members of his family who fought in the war of 1812, so who knows what he makes up as he goes along.

I think he's a plant, and after what I've read here, I'm pretty convinced, as he doesn't fall into the "pride" groups.

Again, thanks all. You explain things very well and make it easy to understand without me having to surf the net guessing what is true or not.

Cheers!

[CCCPneubauten]

You can be Jewish and not fully sopport Israel...look at Noam Chomsky.

Hell, I favor a two state solution and well...I am of the Jewish mindset.

[bezdomni]

National Anarchists face the same problem as Stalinists.

The imperialists will crush you. The development of advanced society while there is still capitalism is impossible.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by NoXion+Mar 21 2006, 08:20 PM--> (NoXion @ Mar 21 2006, 08:20 PM)That doesn't give you an excuse to do the same.[/b]
Of course it does. I am not a pacifist:)

Anarchists think I am wrong and I think they are wrong so disagreement is unavoidable. That's only natural when two very differing ideas come into contact.


AnnieAngel
But he also said he had 600 members of his family who fought in the war of 1812, so who knows what he makes up as he goes along.
It looks like this guy is just bullshitting you.

[Ultra-Violence]

Do you guys think syndicalism is left-wing or right-wing. Not national syndicalism of course, but just plain old syndicalism.

If u mean by Anarcho-Syndicalism i think its just anarchist who are afraid to admit that there commies so they go under a different flag

anarcho-syndicalism: 1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (direct action)
2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers
3 : a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation

what the difference? :o
:hammer:

[Psy]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 26 2006, 03:23 PM

Do you guys think syndicalism is left-wing or right-wing. Not national syndicalism of course, but just plain old syndicalism.

If u mean by Anarcho-Syndicalism i think its just anarchist who are afraid to admit that there commies so they go under a different flag

anarcho-syndicalism: 1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (direct action)
2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers
3 : a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation

what the difference? :o
:hammer:
The difference is they have pretty red and black flags :cool:

[JudeObscure84]

National anarchism has nothing to do with national syndicalism. Besides, my history book told me that national syndicalism was not a split of the anarchists, and actually it was created by the fascists themselves as a reaction toward revolutionary syndicalism.

National syndicalism was a split between the syndicalists not the anarchists. thats what I wrote. Syndicalism doesnt belong to anarchists alone. Several white supremisists, far right wing groups and neo-fascists support the idea of syndicalism.



Do you guys think syndicalism is left-wing or right-wing. Not national syndicalism of course, but just plain old syndicalism.

Syndicalism is bascially like the old communal structure that villages and towns had before the rise of both liberalism and marxian socialism. The reason why right wing nationalists adopted it is because it shares the blood and soil aspect of thier communal nationalism.

Another thing right wing groups tout is guild socialism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism#I...an_syndicalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism#Italian_syndicalists)

notice that most of the Italian and French syndicalists became Fascist theotricians and full fledged party members. Thier ideological hero is George Sorrell.

[cyu]

If u mean by Anarcho-Syndicalism i think its just anarchist who are afraid to admit that there commies so they go under a different flag

anarcho-syndicalism: 1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (direct action)
2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers
3 : a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation

what the difference?

I'm not sure what #3 means, but if #1 and #2 sound like communism to you, then I'm a communist. The thing is, however, there are people who call themselves communists but believe in things like more centralized government. Using words like anarcho-syndicalist make the distinction a little more clear.

[apathy maybe]

Syndicalists are little better then the typical Marxist. They have this obsession with work that annoys me. (And to stop the opinion and start with the other thing.)

Basically they think that society should be organised on the basis of the type of work that a person does. Sort of like unions who represent builders but not bus drivers. That is not to say that they don’t want an interaction of the two, and often they try to have unions that are comprised of all workers. The IWW is an example of this idea. This way they can bring about the general strike and usher in the millennium.
(If there are any syndicalists out there who disagree with this flawed description and want to either correct it or add more, then feel free. Flaming optional.)

[JudeObscure84]

Marxists: The factory belongs to everyone! (or the state)

Syndicalists: Railroad for the railroad workers!

[Cheung Mo]

National anarchism reminds me of that old Libertarian Nazi Green Party...What a joke that was...They started off as an anarcho-ecologist party that hated Abrahamic religions (Or rather, that was the front they initially presented), but then they moved deeper into looney-tunes fascist territory.

[JudeObscure84]

Libertarian Nazi Green Party

:blink:

[Chicken of Bristol]

You heard right, Libertarian Nazi Green Party. Look on this (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm) site under "Other Parties".

[cyu]

Syndicalists are little better then the typical Marxist. They have this obsession with work that annoys me.

This is an anti-capitalist website after all, so it's only natural it deals with economics and work. What else should an anti-capitalist website focus on?

Maybe you'd be more at home at http://www.infoshop.org/forums/phpBB2/index.php - much less discussion of work there... but then again, much less discussion period.

[apathy maybe]

I have no problem with discussion of economics and work. What I do have a problem with is the glorification of work. Work is something that has to be done.

However, I feel that we should be trying to reduce the amount of work that people do (among other things), which is why economics is important.

(And thanks for the link.)

[cyu]

Work is something that has to be done.

However, I feel that we should be trying to reduce the amount of work that people do (among other things), which is why economics is important.


Can't disagree with that. :D Personally, I think all the unemployment should just be replaced by everyone taking turns and having to work less to make a living, instead of just being a good pool from which capitalists can hire people desperate for any job.

[JudeObscure84]

Can't disagree with that. Personally, I think all the unemployment should just be replaced by everyone taking turns and having to work less to make a living, instead of just being a good pool from which capitalists can hire people desperate for any job.

So people are going to take turns from being a pop singer to washing dishes? :lol:

Again, how does this silly syndicalist system compromise this?

[cyu]

So people are going to take turns from being a pop singer to washing dishes?

Washing dishes maybe, but certainly not being pop singers. I'm referring to the jobs actually required for a society to function well. If, for example, it takes 80% of the people to work 40 hours a week to keep everyone healthy and satisfied, then instead of having 20% unemployment, you could just as easily not require everyone to have to work 40 hours a week.

[JudeObscure84]

Washing dishes maybe, but certainly not being pop singers. I'm referring to the jobs actually required for a society to function well. If, for example, it takes 80% of the people to work 40 hours a week to keep everyone healthy and satisfied, then instead of having 20% unemployment, you could just as easily not require everyone to have to work 40 hours a week.

what I cant figure out in the syndicalist system is how they plan to balance the profitsharing between different syndicates? If one syndicate makes more money than the other (obviously one industry is going to do better than the other) than why would someone want to switch, or will there be richer syndicates and poorer ones?

[cyu]

will there be richer syndicates and poorer ones

I expect there would be. That's how a market determines how resources are allocated in an economy after all. If one company isn't making much money, it's just a sign that what it's producing isn't as needed as the company that is making lots of money. As an employee's pay goes down, then he has a choice of whether to stay in the company, or move to a sector of the economy where business is better. It's the same as the capitalist economy, except the only difference is, he would be joining a community of people who still have control over their lives when moving to the new company.