True Anarchy is the only answer... - Total freedom... [Archive]

Rebelde para Siempre

5th January 2003, 08:47

From the back cover of a Manic St Preachers album:

*************************
"You're obliged to pretend respect for people and institutions you think absurd. You live attached in a cowardly fashion to moral and social conventions you despise, condemn, and know lack all foundation. It is that permanent contradiction between your ideas and desires and all the dead formalities and vain pretenses of your civilization which makes you sad, troubled and unbalanced.

In that intolerable conflict you lose all joy of life and all feeling of personality, because at every moment they suppress and restrain and check the free play of your powers. That's the poisoned and mortal wound of the civilized world."

***********************************

I think it's true. Civilised society supresses and influences the actions of everyone. Total freedom provides utopia for the self, not bound by any social conventions placed on you. Free to act in whatever way you see fit.

Some guy posted on another forum this message, i didnt ask for his permssion to post it here. Why should I? This way his viewpoint will be shared -

**************************
"I sit here, again, not a care in the world...pondering.

As I'm sitting here I'm beginning to think about what people have said to me both recently and in the past. You have to find yourself.
I have to apparently find what I want to do with my life, sit down, make a plan, and set out after it, not stopping until I achieve it. This is what today's successful man achieves. This is what I must do if I want to be successful. I appreciate your concern.

But I have a thought. What if what I view as being successful is very different from what society as a whole views as successful. In fact, what if success cannot be defined? I know what just went through your head and I'm going to explain myself. You just thought 'OK, he's going to start talking his way around this behaviour (not having a job and such.)' Well, read on my friend and you will soon discover that this is neither my intention nor my point.

You see, thousands of years ago, millions perhaps, before civilisation began, man was free. Completely free. Responsibilities limited. Decisions Limited. Free, in the utmost sense of the word. Not knowing that most of what he believed was but an illusion in his head, he lived and he died, free to roam wherever he wanted, free to do what he wanted, free to eat what he wanted, because all he knew at that time was all he believed existed.

Nowadays however, we have thousands of choices to make a day. What coffee will I drink? What should I buy? These are trivial. We also have to decide on larger issues like what job we will work for 60 years of our mere fingersnap of time we have on earth. Who should we marry? Do we love someone? Should we go to college? Not just these decisions alone will decide however, because it goes deeper than that, all decisions are multilevel. Which and when then enters the equation.

Turn on your TV. Watch it. Take note of how you feel now and how you feel afterwards.

Everything you are exposed to has an effect on what you believe and what you want. Someday's I walk into a clothes store, and my eyes light up like 100 watt bulbs. Imagining how good this would look or how this and that would change my image. How that jacket would increase my chances with this girl, how that shoe would fit well into the teeth of that bastard I have grown to dislike.

Other times it's different. Other times I want to blow the fuck out of every flaming little green money bill on the planet. I want to see every holiday brochure tossed onto a fire, I want to see storms taking down the Eiffel tower and empire of state building, I want those clothes I saw in the store to be ripped to shreds, the pretty female counter-assistant to just lie down and let me fuck her like an animal ... this may be harsh you say, but if you look deep enough past the barricades of socially acceptable thoughts that have been built into your head you will find somewhat similar thoughts floating around.

I'm a complicated person, you can guess that from the last two descriptions of my mindsets. Well, I have news for you, that's only two of them. Every man and woman on this planet has thousands of different people inside them, thousands. How in God are we supposed to decide what we want from life when there's a thousand different options, one we will want one day, the next we won't and vice versa. It's even deeper than that, it's multilevel again, our "people inside us" may change hourly, every minute, every few days, every year, every millisecond ... are you seeing the unpredictable pattern here?

Are you seeing my point yet? Do you realise what I'm saying does not in fact make me a lunatic? I am simply exposing the truth. A lot of people will shy away from this and be "disgusted with this angry young man", all I can say is thankyou. Thankyou for proving my previous point about socially acceptable thoughts and how you will view this article.

So what are we supposed to do about this? Can we in fact be completely satisfied with life? Can all of our persons be fulfilled? Can we find out who we really are? Do we have to cut ourselves off from all types of influence and live as hermits, islands, functioning with eachother as animals for only what we need? You decide your own level of involvement.

Every day the world changes. Faster than ever. First man didn't have to keep up with this, you do. You have to be cool, successful, good at what you do, focused, fun, entertaining, hard working, capitalist, yet you strive to be so much else as well. You strive deep inside to wear that clothing that no-one will accept. Get their hair cut that way. Fuck their best friends sister, maybe even his brother, maybe even his father, but they never ever will let that side of his multisided coin be exposed, in fear of what might happen.

Fear is the trap. You cannot be all of these people inside your head because of it. You must let go of it. You must become detached, completely random, you will be teased, ridiculed, beaten, jailed, and socially crucified once you give in to all of your desires, but you will be free. And that feeling alone will be millions of times better than any one you have ever had before. I know this thought makes you want to shit in your pants without you even taking action. But I dare you..go ahead.. try!

You'll be glad to know that this article will be at end within approximately 1 minute measuring by the reading speed of the average man. I sincerely hope now that you got the point, that you do not view me as an angry rebellious young teenager with a personality problem, but in fact you open your eyes and really take in what has been said. How do you even know I'm a teenager? Was that your own assumption or was that the power of suggestion on my part influencing you without you even realising and changing your view on me before you even know me? - My case is closed."
*********************

The Way I see it, true anarchy is the only answer. In Total chaos we find total freedom. Total freedom is the only source of true happiness. If everyone lives in their own utopia then doesn't it make sense that we all will live in a single utopia.

I hope someone understands my point and bothers to read all this. It's an interesting point of view.

komsomol

5th January 2003, 22:36

I got that album, the manics rock!

Umoja

5th January 2003, 22:43

I don't think Freedom should be an individual state for each person. I guess I believe that the entire society should be free, by everyone respecting everyone else like they would themselves, of course their could be problems with this....

Panamarisen

5th January 2003, 23:00

Rebelde para Siempre, I just got to say is...

AGREE 100%!!!

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

Rebelde para Siempre

6th January 2003, 09:02

Umoja I think individual freedom is the only way everyone will be happy. If everyone has freedom then everyone is happy. Simple.

If anyone actually bothers to read all this - it's good.

pastradamus

6th January 2003, 23:08

Yes,I think I should be able to drive my car down the wrong side of the road,crashing into all other cars.

Or I wish to get my automatic kalashnikov and shoot the shit outta all the little kid's I see.

thanks for the freedom guys....

chamo

7th January 2003, 00:04

yeah i agree with pa, total freedom wont work. There still have to be laws and a police force. You're dreamin' of a long off idea. For total freedom there would have to be no crime, no hatred, no weapons, the whole world would have to be one loving country. That's not how the place works. Don't get me wrong, freedom is a good thing and all, but toatl freedom to do WHATEVER you want just doesn't work.

Som

7th January 2003, 02:08

Quote: from pastradamus on 11:08 pm on Jan. 6, 2003
Yes,I think I should be able to drive my car down the wrong side of the road,crashing into all other cars.

Or I wish to get my automatic kalashnikov and shoot the shit outta all the little kid's I see.

thanks for the freedom guys....

But why would you do that?

Do you drive on the wrong side of the road whenever you're sure the cops aren't around?

Do you want to smash into another car to the point that your face is likely going to go through the windshield and kill you anyway? Whats stopping you now from doing that, with all likeliness you won't live to see any of the consequences by the state for that sort of thing.

Do you think that we're all murderers just waiting for the oppurtunity? That alot would go out and kill because theres no cops to stop them?

But why would you murder, and even rape, whats the motivations? Power.
Most of these crimes are crimes of power and authority, being exploited, at the extreme they become the exploiter.
These are quite reduced.

"You and your damn laws, the good people don't need them and the bad people dont obey them so what good are they?" -

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 02:08

Yeah Pa...and don't forget the guns that the kids have too!!

:) FREEDOM FOR ALL!!!

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 02:10

And Som...you'd be surprised...it's the sick people you hear about on the news...that WOULD shoot and rape little kiddies

Anarchy will NOT work..because of Human Nature

Same reason Communism will not work

Socialism for all!!

LOL-Jesus...

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 2:11 am on Jan. 7, 2003)

(Edited by I Bow 4 Che at 2:12 am on Jan. 7, 2003)

Rebelde para Siempre

7th January 2003, 03:37

I don't think many people actually read the whole thing. If someone is running around shooting people for no reason whatsoever, then I also have the freedom to shoot them.

I think Som and Panamarisen know the point I'm trying to make.

Quite frankly I don't think any political system works. If anarchy reigned would there really be many more murders or rapes than there are now? I think less people would die because of the abolition of war, capital punishment and whatever reasons society presents.

No political system works. Utopia is not possible. Socialism comes at the cost of freedom I believe. Democracy isn't true. Communism doesn't work because it requires a level of organisation beyond that of the common man.

I think total freedom would benefit us all.

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 03:45

If someone is running around shooting people for no reason whatsoever, then I also have the freedom to shoot them.

Wow...what ignorance!

If anarchy reigned would there really be many more murders or rapes than there are now?

Of course there would be!!!

pastradamus

7th January 2003, 03:52

Quote: from Som on 2:08 am on Jan. 7, 2003

Quote: from pastradamus on 11:08 pm on Jan. 6, 2003
Yes,I think I should be able to drive my car down the wrong side of the road,crashing into all other cars.

Or I wish to get my automatic kalashnikov and shoot the shit outta all the little kid's I see.

thanks for the freedom guys....

But why would you do that?

Do you drive on the wrong side of the road whenever you're sure the cops aren't around?

Do you want to smash into another car to the point that your face is likely going to go through the windshield and kill you anyway? Whats stopping you now from doing that, with all likeliness you won't live to see any of the consequences by the state for that sort of thing.

Do you think that we're all murderers just waiting for the oppurtunity? That alot would go out and kill because theres no cops to stop them?

But why would you murder, and even rape, whats the motivations? Power.
Most of these crimes are crimes of power and authority, being exploited, at the extreme they become the exploiter.
These are quite reduced.

"You and your damn laws, the good people don't need them and the bad people dont obey them so what good are they?" -

I know what u mean,but your willing to trust your own life with people that for all you know could be serial killers?

And how do you know im not willing to test out my new kalashnikov on people?
the fact is you dont.

do you believe that its okay for me to go into peoples houses and rape their daughters? of course you dont,but the fact is shit like this will happen on a wider scale now that u let them....

I mean I can sell all the smack to little schoolkids I like,okay its sick,but theres bastards crazy enough to do it.

Look,if you destroy order,then people are going to organise themselves into huge criminal organisations,& im not talking street thugs,Im talking people with guns bossing people around as they please.

and this whole anarchist thoery revolves around the thoery that people will organise themselves,so by the same thoery,people will organise themselves into political parties & eventually they will establish a government & the whole process is pointless.

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 04:02

EXACTLY!!! You fuckin' stole my mind Pa...

and if you so complain that we have not read it...I will reply to every single statment if you desire me to

pastradamus

7th January 2003, 04:06

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 3:37 am o
Quite frankly I don't think any political system works. If anarchy reigned would there really be many more murders or rapes than there are now? I think less people would die because of the abolition of war, capital punishment and whatever reasons society presents.

No political system works. Utopia is not possible. Socialism comes at the cost of freedom I believe. Democracy isn't true. Communism doesn't work because it requires a level of organisation beyond that of the common man.

I think total freedom would benefit us all.

Firstly I would like to ask you if you have lost your mind,If you let me rob people's houses then i'd kindly take u up on that offer.
And also,whats all this abolition of war about?
Its war,one of the main reasons it happens is because you dont have a choice,and how do you think you'll ever win a war without an organised army?

If socialism come at the cost of freedom then anarchism comes at the cost of civilisation.

long live socialism.

Som

7th January 2003, 04:25

"I know what u mean,but your willing to trust your own life with people that for all you know could be serial killers? "

Simplism, Serial killers will be around no matter what, If someone is a serial killer, they are, a state will not stop them from killing.
The statist police force is not the only way to protect your lives.

"do you believe that its okay for me to go into peoples houses and rape their daughters? of course you dont,but the fact is shit like this will happen on a wider scale now that u let them.... "

No one is letting them. Simply, anarchy is a society of no authority, that sort of thing is exerting your will on someone now isnt it? you have the right to defend yourself, and organize with others for defense.

"and this whole anarchist thoery revolves around the thoery that people will organise themselves,so by the same thoery,people will organise themselves into political parties & eventually they will establish a government & the whole process is pointless. "

Why would organization eventually lead to government? The organization they create is bottom up, leaders are guides, they have no power except the power to direct. Anarchy is a society built on the masses, everyone creates it, so once theyve liberated themselves, why would they allow themselves to be subjugated?

"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone is running around shooting people for no reason whatsoever, then I also have the freedom to shoot them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow...what ignorance! "

Its not ignorant at all, its a way of doing things, unfortunate but maybe real.
Simply if someone is committing these anti-social acts, they are choosing right to live and die and essentially declared themselves outside of an anarchist society.
Do what you will along as you don't harm anyone.

"Its war,one of the main reasons it happens is because you dont have a choice,and how do you think you'll ever win a war without an organised army? "

A workers militia, groupings of people acting together in a voluntary army under some sort of confederation likely. Its happened before, and can be done.

Also, since anarchy is based on organization, people can organize to protect themselves, less of police and more of community watches.

pastradamus

7th January 2003, 05:04

Well som,how do you think a government was firstly formed? by a group of organisers.
So you think that 1+1 does not equal 2?
but instead the same system?

And about going into peoples houses raping their daughters,who the fuck is going to stop me? me & my assault rifle.People will do that once they're given the chance.

And what about pedofiles? they will do they're crap more freely now that theres no cops out to get them,and if they do get found out then they can alway's leave the country with no trace,now that theres no police to track them.

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 05:07

Anarchy will not work because people, human nature, are common to group. With this comes group values like family, religion, morals, or even civil values. Regardless of the reasons these values are considered "good" or "bad", people are introduced to them at a young age, and are taught this way. They will follow it, practice it, do everything they can to enforce their beliefs on others. Every religous person could say that if they were born into a family with differing beliefs than the ones they did, and their family sent them to that place to pray, and made them read the text that follows that belief, it is a good chance they would end up with that belief.

Okay, so yeah most people themselves, as individuals will accept the beleifs of others but when they are memebers of a unity...a group...whatever, they will not.

When people have strong group values they are encouraged to hold them close ... so instead of responding to differing beleifs with tolerance, it is quite the opposite.

When you are in a situation, and you need protection from these groups...how does Anarchy help...it doesn't.

I Bow 4 Che

7th January 2003, 05:10

Anarchy...allows the big boys...to push around the little ones...Anarchy is all it is against.

Som

7th January 2003, 05:50

"Well som,how do you think a government was firstly formed? by a group of organisers.
So you think that 1+1 does not equal 2?
but instead the same system? "

Organization is not government. Government is top down, anarchist organization is bottom up. This is completly different. I dont think you understand this.
The state gives orders to those below, those below obey the orders, giving orders to others below. Those obey coerce these orders onto the populace by violence. This is top down organization.
Bottom up organization works with the people deciding directly recallable delegates to a federation, the federation works together to get planning done. The federation has no force of coercion, the federation as a whole can not imput its will on others, for this federation has no power. for example if a road needs to go through 30 communes, the federations delegates relay the plans to all those involved, if everyone says ok, the road is built, if the roads going through someones house so they disagree, they change the plans, they can't force the road through their home.
Another example would be a federation of medical workers, that helps distribute resources equitably, that helps send doctors where they are needed and so on.

"And about going into peoples houses raping their daughters,who the fuck is going to stop me? me & my assault rifle.People will do that once they're given the chance. "

Your being repetitive, I went over this, If you try to rape someone, you can expect them to respond with force in kind, you can expect them to call their neighbor with a gun, you can expect them to call a commune protection force if they organized such a thing. If you push, they will push back. This does not require a state.

"Anarchy will not work because people, human nature, are common to group.....When you are in a situation, and you need protection from these groups...how does Anarchy help...it doesn't. "

Anarchy is a society based on human grouping. Communes, syndicates, voluntary participatory units as loose methods of organization.
If another group is an agressor, your group will be a defender, or if you choose to not join a commune, a set of deals with another group could do as well.

"Anarchy...allows the big boys...to push around the little ones...Anarchy is all it is against."

Pay attention to the society you live in, the state is a giant force of the big boys pushing around the little ones, that is the function of the state.
Its a rather baseless accusation of anarchy really, human interaction is always dynamic, and it hardly entails a constant power struggle.

abstractmentality

7th January 2003, 05:55

human nature is unknown, and can not be defined.

Rebelde para Siempre

7th January 2003, 07:22

abstractmentality, you are absolutely right.

IB4C,

and if you so complain that we have not read it...I will reply to every single statment if you desire me to

Feel free to do so...

I am simply trying to make a point. I say stop forcing people. Stop trying to bend people to your will. It's happening all the time. Everywhere.

Actually I'm going to make a new thread about this, hopefully being clearer in my ideas.

komsomol

7th January 2003, 19:46

Anarchy and Communism in thier purest form are basically the same, they can only exist when human nature has progressed through habit to such a degree that they no longer whish to place any sort of athority on another. I doubt that this is entirely possible, however, I do believe that we can go to the level of Communism/Anarchism that requires democracy, but at an extremley low level, in individual communes, of course I only believe this is possible after a long period of more Centralised planning and conditioning through habit.

pastradamus

7th January 2003, 21:45

Quote: from Som on 5:50 am on Jan. 7, 2003

Organization is not government. Government is top down, anarchist organization is bottom up. This is completly different. I dont think you understand this.
The state gives orders to those below, those below obey the orders, giving orders to others below. Those obey coerce these orders onto the populace by violence. This is top down organization.
Bottom up organization works with the people deciding directly recallable delegates to a federation, the federation works together to get planning done. The federation has no force of coercion, the federation as a whole can not imput its will on others, for this federation has no power. for example if a road needs to go through 30 communes, the federations delegates relay the plans to all those involved, if everyone says ok, the road is built, if the roads going through someones house so they disagree, they change the plans, they can't force the road through their home.
Another example would be a federation of medical workers, that helps distribute resources equitably, that helps send doctors where they are needed and so on.

Pay attention to the society you live in, the state is a giant force of the big boys pushing around the little ones, that is the function of the state.
Its a rather baseless accusation of anarchy really, human interaction is always dynamic, and it hardly entails a constant power struggle.

haha,its funny to see you anarchists trying to brainwash yourself's into thinking sumthing will happen of the kind.
Firstly,government dosent have to be down to giving orders to people lower & lower & lower & lower than you.Thats called creating class divisions,and as Socialists we dont buy into that.Anarchism on the other hand would actualy promote this,
for example have you ever noticed the way the school bully bosses everybody around him into getting what he wants? and nobody dares challenge him because of him & his tough friends...im pretty sure you have,so what you want to do is mix lions & sheep and hope they'll all get along and dance under the big happy rainbow?
.......Seems pretty fucking far off to me man.

you need a police force to make sure that people dont harm themselves or others,think of the countless lives a little authority saves every year,and you believe in throwing these lives away for this ridiculous idealogy,and one more reason.....the masses never took anarchists seriously.early days begun with terrorism but now all they do is run around in rallies,whats the fucking point in that?
Its a waste of time if Ignorant cappi's arent gonna listen to you.
I dont believe pure anarchy can ever exist,I think it could only ever exist if it is mingled with communism,marxism,ect....

(Edited by pastradamus at 9:50 pm on Jan. 7, 2003)

Som

8th January 2003, 00:15

Firstly,government dosent have to be down to giving orders to people lower & lower & lower & lower than you.Thats called creating class divisions,and as Socialists we dont buy into that.Anarchism on the other hand would actualy promote this,

No, thats what governments do, thats their function, in any society whatsoever. The legislators make laws, the laws are put into place, the cops enforce the laws, the people are coerced into obeying those laws, This is simple.

for example have you ever noticed the way the school bully bosses everybody around him into getting what he wants? and nobody dares challenge him because of him & his tough friends...

You ever notice when you do challenge him that things get solved alot better than when you tell the...whoever.

Simply, these bullies will be a definite minority, since anarchy destroys these power structures, and will not be able to subjugate a free people.

you need a police force to make sure that people dont harm themselves or others,think of the countless lives a little authority saves every year,and you believe in throwing these lives away for this ridiculous idealogy

Actually, without the forces of the state and capitalism, crime will decrease, and the roots of these crimes will decrease.
You seem to think the only type of people that can protect you from crime are a statist police force, and completely ignore my suggestions of a neighborhood watches, and communal protection deals.

the masses never took anarchists seriously.

Ignorance.

The spanish in the 30s sure as hell took them seriously, parts of spain organized themselves successfully into an anarchist society that lasted two years before the fascists defeated them. It worked quite well.
There have been other smaller experiments, always crushed from the outside.

(Edited by Som at 12:18 am on Jan. 8, 2003)

Blackberry

8th January 2003, 01:22

You seem to think the only type of people that can protect you from crime are a statist police force, and completely ignore my suggestions of a neighborhood watches, and communal protection deals.

And I think I should mention that I have seen first hand how these neighbourhood watch programs work...even in a capitalist society.

Lardlad95

8th January 2003, 02:20

Quote: from Som on 12:15 am on Jan. 8, 2003
Firstly,government dosent have to be down to giving orders to people lower & lower & lower & lower than you.Thats called creating class divisions,and as Socialists we dont buy into that.Anarchism on the other hand would actualy promote this,

No, thats what governments do, thats their function, in any society whatsoever. The legislators make laws, the laws are put into place, the cops enforce the laws, the people are coerced into obeying those laws, This is simple.

for example have you ever noticed the way the school bully bosses everybody around him into getting what he wants? and nobody dares challenge him because of him & his tough friends...

You ever notice when you do challenge him that things get solved alot better than when you tell the...whoever.

Simply, these bullies will be a definite minority, since anarchy destroys these power structures, and will not be able to subjugate a free people.

you need a police force to make sure that people dont harm themselves or others,think of the countless lives a little authority saves every year,and you believe in throwing these lives away for this ridiculous idealogy

Actually, without the forces of the state and capitalism, crime will decrease, and the roots of these crimes will decrease.
You seem to think the only type of people that can protect you from crime are a statist police force, and completely ignore my suggestions of a neighborhood watches, and communal protection deals.

the masses never took anarchists seriously.

Ignorance.

The spanish in the 30s sure as hell took them seriously, parts of spain organized themselves successfully into an anarchist society that lasted two years before the fascists defeated them. It worked quite well.
There have been other smaller experiments, always crushed from the outside.

(Edited by Som at 12:18 am on Jan. 8, 2003)

I am very much interested in this orgnaized anarchist society in Spain

can you provide a link?

firstpunklasthippie

8th January 2003, 04:44

Millions will die before pure anarchy can take place.
Its a cliche I know

pastradamus

8th January 2003, 22:00

Quote: from Som on 12:15 am on Jan. 8, 2003

You ever notice when you do challenge him that things get solved alot better than when you tell the...whoever.

Simply, these bullies will be a definite minority, since anarchy destroys these power structures, and will not be able to subjugate a free people.

Actually, without the forces of the state and capitalism, crime will decrease, and the roots of these crimes will decrease.
You seem to think the only type of people that can protect you from crime are a statist police force, and completely ignore my suggestions of a neighborhood watches, and communal protection deals.

Ignorance.

The spanish in the 30s sure as hell took them seriously, parts of spain organized themselves successfully into an anarchist society that lasted two years before the fascists defeated them. It worked quite well.
There have been other smaller experiments, always crushed from the outside.

(Edited by Som at 12:18 am on Jan. 8, 2003)

Firstly,by standing up to this bully,you are taking the a risk of getting your head smashed in.

Oh,you wanna hear sumthing bout a neighbourhood watch programme?
okay,where I live we have such programmes.So when a neighbour sees trouble he/she CALLS THE POLICE.
Communal protection deals eh..? sounds like mafia stuff to me.

Oh!,btw I dont think you understood what I ment by "THE MASSES",Im talking the MAJORITY of the people,not sum stupid fools grouped together with guns.If they were so large then why do they fail to exist today on the levels of the republicans,communists who also fought in that war with them.
Oh and how did it work "quite well"?,if it worked we would have heard more about it,and it would have been really fucking popular today.
pure anarchism will never exist unless it is mingled with communism,even you cannot doubt this.

Som

8th January 2003, 22:38

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html

Those two are great resources about anarchist spain.

Now, on to rubbish:
Firstly,by standing up to this bully,you are taking the a risk of getting your head smashed in.

Bully is such a vague example. Lets take a look at bullies objectively, instead of the pissheaded kid in the school yard, you ignored my point about power structures. When it comes to bullies as a whole, they are a definite minority, and a useless one, unless supported by power structures like capitalism and the state to enforce their 'bullying'. Anarchy destroys these structures, so you've cut the bullies from their lackies, and them creating a new power structure requires a good deal of people to give up their freedom, in a society of mass organization, this will be stopped.
The bullies are forever the minority, anarchism never works on minorities.

Oh,you wanna hear sumthing bout a neighbourhood watch programme?
okay,where I live we have such programmes.So when a neighbour sees trouble he/she CALLS THE POLICE.
Communal protection deals eh..? sounds like mafia stuff to me.

Mafia stuff? You get together with your commune, Ask what your going to do about protection, say Bob has a gun, we decide we'll call bob if we ever need any help, Bob can run over and bring Joe, who also has a gun. Maybe we'll compensate for this, maybe give bob alittle extra, maybe bob will do it because he's a good guy. Bobs hardly a mafia.

Maybe we'd even have a system of libertarian police, if we need help, we'll call the police syndicate. Though I wouldn't want this sort of system in place, It might spring up.

Oh!,btw I dont think you understood what I ment by "THE MASSES",Im talking the MAJORITY of the people,not sum stupid fools grouped together with guns.If they were so large then why do they fail to exist today on the levels of the republicans,communists who also fought in that war with them.
Oh and how did it work "quite well"?,if it worked we would have heard more about it,and it would have been really fucking popular today.

Do some reading on the links I provided.

from the second link I provided:
Thus about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in the libertarian based new economy during the short time it was able to survive the military assaults of the fascists and the attacks and sabotage of the Communists. This in itself suggests that libertarian socialist ideas are of a practical nature

The CNT, the anarchist trade union, at one point had over a million members.

The anarchists were also the most brutally supressed after the fascists took over, because they had the most revolutionary area. The Stalinist warping of history never helped things either.

pure anarchism will never exist unless it is mingled with communism,even you cannot doubt this.

Theres nothing to doubt, Anarchist ecomics are all socialist and communist.
The program of the CNT was called libertarian communism.

Iepilei

9th January 2003, 01:46

total freedom is a far off concept - idealistic and such. what's to prevent mob rule? a self-instated group of power dominant individuals who smash and kill the pacifists you envision, as the Indoeuropeans once did?

a state structure of sorts is needed until the world may unite and from there organise into a 'dissolved' state structure.

pastradamus

9th January 2003, 03:55

Quote: from Som on 10:38 pm on Jan. 8, 2003
The bullies are forever the minority, anarchism never works on minorities

Mafia stuff? You get together with your commune, Ask what your going to do about protection, say Bob has a gun, we decide we'll call bob if we ever need any help, Bob can run over and bring Joe, who also has a gun. Maybe we'll compensate for this, maybe give bob alittle extra, maybe bob will do it because he's a good guy. Bobs hardly a mafia.

Maybe we'd even have a system of libertarian police, if we need help, we'll call the police syndicate. Though I wouldn't want this sort of system in place, It might spring up.

from the second link I provided:
Thus about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in the libertarian based new economy during the short time it was able to survive the military assaults of the fascists and the attacks and sabotage of the Communists. This in itself suggests that libertarian socialist ideas are of a practical nature

The CNT, the anarchist trade union, at one point had over a million members.

The anarchists were also the most brutally supressed after the fascists took over, because they had the most revolutionary area. The Stalinist warping of history never helped things either.

Theres nothing to doubt, Anarchist ecomics are all socialist and communist.
The program of the CNT was called libertarian communism.

okay,lets start with this "bob" fella,okay "bob" has a gun,and "joe" has a gun....could these two guys not get a little greedy and try overrunning the whole commune with their weapons?
as lenin said "One man with a gun can controll a hundread without one"
And as for your new police force,I think people will definetly resort to this organisation when your "power structure" crumbles.
I think you mis-understood what i ment by:

"If they were so large then why do they fail to exist today on the levels of the republicans,communists who also fought in that war with them. "

Im not talking bout war veterans,im talking about todays political parties and groups in spain.Your a complete joker if you think the anarchists are on the same level as people such as the Spainish Socialist party(biggest party in spain),or any republican party in spain.
See the thing is people dont find anarchism as attractive as communism or republicanism,and some see it as violent.

I wasn't talking about economics when I was talking about anarchism not being able to exist on its own.I was talking about social structure,as you said earlier with this police force ect... there MUST be some levels of authority involved.Communism must also have an economical presence,otherwise capitalism could devolope among these anarchist societies.

oh BTW,i would like you to reply to Iepilei's post,he/she has a valid point,which i fear you might ignore.

(Edited by pastradamus at 4:01 am on Jan. 9, 2003)

Som

9th January 2003, 20:47

okay,lets start with this "bob" fella,okay "bob" has a gun,and "joe" has a gun....could these two guys not get a little greedy and try overrunning the whole commune with their weapons?
as lenin said "One man with a gun can controll a hundread without one"
And as for your new police force,I think people will definetly resort to this organisation when your "power structure" crumbles.

Lets mention that bob and joe are your neighbors, you know where they live. Are they going to hold the entire commune hostage? Wheres the gain in that, we know where bob lives, he's got to sleep sometime. Whos to say someone else doesn't have a gun?
Again this issue falls with the 'bullies', a minority that can push, but will be pushed back.

Im not talking bout war veterans,im talking about todays political parties and groups in spain.Your a complete joker if you think the anarchists are on the same level as people such as the Spainish Socialist party(biggest party in spain),or any republican party in spain.
See the thing is people dont find anarchism as attractive as communism or republicanism,and some see it as violent.

First of all, You'd not be likely to see the CNT in politics, they are still an anarcho-syndicalist labor organization, thats how they always were, theyre not a political party. I read something about it, that since its been allowed to emerge after Franco, It's made a series of poor descisions thats weakened it as a labor union. This really doesn't have much to do with anarchist ideas, It's just the labor unions internal politics it seems.

I wasn't talking about economics when I was talking about anarchism not being able to exist on its own.I was talking about social structure,as you said earlier with this police force ect... there MUST be some levels of authority involved.

I guess that little bit was alittle misleading. You miss the idea that capitalism and the state are destroyed by the same actions. The very undertaking of libertarian socialism makes the state and unneeded burden and causes it to be disregarded, much in the same way as the marxist withering of the state. In one article I read the police were socialized (not to be confused with nationalized) as well, so maybe they went with the police syndicate version I mentioned. The only authority is the authority to prevent authority (rather paradoxil sounding I know, but it's fitting)

Communism must also have an economical presence,otherwise capitalism could devolope among these anarchist societies.

You're getting repetitive. I went over this already. Anarchist economics are socialist and communist. Anarchism abolishes private property and creates a real economic democracy, the new anarchist society will regard people who claim ownership as closeminded dinosaurs to society and will be ignored.
The people won't allow their economic democracy to be returned to an oligarchy, it doesn't fit the whole nature of the society.

total freedom is a far off concept - idealistic and such. what's to prevent mob rule? a self-instated group of power dominant individuals who smash and kill the pacifists you envision, as the Indoeuropeans once did?

Well, I guess you're referring to a sort of gang or mafia like organization.
Anarchisms rather dynamic, so theres not one way to deal with these sorts, but a couple things that could be done.
At a federation of communes the problem would be brought up, and dealt with. Maybe a sort of localized citizens militia would be set up as a self-defense method.
Maybe they would call a police syndicate as a method to of aid.

pastradamus

9th January 2003, 23:46

Quote: from Som on 8:47 pm on Jan. 9, 2003

Lets mention that bob and joe are your neighbors, you know where they live.Are they going to hold the entire commune hostage? Wheres the gain in that, we know where bob lives, he's got to sleep sometime. Whos to say someone else doesn't have a gun?
Again this issue falls with the 'bullies', a minority that can push, but will be pushed back.

First of all, You'd not be likely to see the CNT in politics, they are still an anarcho-syndicalist labor organization, thats how they always were, theyre not a political party. I read something about it, that since its been allowed to emerge after Franco, It's made a series of poor descisions thats weakened it as a labor union. This really doesn't have much to do with anarchist ideas, It's just the labor unions internal politics it seems.

I guess that little bit was alittle misleading. You miss the idea that capitalism and the state are destroyed by the same actions. The very undertaking of libertarian socialism makes the state and unneeded burden and causes it to be disregarded, much in the same way as the marxist withering of the state. In one article I read the police were socialized (not to be confused with nationalized) as well, so maybe they went with the police syndicate version I mentioned. The only authority is the authority to prevent authority (rather paradoxil sounding I know, but it's fitting)

You're getting repetitive. I went over this already. Anarchist economics are socialist and communist. Anarchism abolishes private property and creates a real economic democracy, the new anarchist society will regard people who claim ownership as closeminded dinosaurs to society and will be ignored.
The people won't allow their economic democracy to be returned to an oligarchy, it doesn't fit the whole nature of the society.

total freedom is a far off concept - idealistic and such. what's to prevent mob rule? a self-instated group of power dominant individuals who smash and kill the pacifists you envision, as the Indoeuropeans once did?

Well, I guess you're referring to a sort of gang or mafia like organization.
Anarchisms rather dynamic, so theres not one way to deal with these sorts, but a couple things that could be done.
At a federation of communes the problem would be brought up, and dealt with. Maybe a sort of localized citizens militia would be set up as a self-defense method.

Yes,bullies are a minority.But these bullies could have some potential power over people.Like the way the mafia operates.They can be pushed back,but who can tell who's push is stronger.majorities dont always win feuds you know.say joe & bob get sick of your anarchist society,they'll organise with others in an effort to destroy it.And what about the military? Whats to happen to generals? I think they wont like you destroying their position,they'll bring this new society back into the old way of doing things.violence is part of human nature.

I understand I wont find an anarchist party in spain,since they dont believe in the political route,
But what about anarchist groups?
Your trying to weasal your way outta the question,do anarchist groupshave the same following as the political parties do?

And might I ask about how your economic system works? So when a guy sells goods to another state,then who gets the dough? him,or is it spread out evenly? and how is it going to be spread out evenly without a state structure? or maybe your magical village commune is going to get involved?,who involves them?,cant this guy just make the trade behind their back,and start a route to capitalism? It could turn into liberal capitalism if the proper steps arent taken.

And whats all this about "local militia"?,One of the characteristics of a militia is that they're second-class army.NOT proper army,whats an army without organisation,a group of fools with guns.Outsiders will smash this state of yours.

Som

10th January 2003, 01:42

Yes,bullies are a minority.But these bullies could have some potential power over people.Like the way the mafia operates.They can be pushed back,but who can tell who's push is stronger.majorities dont always win feuds you know.say joe & bob get sick of your anarchist society,they'll organise with others in an effort to destroy it.And what about the military? Whats to happen to generals? I think they wont like you destroying their position,they'll bring this new society back into the old way of doing things.violence is part of human nature.

You're playing every minor situation, and its getting repetitive. Theres a million different things that go wrong in ANY society. If this was a theoritical argument about statism, You could use the exact same arguments, like "what if these police decide they don't want to police, and decide to overthrow their state", simply it would take a huge force to subjugate this sort of society, and this force would not easily conquer a people who value their freedom, the state would be quite an undesirable thing to a free people.

No society is invincible, be it democratic, capitalist, fascist, socialist, whatever. It doesn't make the society inherently unstable.

I understand I wont find an anarchist party in spain,since they dont believe in the political route,
But what about anarchist groups?
Your trying to weasal your way outta the question,do anarchist groupshave the same following as the political parties do?

"It's made a series of poor descisions thats weakened it as a labor union. This really doesn't have much to do with anarchist ideas, It's just the labor unions internal politics it seems. "

This is what i said, Its weasaling my way out of anything, you seem to be ignoring it. The CNT is the anarchist labor union most directly responsable for the course of events in the spanish revolution. That above statement implies that maybe it doesn't have the following of a political party, but not necesarily because of a lack of anarchists, but because of poor management descisions and the smaller role of trade unions.

And might I ask about how your economic system works? So when a guy sells goods to another state,then who gets the dough? him,or is it spread out evenly? and how is it going to be spread out evenly without a state structure? or maybe your magical village commune is going to get involved?,who involves them?,cant this guy just make the trade behind their back,and start a route to capitalism? It could turn into liberal capitalism if the proper steps arent taken.

You're somehow implying that if its not centralized state socialism its somehow just going to become capitalism. This is one hell of a poor argument, considering THERE IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY. I said this already.
No one is selling goods to another state. There is no state. The economics are a decentralized socialism. There are a few specific anarchist economic systems, generally that will work side by side with no problem. The workers make everything democratically. When the shoe factory syndicate sells some shoes, the syndicate all gets the capital. The workers of the syndicate might pool their portion into the commune.
Unless its a communist society, then theres no money at all.
Hopefully the industries will cooperatively organize and work together, maybe they'd comptete. Even if they do compete, the free market does not make it capitalist.

And whats all this about "local militia"?,One of the characteristics of a militia is that they're second-class army.NOT proper army,whats an army without organisation,a group of fools with guns.Outsiders will smash this state of yours.

Now your just taking things I didn't say. I used the local militia example in prevention of crime. As well as theres no state to smash.
You underestimate the idea of the workers militia, In spain they fought as well as any of the 'proper' armies, the makhnovists were quite well for their situation also.

pastradamus

10th January 2003, 20:28

Iepilei

10th January 2003, 22:53

nothing you can say can squelch the fact that there were pacifist 'communes' which existed at one time, and they were easily dominated by the agressions of a SINGLE tribe. The ideal of living in small colonies is about as pleasant to me as living in tents. You'd only break apart people further in such situations.

Som

10th January 2003, 23:17

Your dreaming of a far off idea if you think this will ever happen.
Its so far off millions will die fighting against what you have planned.I'll stay with socialism,marxism,we've seen it happen,we've seen it work.We dont need to dream,its real,it has the masses support.

What we've seen 'work' we've seen oppress, and we've seen it murder, we've seen it faulter and millions have died in its name. You act like its come to some great victory as all the good ideas of many fell into the pit of oppurtunism.
If you call what we've seen socialism, Its sure as hell not something to be achieved. (to note, Not implying I'm against state socialism, merely the implication of his support of the previous regimes that happened to call themselves socialist.)
You seem to be dreaming as well if you think that it still has the support of the masses.

Again, with spain, we've seen anarchy work, and all its experiments have been successful. History is on anarchys side.

nothing you can say can squelch the fact that there were pacifist 'communes' which existed at one time, and they were easily dominated by the agressions of a SINGLE tribe. The ideal of living in small colonies is about as pleasant to me as living in tents. You'd only break apart people further in such situations.

This is not the same sort of society thats hoped to be acheived. Anarchism does seek to create a society broken apart, these communes are not isolated, or something that you imply with 'colonies'.
Nothing needs to be squelched, I'm not advocating tribalism here. The primitivism of old is were isolated, the society anarchy seeks to build is federated, together by choice instead of force, which will enable its resistance to those agressors.

Blackberry

11th January 2003, 02:36

Quote: from pastradamus on 8:28 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
Your dreaming of a far off idea if you think this will ever happen.
Its so far off millions will die fighting against what you have planned.I'll stay with socialism,marxism,we've seen it happen,we've seen it work.We dont need to dream,its real,it has the masses support.

But isn't anarchism what marxists aim to achieve? The withering of the state. It's the same thing.

I Bow 4 Che

11th January 2003, 02:39

Yes I am back

NN, Marxists aim to achieve so much more than anarchists do.

I would feel comfortable saying that Marxism is more complex then anarchism. Differ if you please...I'd like to hear the argument.

However, I will say they share a couple common "goals" but they are no where near identicle. It depends on the person I suppose.

Blackberry

11th January 2003, 02:48

Quote: from I Bow 4 Che on 2:39 am on Jan. 11, 2003
Yes I am back

NN, Marxists aim to achieve so much more than anarchists do.

I would feel comfortable saying that Marxism is more complex then anarchism. Differ if you please...I'd like to hear the argument.

However, I will say they share a couple common "goals" but they are no where near identicle. It depends on the person I suppose.

Then you tell me how anarchists differ from marxists. What makes marxists more complex?

I Bow 4 Che

11th January 2003, 03:58

First of all let's keep this clean, I respect you.
SIMILAR

The anarchists goal is to nullify the state. This leaves us with NO government...No authority. I agree with anarchists that states are not affective to holding things together but simply to protect our CEO's and welathy inhabitants. If we had a REAL communist society we could moderate economy without state authority (aside from the people themselves) and when there are problems such as rape ect. I believe that they can be overcome easilier by THE community rather than the police force.

DIFFERENT

The difference is getting there. We share a common goal for a future "society" but that is the exact reason we cannot just GET RID OF the "state". We must work from this. The working class has to use new laws and direct force to keep the wealth away from those evil Cappies :) Working class then becomes the 3l337 and we need armed forces to back this up. While this is happening the anarchists are going "WHAT THE FUCK!!!" feeling it is just as horrid as the previous state. The Marxists are replying with "THE FUCK NO!!"
This is all for the majority...opposed to the few exploiters we previously dealt with. We don't need secret armies against the peoples, no secret repression-power will be decided by the PEOPLE...the POPULATION, we can put them the fuck in..and take them the fuck out as we please. DEMOCRACY!!

The Big Question

Anarchists, what the fuck are you going to do to the cappies after their power is GONE. Will people be allowed to organize and fight off their rebellions? If they were, THIS would be a so called "state". Considered an apparatus created to allow one class to rule another. So...an organized power of t3h working peoples no?

Anarchism is NOT revolutionary enough...sorry kids...

American Kid

11th January 2003, 04:48

Hm...how ironic...?

The kid owns the anarchists.....

-AK

Blackberry

11th January 2003, 05:45

First of all let's keep this clean, I respect you.

Funny how I feel personally threatened, and the language was not kept clean, but anyway...

The anarchists goal is to nullify the state. This leaves us with NO government...No authority. I agree with anarchists that states are not affective to holding things together but simply to protect our CEO's and welathy inhabitants. If we had a REAL communist society we could moderate economy without state authority (aside from the people themselves) and when there are problems such as rape ect. I believe that they can be overcome easilier by THE community rather than the police force.

Agreed...

The difference is getting there. We share a common goal for a future "society" but that is the exact reason we cannot just GET RID OF the "state". We must work from this. The working class has to use new laws and direct force to keep the wealth away from those evil Cappies :)

Of course it will take time to achieve such a society. It cannot happen overnight. A slower progress in achieving the withering of the state will ensure that nothing goes wrong in the long term. If measures have to be taken in order that the former capitalist MINORITY doesn't exploit or regain power, so be it. But there will come a time when the state will be no longer needed, like Karl Marx wrote.

Working class then becomes the 3l337 and we need armed forces to back this up. While this is happening the anarchists are going "WHAT THE FUCK!!!" feeling it is just as horrid as the previous state. The Marxists are replying with "THE FUCK NO!!"
This is all for the majority...opposed to the few exploiters we previously dealt with. We don't need secret armies against the peoples, no secret repression-power will be decided by the PEOPLE...the POPULATION, we can put them the fuck in..and take them the fuck out as we please. DEMOCRACY!!

Not much to be said of this. Anarchists WANT the majority, the people, to decide what happens. Same as marxists (although you can argue that (some?) vanguardists do not want this).

Anarchists, what the fuck are you going to do to the cappies after their power is GONE. Will people be allowed to organize and fight off their rebellions? If they were, THIS would be a so called "state". Considered an apparatus created to allow one class to rule another. So...an organized power of t3h working peoples no?

As mentioned above, time will be needed (maybe ten years, maybe a century, it all depends) to achieve the socialist society we dream of after a revolution (by this I mean the majority taking power from the elite ruling minority, whether that be peaceful or violent).

=======

Here's something I want you to read though:

"...divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. When a dominating class wants to keep a subject class under its control, what better way to distract it than to keep it fighting amongst itself. If a subject class is kept busy fighting each other as individuals and trying to gain small advantages or favouritism over each other, it will be all the easier to keep them in check." (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/focus/)

Rebelde para Siempre

11th January 2003, 12:48

Hm...how ironic...?

The kid owns the anarchists.....

-AK

Fuck you.

Anarchists, what the fuck are you going to do to the cappies after their power is GONE. Will people be allowed to organize and fight off their rebellions?

The capitalist's powers will be gone. Read it again. POWERS WILL BE GONE. They will be like everyone else. You think because they are rich in an Anarchist world they have power? Fuck off. Money becomes useless. Just green pieces of paper you can wipe your ass with.

And of course people will be allowed to organise and fight for whatever they belive in. Fuck, they are ALLOWED to do what they want!

If they were, THIS would be a so called "state.

No it wouldn't. It would be a bunch of people working together. By your definition, the Zapatistas are a "state".

I'm sorry but you whole last paragraph - "the big question", is meaningless, subjective and riddled with faults.

Anarchism is NOT revolutionary enough...sorry kids.

What the fuck does that actually mean? The whole concept of Anarchism is revolutionary, very much more so than socialism or whatever communistic name you call it.

I am an anarchist, but this whole thread has kinda gone off my original topic. My original post was kind of theoretical and abstract, it really had nothing to do with the inner workings and minor details of the way Anarchy would work, the way it's organised etc.

I think that was the whole point of the first post. Stop trying to make things work. Leave everything alone. Let the people work things out themselves. Let "the way", God, or whatever just take control and go with the natural flow... If the natural flow is chaos, then so be it, because that is what humans will do. We will never be better than the way we act in a world with no rules. I just think people can learn through experience only.

I think Anarchy is something that needs a person's faith in others. If you think everyone will live as savages in a society with no rules, then we will be no better. I say, just try it, and hope that humans will amount to something through the realisation of their ways.

bombeverything

12th January 2003, 05:41

bombeverything

12th January 2003, 05:51

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 3:37 am on Jan. 7, 2003
If anarchy reigned would there really be many more murders or rapes than there are now?

Governments have killed more people than all mass murders and non-state terrorists put together. Also, to those who claim that people are innately bad, why leave the power in the hands of the few?

Rebelde para Siempre

22nd January 2003, 12:49

I just had to bring this up again, because I think this thread was a victory for us anarchists.

Prove me otherwise?

I Bow 4 Che

27th January 2003, 07:50

I apologize that I forgot to respond to this sooner.

Neutral Nation,

First of all let's keep this clean, I respect you.

Funny how I feel personally threatened, and the language was not kept clean, but anyway...

I apologize I am sorry you took my tone and language as a threat. Much love.

The anarchists goal is to nullify the state. This leaves us with NO government...No authority. I agree with anarchists that states are not affective to holding things together but simply to protect our CEO's and welathy inhabitants. If we had a REAL communist society we could moderate economy without state authority (aside from the people themselves) and when there are problems such as rape ect. I believe that they can be overcome easilier by THE community rather than the police force.

Agreed...

I'm glad

The difference is getting there. We share a common goal for a future "society" but that is the exact reason we cannot just GET RID OF the "state". We must work from this. The working class has to use new laws and direct force to keep the wealth away from those evil Cappies :)

Of course it will take time to achieve such a society. It cannot happen overnight. A slower progress in achieving the withering of the state will ensure that nothing goes wrong in the long term. If measures have to be taken in order that the former capitalist MINORITY doesn't exploit or regain power, so be it. But there will come a time when the state will be no longer needed, like Karl Marx wrote.

So be it? So by keeping the former capitalists out of power and taking measures to make sure this does not happen, anarchy is destroying itself.

Working class then becomes the 3l337 and we need armed forces to back this up. While this is happening the anarchists are going "WHAT THE FUCK!!!" feeling it is just as horrid as the previous state. The Marxists are replying with "THE FUCK NO!!"
This is all for the majority...opposed to the few exploiters we previously dealt with. We don't need secret armies against the peoples, no secret repression-power will be decided by the PEOPLE...the POPULATION, we can put them the fuck in..and take them the fuck out as we please. DEMOCRACY!!

Not much to be said of this. Anarchists WANT the majority, the people, to decide what happens. Same as marxists (although you can argue that (some?) vanguardists do not want this).

The majority??Anarchy is NO RULE! Democracy is ruled by the people. In democracy the PEOPLE govern...and people can't govern in Anarchy. Sorry I had to be redundant

Anarchists, what the fuck are you going to do to the cappies after their power is GONE. Will people be allowed to organize and fight off their rebellions? If they were, THIS would be a so called "state". Considered an apparatus created to allow one class to rule another. So...an organized power of t3h working peoples no?

As mentioned above, time will be needed (maybe ten years, maybe a century, it all depends) to achieve the socialist society we dream of after a revolution (by this I mean the majority taking power from the elite ruling minority, whether that be peaceful or violent).

The majority taking power? So how is this anarchy? If the majority is TAKING POWER....they will be RULING the previously elite...no rule remember...anarchy is no rule

I Bow 4 Che

27th January 2003, 07:59

Rebelde para Siempre,

And of course people will be allowed to organise and fight for whatever they belive in. Fuck, they are ALLOWED to do what they want!

No it wouldn't. It would be a bunch of people working together.

Anarchy to me is fleeting. How would Anarchy keep from being subjugatd without organization? Can it? If not than the organization to still be considered anarchy would be a bunch of people loosely joined together, which wouldn't work. You would need SOMEONE to lead it.

abstractmentality

27th January 2003, 08:04

Rebelde para Siempre

27th January 2003, 14:57

just to add something to this, one can see the international world as a figure of anarchism. in fact, that is what is taught in your beginning International Relations classes. the international world is essentially a global society without any institution that has universal control over all. although, the UN can be seen as an attempt at it, the UN doesnt have definite rule over all. sometimes the seperate states get a long, sometimes they dont.

Good point. Which brings to attention the theory that the way international relations work (since they are quite anarchistic in nature as you said), could be applied on an individualistic level as well.

This whole argument seems to be based on what the definition of anarchy actually is.

Anarchy is a system without government, simple as that. (Without going into all the other details...) If people organise themselves into groups with leaders and such, that still does not constitute a government.

I believe we really don't need a single leader to tell others of a group what they should do, and if they do need a leader he will act on a decision based upon the opinions of everyone in the group. ie. He organised it but his opinion was no more valid than anyone else's (true democracy anyone?).

Anarchy doesn't mean the end of organised groups (after all humans are group animals), just the end of government and the repression it imposes.

Som

27th January 2003, 16:12

So be it? So by keeping the former capitalists out of power and taking measures to make sure this does not happen, anarchy is destroying itself.

This is really nothing but a rhetoric argument. That somehow defending a revolution is destroying it is... off.

the idea is to create a society where there is no authority, thats anarchy, allowing people to become authority out of some abstract concept of freedom to do so is off. That if we don't just let the old order raise up again we are contradicting our own system.

What it comes down to is that an anarchist society, as a society as a whole has the authority to stop authority.

The majority??Anarchy is NO RULE! Democracy is ruled by the people. In democracy the PEOPLE govern...and people can't govern in Anarchy. Sorry I had to be redundant

Anarchy is not 'no rule' its no authority, keep this straight.
I'll clear up the original statement a bit I think, Anarchists want the majority to decide what happens for that majority.
Yes, it is democracy, people rule, real democracy, where descisions be enforced without consent, this is whats known as bottom up organization, 'higher' groups are created from the 'lower' groups, but essentially these higher groups are not rulers, they are nothing but guides, whos authority is nothing but voluntary.

This is why I draw the distinction between no rule and no authority. The rule of a federation of communes might be abided by as it is a grassroots democratic assembly, but it still has no illigitimate authority to impose its will involuntarily.

The majority taking power? So how is this anarchy? If the majority is TAKING POWER....they will be RULING the previously elite...no rule remember...anarchy is no rule

I Think i got this with my previous points, that an essential point, thats almost a necesary paradox, is the authority to stop authority. They will only be ruling the old ruling elite so much as that they can not rule.

(Edited by Som at 4:13 pm on Jan. 27, 2003)

Blackberry

28th January 2003, 01:42

Anarchist FAQ. (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)

There are some people that could benefit by finding out what anarchism really is, instead of making wild assumptions.

redstar2000

28th January 2003, 02:37

Ok, it's day one after the revolution. What actually happens? (After we sober up, get rid of our hangovers, etc.)

Chances are that there will be multiple sources of organized political, economic, and military power in existence. Revolutionary parties, occupied workplaces, mutinous military units, etc.

It seems to me that a classical anarchist would say: do nothing. Leave things exactly as they are.

An anarcho-syndicalist would say that all these sources should be united into a general syndicalist assembly.

A Leninist-Stalinist-Trotskyist-Maoist would say that these forces should be brought under the control of a new state apparatus run by their vanguard party of choice.

An "old-fashioned" Marxist like me would just want to know who runs things...the workers or some elite "on behalf of the workers"? I wouldn't care what the nominal label was or, if there were a would-be revolutionary elite, what words it used to describe itself.

I must say, though, that the historical experience of the Spanish CNT is a standing reproach to all the varieties of Leninism that dispute the ability of the working class to run a functioning egalitarian society, that insist on the need for an elightened vanguard both to make a revolution and manage the transition to communism. Bluntly, the C.N.T showed...it ain't so.

Leftist terminology has a history...it's not just a series of abstract words that can be interpreted any way one likes. Arguments about terminology that treat the words as abstract entities with literal meanings are not very helpful. They tend to obscure the real division in the left: who should rule...the working class or an elite that claims to be acting "on behalf" of the working class?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:39 am on Jan. 28, 2003)

Moncho Brujo

28th January 2003, 04:51

SOCIALISM IS COOMMUNISM MIXED WITH CAPITALISM, I REALLY DON T THINK THATS THE SOLUTION, WE NEAD A WELL APLICATED COMMUNISM

Iepilei

28th January 2003, 06:17

Weatherman

28th January 2003, 07:03

Economic inequality causes most of our criminal problems, and the media makes it seem like theres a lot more crime then there actually is. So after your society is living in a social state for a while, there will be almost no crime, no violence, no need for cops and assuming this is global, then theres no need for military either. Think of those small towns with one sheriff who just fishes all day. Or native americans with almost no crime (and no cops).

Ofcourse no one in America knows anything about the real native americans because our history books lie about them (read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen).

Socialism leads to Communism which is Anarchism which is Utopia. (Read the ABC's of Communist Anarchism by Alexander Berkman, free online copy at ratm.com under reading list)

oki

28th January 2003, 16:18

communism looks a lot like anarchism,only communism thinks it has the perfect way figured out to acheave the shared goal.they create a dictatorship to redevelop society.anarchism is against this because it goes straight against the ideology.the power should be given to the peopel as soon as possible,in an organised way sothat chaos has no chance.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

28th January 2003, 16:54

True anarchy doesn't mean the way to a perfect state.

You will always be in the need of an authority. A controller, someone to take care of the weak, objectif punisher etc.

Think of this. Someone kills another person.
Who should punish him?
Who would dare to arrest a dangerous killer and who would be trained enough?
Would the community be objectif enough to punish him?
Could the human face big problems like plagues etc in an anarchist society?

Som

28th January 2003, 20:16

I'm sorry but the anarchiests definition for anarchy is just a replication of marxists final vision of communism - however they believe that the capitalists will just relinquish power as-is and disappear forever, with no retaliation.

I think anarchism just tries to skip the socialistic step, straight to communism.

Theres nothing to be sorry about because simply put, your wrong.

Marx didn't invent communism, and the anarchist movement developed before and during the contemporary times of marx.
Its no replication, it was around before marx, and it was never the same entity.
And you'd find that a good deal of anarchists are not communists. Theres many non-communist strains of anarchy, though they are still socialist. The main, and often the only difference between the two is, is that communism is a monetaryless gift economy.

And I covered the part about the capitalist retaliation, perhaps you should read threads more carefully before you respond with the exact same arguments that have already been done.

Think of this. Someone kills another person.
Who should punish him?
Who would dare to arrest a dangerous killer and who would be trained enough?
Would the community be objectif enough to punish him?
Could the human face big problems like plagues etc in an anarchist society?

The community.
A sort of local civilian militia.
About as objective as any jury can be.
Yes. Its highly organized.

Ok, it's day one after the revolution. What actually happens? (After we sober up, get rid of our hangovers, etc.)

This always seemed like an odd question to me. I would think we would get to enjoying this brand new wonderful society we've created and finally got the last resistance of the old order to quit.
The revolution is the creation of this society, this new anarchist organization, the masses eventually all declaring that they're never going to obey a cop or a boss again. so when its day one after this, our brand new bottom-up democracy, our federated units and local communes would all be in fine day to day order.