Anarchism

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I know I just posted a thing on Communism but... I have always thought that with no government.. their is no massive wars... with out the markets and such their is no debt no need for money hell the world would be better without money! What do Anarchists try to achive? I mean they don't try running for government positions (of course lol) what are they trying to do? destroy governments? how? through revolution? like the Communists?

[#FF0000]

Anarchists believe in creating a classless, non-hierarchical society through Revolution, basically.

Now, as for what that society might look like and how it may work, we aren't sure. Peter Kropotkin has a good book on this, however, called The Conquest Of Bread. I suggest looking into that. Very readable and generally very informative. :) There's also the Anarchist FAQ on www.infoshop.org

[Knight of Cydonia]

What do Anarchists try to achive? I mean they don't try running for government positions (of course lol) what are they trying to do? destroy governments? how? through revolution? like the Communists?
Anarchist (mostly) trying to achieve a free and equal society, put war upon all authority, all power, all hierarchy. no they don't try to running for government positions, instead in the society to come, anarchist will prevent any intention of the re-establishment of any kind of authority.

destroy government? yes...because government is one form of authority, and because of all kind of authority will brought a domination and slavery, anarchist would never stop to destroy it. through social revolution!

i hope those answer will give you enlightment:)

[Catbus]

Like it has been said, we aim to abolish hierarchy and replace it with a completely equal society.

However, not ever anarchist is the same. There are Communists, Syndicalists, Technocrats, adjective-free anarchists (they don't subscribe to any sub-school of thought, Apathy Maybe could explain it better), Platformists, and other varieties ad infinitum. But we all have a common goal which is abolishing hierarchy.

Communists and anarchists have the same idea of what should happen, but we differ on how to get there. Most Communists want to have a transitionary socialist stage after the revolution, where there would be a balancing of pay, workers councils would be created, and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (or Vanguard Party), would lead, so to speak.

Anarchists don't believe in a Vanguard Party, and most of us feel that we would go to a libertarian socialism stage after the revolution. We aim for a gift economy, but it's not something that is created over night.

Then there are also individualist anarchists, who would want to live alone, and be self-sustaining (though there is no reason why they couldn't trade with a village). Proudhon wrote a lot on mutualism (which is somewhat similar to individualism, I just don't know any individualist authors off the top of my head.)

Hope that helps some :)

Edit: I posted this link in your Communist thread not realizing you made an anarchist thread also.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/

Good site, check it out.

[ZeroNowhere]

Most Communists want to have a transitionary socialist stage after the revolution, where there would be a balancing of pay, workers councils would be created, and a Dictatorship of the Proletariat (or Vanguard Party), would lead, so to speak.

Anarchists don't believe in a Vanguard Party, and most of us feel that we would go to a libertarian socialism stage after the revolution. We aim for a gift economy, but it's not something that is created over night.
Eh, most anarchists (such as Marx) believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense that Marx used it, it's just that most don't like the term, or are repelled by the word 'dictatorship' (or just get bored of Lenin burning down straw anarchists, and go, "Well, Marxism can go and suck it"). Well, except perhaps primitivists, or utopian socialist anarchists (anarchists who believed in peasant-lead socialist revolution from feudalism), or those that perhaps believe that a revolution will take place internationally at the exact same time, and end at the exact same time too (since Marx's use of the term basically referred to socialism before the revolution was successful internationally and class thusly abolished). Also, many of us Marxists would advocate forming workers' organizations before revolution (or, in the case of many council commies, during the revolutionary period where the masses decide to be spontaneous), such as us De Leonists, and some left communists, as well as Marx IIRC. The 'vanguard party' staying in power is... Well... :rolleyes:
Also, 'balancing of pay'? :confused:
Also, don't leave out the anarcho-individualists. They're a pretty unique bunch. Also, the 'anarcho'-capitalists keep trying to argue that the mutualists are on their side... Blah.

[Charles Xavier]

Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics, abolishing wages, private property, military, and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.


Marx was no anarchist he completely was mad as hell at them. He even say the consquences of an "Anarchist" revolution in Spain and its fall.

[revolution inaction]

I know I just posted a thing on Communism but... I have always thought that with no government.. their is no massive wars... with out the markets and such their is no debt no need for money hell the world would be better without money! What do Anarchists try to achive? I mean they don't try running for government positions (of course lol) what are they trying to do? destroy governments? how? through revolution? like the Communists?

Many anarchists are communists, I think you are confusing marxism and communism.
To learn about anarchism the anarchist faq (anarchistfaq.org.uk/) is good, but vary long.
Also the websight libcom.org (http://libcom.org) is good

During the Spanish Civil War (http://libcom.org/tags/spanish-civil-war) there was a revolution in some of the areas under anarchist control.
There are also other examples of anarchism being put into practice like in the Ukraine during the Russian civil war.



Well, except perhaps primitivists, or utopian socialist anarchists (anarchists who believed in peasant-lead socialist revolution from feudalism),
...
Also, the 'anarcho'-capitalists keep trying to argue that the mutualists are on their side... Blah.


Primitivists are not anarchists, whatever they say, nether are anarcho capitalists.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, the 'anarcho' was supposed to indicate that. They don't seek to abolish the state, they seek to privatize it. Capitalism requires a state, and class hierarchies are against anarchism either way. As for primitivists, I suppose so.


Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics, abolishing wages, private property, military, and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.
Burning strawmen produces carbon dioxide, and contributes to global warming.


Marx was no anarchist he completely was mad as hell at them.
Yes, he understandably disliked Bakunin (heh, 'scientific socialism means that a bunch of scientists will be dictators, since the people are not scientific!' Yes, I would get annoyed too), and Proudhon was an anarcho-individualist, whose beliefs Marx also found a few objections to elsewhere.
...So...?

[Charles Xavier]

yeah he did, theres a whole section on marxist.org devoted to marx's arguments against proudhon

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

[Catbus]

Eh, most anarchists (such as Marx) believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat in the sense that Marx used it, it's just that most don't like the term, or are repelled by the word 'dictatorship' (or just get bored of Lenin burning down straw anarchists, and go, "Well, Marxism can go and suck it").

No.
No anarchists believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wouldn't be anarchists if they did.

Marx wasn't an anarchist either.


Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics, abolishing wages, private property, military, and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.


This is a thread about anarchism, not your petty sectarian bullshit. Why don't you just walk back to your little Marxist-Leninist group and complain there. Get the stick out of your ass while your at it.


Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics, abolishing wages, private property, military

Magic? I was hoping you could come up with something more farfetched than that... So what I'm getting from this is that strikes and fighting are not important, but political advances are, which sounds pretty stupid to me.


with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.

That's kind of interesting because as a Marxist I'm sure you've refuted many times the argument that there would be no incentive to work, and yet you use that utter shit now? Your pathetic.

Like I said, a gift economy won't happen overnight. Nobody says everything will be perfect directly after the revolution. But when things start working well for one country, I'm pretty sure people in other countries will want that, which leads to more revolutions.

As for the military, workers militias are very important. You make it sound as if anarchists are all hippy liberals that don't want to fight. Once again, your pathetic.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics

No.

"The ridiculous claim, which is so often attributed to the Anarcho- Syndicalists, that it is only necessary to proclaim a general strike in order to achieve a Socialist society in a few days, is, of course, just a silly invention of evil-minded opponents bent on discrediting an idea which they cannot attack by any other means."

Rocker, Anarchosyndicalism, Chapter 5.

From the Anarchist FAQ, section H.2.5

Another area in which Marxists misrepresent anarchism is in the assertion that anarchists believe a completely socialist society (an ideal or "utopian" society, in other words) can be created "overnight." As Marxist Bertell Ollman puts it, "[u]nlike anarcho-communists, none of us [Marxists] believe that communism will emerge full blown from a socialist revolution. Some kind of transition and period of indeterminate length for it to occur are required." Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists, p. 177] This assertion, while it is common, fails to understand the anarchist vision of revolution. We consider it a process and not an event -- as Malatesta argued, "[b]y revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act." [Life and Ideas, p. 156]

Once this is understood, the idea that anarchists think a "full blown" anarchist society will be created "overnight" is a fallacy. As Murray Bookchin pointed out, "Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta were not so naive as to believe that anarchism could be established overnight. In imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's views." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213]


abolishing wages, private property, military, and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? :rolleyes:

Anarchism only comes about as the result of a complex set of events, each which leads towards the ultimate conclusion of anarchism. It's a process...it does not occur "overnight".


Marx was no anarchist he completely was mad as hell at them. He even say the consquences of an "Anarchist" revolution in Spain and its fall.

Yes, and Bakunin predicted that the Soviet Union would turn into a giant state capitalist kleptocracy. :rolleyes:

See how fun using strawmen can be?

[ernie]

and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.
So it follows that we must have great leaders in order to manage us, right? An authoritarian Leninist...how surprising!


Marx was no anarchist he completely was mad as hell at them. He even say the consquences of an "Anarchist" revolution in Spain and its fall.
Actually, Bakunin and Marx agreed on the important stuff, e.g. a materialist conception of history. The only "big" squabbles they really had were about the nature of the state and about the necessity of a transitional stage between class and classless society, and I'm convinced that was more about semantics than anything else.

After more than 100 years of history, we are in a good position to say who was right about what. You know who definitely wasn't right, though? Lenin.

Furthermore, young revolutionaries are more and more being attracted to a mixture of (non-Leninist) Marxism and anarchism, which seems to indicate that Leninism is no longer relevant in the "first world".

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

"drivel"


Do you ever wonder why no one calls you anymore?

[F9]

Anarchists believe in a magical transformation from Capitalism to Anarchism which will happen instantly after a series of general strikes or fighting but not participating in politics, abolishing wages, private property, military, and then everyone will live in peace and harmony with no incentive or disincentive to do any work, they hope this will happen world wide too simply because they don't want to get invaded simply because then they would have to start enforcing things.


Marx was no anarchist he completely was mad as hell at them. He even say the consquences of an "Anarchist" revolution in Spain and its fall.

Boooooooh Anarkiiiiiists.:rolleyes:
Which Anarchists believe in the "magical" transformation?Have there been anarcho-magicians yet and i am not informed, or have you got a lame idea about what Anarchism is?Please stop talking about what Anarchists believe when you have no idea what we do, say what you believe and dont start throwing lies and propaganda's.Yeah we wont work when we achieve Anarchism, we will be sitting all day long, we will all have TV's and we are going to see you "teaches" us about how bad anarkism is 24/7.Yeah we wont eat, we wont move we wont do anything just wait for GeorgiDemitrov the second to tell his bright words!:rolleyes:Give us a break please.....

Fuserg9:star:

[#FF0000]

ThinkerOfThoughts, it's best to just ignore GeorgiDimitrovII. Don't feed the troll and all that.

[Charles Xavier]

You anarchists are easy to flip out. No wonder anarchism doesn't work.:laugh:

[RebelDog]

No wonder anarchism doesn't work.:laugh:

Why would anyone rational say that with apparent relish? Don't you want (as a self-professed communist) workers to self-manage society and an end to hierarchy as the end result when the state mysteriously 'withers away'?

Whether anarchism works or not is of no consequence to those whose historical role is to dominate the working class and centralise power in their own hands.

[Sasha]

i always suspected that the biggest problems between marx and bakoenin where personal and not political.
Bakoenin could be an vile anti-semite and marx, being from jewish decent, was understandably not a big fan of that.
if i read marx correct the endgoal from marxism was an anarachist society. they differt a bit on the way to get there but its not until lenen/engels that shit realy splits.

btw, the nice thing about most anarchists think the revolution should be ongoing and never end instead of thinking that it only involves replacing the dicatorship of the upper class with that of an elitist class of a self apointed vanguard.

[Knight of Cydonia]

You anarchists are easy to flip out. No wonder anarchism doesn't work.:laugh:
DO NOT TROLLING!!!! AND DON'T TRY TO START A FLAME WAR!!!

what's the matter between you and anarchists/anarchism anyway mate?why you hate it so much? personal matter? or something?

can you explain please, instead of trolling and starting a flame war?:)

[ZeroNowhere]

i always suspected that the biggest problems between marx and bakoenin where personal and not political.
Bakoenin could be an vile anti-semite and marx, being from jewish decent, was understandably not a big fan of that.
if i read marx correct the endgoal from marxism was an anarachist society. they differt a bit on the way to get there but its not until lenen/engels that shit realy splits.
There's also the fact that they defined the 'state' completely differently (Bakunin defined it as the current political meaning of 'state', Marx defined it as the enforcement of one class' interests over another's). Crud, Bakunin also seemed to believe that 'scientific socialism' meant a dictatorship of scientists, and that Marx believed in a dictatorship by a priveliged minority (y'know, maybe Lenin read more of Bakunin than Marx in researching Marxism... Heh, Bakunin's probably also where he stole his theory of the Party from.) Also, of course, the whole dispute over the International.
(Also, please nobody point out the 'fact' that Marx was anti-Semite, because that would make you stupid).


btw, the nice thing about most anarchists think the revolution should be ongoing and never end instead of thinking that it only involves replacing the dicatorship of the upper class with that of an elitist class of a self apointed vanguard.
Yes, Blanquism ain't a nice idea.


No.
No anarchists believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wouldn't be anarchists if they did.
What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[Knight of Cydonia]

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

"The "dictatorship of the proletariat" or workers' state is a term employed by Marxists that refers to what they see as a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless, stateless and moneyless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (the working class) would hold power and replace the current political, economic and social system controlled by the bourgeoisie (the propertied class). In short, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would replace the current "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"; the crucial distinction being that while the bourgeoisie is by definition a minority, the proletariat is, similarly, always the majority . Many Marxists refer to this transitional stage as socialism or "workers' democracy"."

more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat)

[ZeroNowhere]

The main reason that Marx used the term was to differentiate from the Blanquist dictatorship of an elite (thusly he used it mainly only in the post-revolutionary periods of the 1848 revolution, and the Paris Commune). It basically refers to the enforcement of proletarian class interests over those of the bourgeoisie.
As “the working class is revolutionary, or it is nothing”, the rule of the proletariat basically means a society in which a revolution has taken place, after which the society would be democratic (as opposed to Blanquism), but not internationally yet, and thus the proletariat still exist as a class, and has opposing interests to those of the bourgeoisie.

[Lenin's Law]

Bakoenin could be an vile anti-semite and marx, being from jewish decent, was understandably not a big fan of that.


Actually Marx said some quite critical things about Jews and has been accused (though I disagree) of being an anti-semite himself.

Though I don't believe he was as vulgar as Bakunin I doubt this was their main reason for disagreement.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually Marx said some quite critical things about Jews and has been accused (though I disagree) of being an anti-semite himself.
'On the Jewish Question' was against anti-semitism, and for anti-capitalism.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by psycho http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1283343#post1283343)
Bakoenin could be an vile anti-semite and marx, being from jewish decent, was understandably not a big fan of that.

Actually Marx said some quite critical things about Jews and has been accused (though I disagree) of being an anti-semite himself.

Though I don't believe he was as vulgar as Bakunin I doubt this was their main reason for disagreement.

you're probelly right, let me refrase that:

Bakoenin could be an vile anti-semite and so marx, being from jewish decent, could not do anything right and was discarted by bakunin on partly irrational grounds.

[welshboy]

I know I just posted a thing on Communism but... I have always thought that with no government.. their is no massive wars... with out the markets and such their is no debt no need for money hell the world would be better without money! What do Anarchists try to achive? I mean they don't try running for government positions (of course lol) what are they trying to do? destroy governments? how? through revolution? like the Communists?

One of the main differences between authoritarian communists and libertarian communists/anarchists is that authoritarians believe in building a party that will seize state power and implement communism from above, by force when necessary. The state will then wither away once communism has been secured.
Anarchists believe that this will lead to a recreation of the class system and that the state will not cede power once it is established.
In order to counter this we hold that it is necessary to build the structres and social institutions in the here and now that we would like to see replace the state.
There are different ways in which anarchist groups and organisations go about doing this. From the insurrectionist types who organise the large counter summit demonstrations and the large scale experiments in non-hierarchical international organisation that this entails.
Then we have anarchist groups that attempt to instead build up networks of resistance within comunities and workplaces that operate on a federal basis.
Different methods of achieving the same goal. A decentralised stateless society that is global in nature and built on the twin foundations of mutual aid and soidarity.
Only by putting these structures in place will a revolutionary proletariat be able to defend itself from state counter revolution and modern day bolsheviks who would sieze power for themselves.

All power to the soviets comrades :)

[Charles Xavier]

ok, sorry anarchists.

[Sprocket Hole]

You anarchists are easy to flip out. No wonder anarchism doesn't work.:laugh:

Anarchism worked in Spain. Anarchism works all over in present communities. Something as small as personal autonomy or permanent autonomous zones.
What about the Chiapas, their land is all collectively controlled.
Also who ever posted that the Spanish failed because of themselves, that is wrong. Franco's army smashed their presence.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

ol) what are they trying to do? destroy governments? how? through revolution? like the Communists?Different methods of revolution:

- Strikes
- Organizing
- Tax evasion (agorism)
- Piracy
- Black market participation
- Civil disobedience
- Teaching
- Autonomism (disobeying your boss)


with out the markets and such their is no debt no need for money hell the world would be better without money!

Keep in mind that to eliminate money you need a viable alternative to the current examples of mass commerce. Removing the price system prematurely would be catastrophic, and it should not be forcefully done (privatizing currency doesn't count as "force.")

[ZeroNowhere]

[FONT=Arial]Different methods of revolution:

- Strikes
- Organizing
- Tax evasion (agorism)
- Piracy
- Black market participation
- Civil disobedience
- Teaching
- Autonomism (disobeying your boss)

-Shoplifting.
-Not bathing :lol:

[revolution inaction]

Anarchism worked in Spain. Anarchism works all over in present communities. Something as small as personal autonomy or permanent autonomous zones.
What about the Chiapas, their land is all collectively controlled.
Also who ever posted that the Spanish failed because of themselves, that is wrong. Franco's army smashed their presence.

No it wasn't franco that destroyed the communes it was the starlinists

[revolution inaction]

Different methods of revolution:

- Strikes
- Organizing
- Tax evasion (agorism)
- Piracy
- Black market participation
- Civil disobedience
- Teaching
- Autonomism (disobeying your boss)



Non of these things are inherently revolutionary but that stuff in bold, are you taking the piss?

[Bilan]

there are some stupid anarchists out there, radicalgraffiti.
Ever heard of crimethinc?

Also, the mass strike and insurrection are the two main forms of revolutionary activity for anarchists, not to mention the only viable methods for revolution.

[bcbm]

Ever heard of crimethinc?

They've done more for North American anarchism in the past 15 years than, say, NEFAC has done in their entire existence. While they're obviously not without their problems, a lot of the shit they put out is well written and does advance an anarchist viewpoint and their newer pieces have adopting a much more class-oriented perspective, to say nothing of the major network-building many "CrimethIncers" are involved in.

[Bilan]

I think thats debatable.
Surely they do do postive things, I said that they alot do stupid things.
and most of the more stupid things listed in there have been advocated or done by crimethincers, no?

[bcbm]

Only in ways widely and repeatedly abused and misrepresented by their detractors.

[Bilan]

What about Evasion?

[The Feral Underclass]

You anarchists are easy to flip out. No wonder anarchism doesn't work.:laugh:

I have already given you a verbal warning about provoking members of this forum.

This board is designed for debate and education and as people have taken the time to respond to your comments please have the courtesy to respond back. While differences are accommodated, blatant sectarian baiting is not. If I come across you pointedly refusing to engage in a topic of discussion that you have started in favour of being obviously provocative I will issue with you with an infraction.

That's your last warning.

[bcbm]

Evasion was never intended as a "how to" guide or anything of the sort, it was merely one tale of surviving at odds with capitalist society, written by someone actually on the run from the law incidentally.

[revolution inaction]

there are some stupid anarchists out there, radicalgraffiti.
Ever heard of crimethinc?

yes :(



Also, the mass strike and insurrection are the two main forms of revolutionary activity for anarchists, not to mention the only viable methods for revolution.

Yes i agree

[thinkerOFthoughts]

You know I think I find myself leaning towards Anarcho - Communism :)

[Catbus]

Non of these things are inherently revolutionary but that stuff in bold, are you taking the piss?


Wait, are you saying that the bolded items are the revolutionary ones?

[revolution inaction]

Wait, are you saying that the bolded items are the revolutionary ones?

NO! I mean the ones in bold are so ridiculous I can't tell if he is serious or not.
The other ones can be revolutionary, but are not always.

[cop an Attitude]

there are some stupid anarchists out there, radicalgraffiti.
Ever heard of crimethinc?

whats crimethinc some sort of primativist or capitalist anarchy?

[revolution inaction]

whats crimethinc some sort of primativist or capitalist anarchy?

No they're life stylists, they want to be free from capitalism right now and think they can do this by changing there lifestyle, so they advocate shoplifting and stealing food out of dumpsters and stuff like that.
Of cause this does nothing to undermine capitalism and I don't see how it makes them more free either, so there biggest achievement seems to be making anarchists look stupid :(

[Sasha]

crimethink wrote some decent texts, offcourse, them being american, they just nicked some european ideas and practices and presented them as a new revalation, just like americans seem to believe that the WTO protests in Seatle was sommething new and never done before :laugh:
but for example dumpster diving, espacily in the combination with squating has been a efficient way for decades too free people from the slavery of paid labor and enabling them to spend more time on autonomus activism.

but i also prefer the work of love and rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Rage) over the crimethink stuff

[cop an Attitude]

No they're life stylists, they want to be free from capitalism right now and think they can do this by changing there lifestyle, so they advocate shoplifting and stealing food out of dumpsters and stuff like that.
Of cause this does nothing to undermine capitalism and I don't see how it makes them more free either, so there biggest achievement seems to be making anarchists look stupid :(

I wouldnt do it but If they want to avoid capitalism at all cost be my guest. It really doesnt create any economical impact currently, but i guess boycotting products never hurt. Some are probably just trying to feel better about themselves by not being a "hypocirte" :rolleyes:. I'm sure that there are some who do want to free themselves from capitalism/ athority and if they want to take radical actions now then so be it.

[Catbus]

NO! I mean the ones in bold are so ridiculous I can't tell if he is serious or not.
The other ones can be revolutionary, but are not always.


Okay cool, I just misread it :)

[Bilan]

Evasion was never intended as a "how to" guide or anything of the sort, it was merely one tale of surviving at odds with capitalist society, written by someone actually on the run from the law incidentally.

Indeed, but needless to say those are the reps of crimethinc - and him in particular was a very self-righteous, vegan, Earth Crisis loving punk.

[bcbm]

Indeed, but needless to say those are the reps of crimethinc - and him in particular was a very self-righteous, vegan, Earth Crisis loving punk.

It isn't their fault lots of stupid punk kids missed the point. They already purged traveller kids.


Lifestylist bastards (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2008crimethinc-obama-course), though, eh?;)

[PostAnarchy]

To answer the OP: Anarchists have a number of different tendencies and like most revolutionary movements there isn't one concrete vision that is adhered to by all. That being the case however, I do believe it is fair to say that there are a number of principles that are shared by anarchists:

We believe in abolishing hierarchy, government, and all authority that give men and women power over other men and women. Anarchists don't try to set up governments or "worker's states" because we believe that states, regardless of intentions and regardless of who's running the state, are by their nature, repressive institutions that limit freedom and liberty.