Politically, what do you consider yourself as?

70% Anarchist, 30% Green Anarchist.

Always anti-facist.

 

Social Democrat would probably come closest to my political stance

 

oooh hard one. I think you could say I'm an collectivist and syndicalist. But generally speaking I'm just anti-authorian. Also, I'm part of the danish network of libertarian socialist, but again, that's just a name

 

I find it very difficult to claim one movement, or idea, to center my beliefs, actions, and justifications of those actions around. However, I AM highly influenced by radical ideas involving Primitivism, Libertarian Socialism, the DIY culture, music, distaste for the federal reserve, druidry//paganism, and what lurks in the back of your mind before you go to sleep.

 

tbh I haven't done enoough reading to completely jump behind any particular political movement. Or maybe I've done too much. I like the idea of democratic representation without the power usually associated with elected individuals. like a non-authoritarian democracy. I also like the basic ideals behind socialism and communism, but feel that they need to be fine tuned a little. Lets just say wherever i fall on the map, it's pretty far to the left.

 

First off, I will start by saying that my opinions will definitely be unpopular here. All I can say is that this is what I believe and my beliefs are based on living a very difficult life where I’ve been required to work with situational REALITY, not THEORY. I appreciate intellectual concepts and acknowledge that this is a very mature and rational way of bringing out eventual change in the world.

I live and function in a democratic, capitalistic society. This is not to say that I think it is a perfect system of governance. There is no such thing.

No matter what system is “hyped” by anyone or any political entity, there will always be a division between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. This is not to say that this is how things ought to be. No one should be underprivileged. However, no one said life is fair. I’m not being insensitive… this is just how the world is. There will always be suffering… it’s just a fact.

Anarchy: "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)." (I’m being lazy, this definition is from Wikipedia)

Using this definition of anarchy, I don’t see how it could never work in a realistic, functional society. Sure, it would be cool to have no laws, no governing body, etc. But for it to work, everyone has to be on the same page with the same priorities, same morals, same values, same ambitions, same life-long goals, same desires for personal accomplishment, same dreams, and on and on and on. That just isn’t going to happen. Let’s be more general – either in a world of six billion or a world of one hundred, do you really think you can get everyone to agree that a total lack of societal structure will benefit everyone? Regardless of what everyone may think, you will never belong to a society where every person will agree on what is right, fair, or equal. The easy answer to that is “education…” as though everyone will have to learn the delicate balance necessary for anarchy, or socialism, or communism, to work. Well, if this has to be taught to everyone in order for the overall goal to succeed, then it is nothing more than another form of indoctrination, isn’t it? Sounds exactly like what we’re forced to deal with in our current state as a society. Face it, even within the relatively tiny realm of punk activists, it is nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on what is best for a group as a whole in the big picture… some want to work hard for the end result, some want to work the least yet get credit, some want to sit around and drunk, some want to just hang around the outer fringes and just act cool, some want to create some sort of inner circle of power… All I’m saying is that even in a like-minded group who share a goal, it’s nearly impossible for anything positive to get done on a large scale. Oh sure, it would work on a large scale if you had somehow gathered ten thousand people with IQs of 125 and who had all earned PhDs in sociology. Wouldn’t that be a perfect world? Perfect world… remember, there will never be such a thing. Is it still something to strive for and work toward? Well, of course! Never give up, never give in!

Now, let me go further into the imperfections of humanity: It is in the nature of humans to be chaotic, territorial, and violent. This is one of the many, MANY pieces of evidence that humans are merely animals. Sophisticated animals perhaps, but animals nonetheless.
But what of people in our world who wish to do us harm? I am NOT one to believe that capitalism, religion, and society are the only things that create human monsters. Rapists and murderers will exist no matter what system you live in. If you decide on a way to “rehabilitate” (yeah, good luck) or “punish” them, aren’t you taking the role of governance toward this person? Aren’t you establishing laws by doing that? If so, it’s not anarchy, is it?

Hell, let’s imagine that we beat the overwhelming odds and we do create an entire commune (for lack of a better term) with a hundred-thousand peace-loving anarchists, or socialists, or communists.. take your pick. It wouldn’t last anyway because some other region of the world controlled by a military superpower would waltz right in and crush us in an instant.

So anyway, let me get back to answering the original question… what am I?

Honestly, the only thing I consider myself to be is a pessimist. I don’t see anything as being the perfect answer and I believe that there never will be one. I cannot in good conscience, say that I am happy to be a part of the democratic, capitalist machine that I’m currently entrenched in. I am not shy to point out the weaknesses of current socio-political systems, but I am willing to admit that I do not have the ability to offer solutions. It is what it is. But I certainly am not going to drop out and give up working for the things that are important to me. I have a family that I love more than the world and I like to think that everything I do is geared toward providing for them and helping them become enlightened and educated people who take nothing for granted in life. I have spent a great deal of time and energy helping them learn the positives and negatives of our world and teaching them educate themselves and to question everything in life and never, ever take the easy road of becoming a sheep or clone for the sake of being a “victim” in life. The only thing I feel that I can arm them with knowledge and experience.

(Edited for clarity)

 

hmm I'm not all that good with the titles - I would like to consider myself an anarchist but to tell you the truth I'm still learning and don't usually use the term in my usual goings on at work and such because people assume that you want to blow the place up. Sometimes I get fed up of having to explain to people what it actually means and I'm REALLY fed up of having to do the 'gunpowder residue' test when going through airport security the second they see the anarchist symbol on my bag (but I'll be damned if I'll take it off)
Anyway here's my graph...somewhere off to the left with Ghandi I believe.
I DO know that I find it tough to put what I think into practice...I think that's the key issue for me....

 

unpopular? that was by far one of the most intelligent things i've ever read on a punk board, ever.

i'll go for the unpopular stakes myself. don't mind if i do...

i think the idea of anarchism is in fact noble, but lack practical focus and so far doesn't present a viable alternative to the current "system". Hefty is right, there will still be social deviants, rapists, paedophiles in the (A) society, and any systemised methodology to deal with them will constitute a law being formed.

i remember Adrienne, a one time columnist on the PE zine and singer of SPITBOY, and someone i've met and consider a friend, talking about the (A) revolution, and what she'd do if it occured. it involved sitting outside a jail with a shotgun, so when the revolutionaries let out all the criminals, rapists etc included, she'd pop 'em off as they come out. as the current state of humanity stands, i'd be there by her side, welcoming the dawn of the (A) era via a bloodbath.

horrible thoughts aside, i find much wisdom in the cheezy catchphrase "evolution before revolution". we must change ourselves completely before such a society can truely exist and function. quell our egos and calm our emotions. learn to listen to each other, rather than just hear each other.

anyone who seriously considers (A) to be viable should read "the dispossessed" by ursula k le guin. it is an analysis of an (A) society in the form of science fiction, and is truely a thoughtful and insightful book. some of the interesting ideas raised are that peoples names would have to be randomly generated by computers, because there is power and implication in naming. menial labour would be rotated amongst the entire population for equality, leaving much less time for those endeavouring to other things (such as science) to follow their dreams. and this isn't the punchline either, just the set-up. one of the most powerful things she brings up is the fact that ideas themselves may well become our last possessions in a society with no property, and as such, certain ideas themselves might become unwelcome. and this is very close to even our current reality.

another female sci-fi writer (can't remember her name or the book, but i used to work in an anarchist bookstore and we had heaps of amazing books) raised the idea that in an (A) society childbirth would have to occur via external incubation, because the ability of women as the sole gender able to produce children would constitute a viable apparatus for a new power structure to be formed.

so far many (A)ists focus too much on base analysis and deconstruction of present power structures, and too little on self examination and the reformation of how humans wholistically view each other and the world we live in. this last paragraph is purely my own opinion.

 

I'm a bit of primitive in the fact that i wouldn't have the slightest clue where to place myself if i had to. In that sense, i suppose i don't belong to any movement- i wouldnt want to. I am myself, and and i follow common sense, which in instances rubs against the law imposed. I don't think there are any movements i would 100% agree with; although certain elements, or in some cases, the majority of elements, look appealing and i wholeheartedly agree with, i don't think i could follow the rules as such and still enjoy my life.

In other words, i don't have a clue- but i'd really like to!

 

EDIT: can't delete. see below.

 

okay, i'm going to carefully deconstruct a few things for you, don't take offense.

anarchism IS a utopia. utopia was a metaphoric greek myth of a perfect civilisation. one that has never existed. of course any layman that reads mythology would think the greek philosophers thought it was a real existant society, but that's the reason why philosophy is philosophy, and anyone who doesn't understand basic principles of metaphor, juxtaposition, polarity, contrast, irony, sarcasm, black humour etc etc ad nausem should keep their stupid fucking dumbarse brains out of the debate. philosophy by it's very nature IS elistist, because only people with a firm grasp of the language it is discussed in will grasp it. this is also why anarchism as philosophy WILL FAIL (in my belief), where as anarchism in action, where ANYONE can understand it (even a child) will work.

in case you haven't noticed, i am not anti-anarchist. i am not even anti-racist. any "anti" philosophy SUPPORTS the validity of the original idea. i am non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic, non-capitalist and non-sequential. not anti anything. i am however pro-anarchist etc etc...

why did you write this? anyone with a basic grasp of english would realise i just said exactly what you are saying.

i suggest you study english a little more. i am not a french speaker, and i do recognise you are from a different culture. in english a contract is LAW. if you want to debate with me in my first language, then learn it first.

the continual persecution of the middle class will lead you nowhere. i was born working class, and still currently am. but classism itself is an invention of authority. by picking on those born into a role assigned to them by the powers that be you support the power. it is the same as racism and sexism. STOP GETTING YOUR OPINIONS FROM BOOKS. GO AND LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD.

now you're insulting your own intelligence. i was referencing science-fiction. i mentioned it twice. LEARN TO READ.

you do not think the opposite. your grasp of the language you are writing in is so poor you don't even realise you just supported what i wrote.

you mentioned the spanish revolution and then Zapatistas. the spanish revolution failed, and spain has continually bounced between conservative and liberal governments since. a real anarchist revolution can't fail, because when (not if) it happens, power is obsolete. again, my own opinion.

i have personally met members of the Zapatistas. they believe in communism, not anarchism. you are genuinely really confused about politics if you think they support your viewpoint.

in case you start thinking it weird that i claim to have met a lot of people i reference, it's because it's true. i was born into the counter-culture, i didn't discover it in my teens via some punk band or book. i have met a LOT of people in "high places", from both the left and right wing in pop-culture perception. this is why I KNOW there is no left-wing or right-wing, just a bunch of confusing rhetorical boundaries thrown up in the face of dullards to confuse and disorientate their chances of changing the status quo.

AGAIN: i mean to cause no offense, but if you want to run a board where these kinds of things are discussed you probably need to get a solid ability to translate your ideas into another language and cultural perspective.

i did after all say that i don't mind if my opinions will be unpopular here.

 

sorry if i came across cagey... i'm sure you could work out why with a little research.

i'm not here to poke holes in your beliefs, and in future i'll refrain from too much commentary on others political viewpoints, unless they come here spouting conservative bullshit. misinterpretation of mine (particularly when a post is carved into pieces) on the other hand will lead into me getting really fucking pissed off. for now i'll address these points...

1: no, i'm refering to utopian idealism. and something being realised and something being in effect are two seperate things.

2: i was not using sci-fi as an argument. read my post carefully. i was mentioning it out of interest to readers.

3: good, i'm glad. it sounds like something you should do and would learn a lot from. if you met a happy largish guy called emmanuel send him my love. he wouldn't know who "ghost in the void" is, but tell him it's from a crazy australian who can outdance anyone and sings manu chao songs really loudly while doing so. he'll know who you mean!

and yes, i'd suggest this kind of thing be saved for another thread. we completely highjacked this one!

 

I don't really know what I am, it tends to shift almost everyday, while I still have main things I believe in everything else changes besed on what I learn. I'd love to say I'm an anarchist but I'm not one to jump into something and not be educated about it because I hate ignorance.

 

You'd think someone of my relatively advanced years would have more definite answers to this question. I think many people are exposed to anarchism while they're young, most probably through music, they get drunk, live in a squat, throw rocks at cops, then just grow out of it.....I never did that (well not all at once), I'm kinda growing into it....slowly

I can warm to the idea of 'evolution before revolution'.......in my (admittedly limited) view of how things stand, there are disparate pockets of anarchism that exist and have existed spread around; a music collective here, a cafe there, a bookshop somewhere else, clubs, communes, squats, co-ops....all autonomous and non-hierarchical. These things all work to one degree or another and show that anarchism is possible, but only on a small scale, in themselves they're no real threat to any status quo. But each and every one is a brick that's taken from the foundations of current authority and used to build the foundations an anarchist future.

I think anarchism can only effectively prevail by building rather than destroying. I don't see that you can destroy authority, you can only neuter it by building a viable alternative, starting with ourselves and the way we interact with the imperfect world as it is now.

So, while I can't hand on heart say anarchism is 100% of my life, I've always got my eye on it.

 

A revolutionary, take a look to the past, have a strong knowledge of the present and don't care about the future.
It's not sure that the people one day is ready for anarchism, maybe the people is ready for everything but not for anarchism. It's not write anywhere that the progress march to the revolution.The important is that we fight today with autonomous and anti authoritarian initiatives.
What the future deserve to us it's not important. Every moment it's good for the insurrection, we don't have to wait nothing.
We must stay where the conflict is and try to degenerate it.

 

I think deviding it into t little sub-categories gets too nitpicky, besides the definitions of said categories are fairly subjective anyhow. It's kinda like Abbie Hoffman said "Be a person, not an '-ism.'" "Anarchist" fits as well as anything.