Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Politically, what do you consider yourself as?

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by punkdude, Aug 27, 2009.

  1. makhno

    makhno Active Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    2

    Sep 29, 2009
     
    I consider myself to be anarchist communist. I don't think there is a trade off between anarchism and communism at all. Communism is simply the economic system that would be implemented in an anarchist society. There are other economic options as well, collectivism and mutualism to name two.

    I also consider myself to be syndicalist in terms of tactics. I think anarcho-syndicalism is the best strategy to building a mass movement and creating the society that we all want to see.

    With regard to primitivism: I think it's a nice idea, and a great way to live! However, if we drop out of society and head for the hills, capitalism will find us. Do we have any doubt that the capitalists will exploit ALL resources available to them? We can't solve this problem by heading for the hills, we must actively organize, challenge, and abolish capitalism through worker direct action and organization. The general strike is the weapon of the working class.

    With regard to political labels: It's the same as any other adjective. For example, I have two legs. I would describe myself as bipedal. I agree with the ideas put forward by anarchist communist thinkers such as Kropotkin. Therefore, I am anarchist communist. :D
     
  2. debiant

    debiant Member Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Oct 4, 2009
     
    Libertarian, I don't want to break any forum rules, so I'll leave it at that.
     
  3. bukowski

    bukowski New Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    Anarcho-collectivist - - - anarchy is a collective effort... theres no "I" in anarchy ;) BUT i'm a realist and anarchy only works for anarchist... so we'd never have a true anarchist state unless on an extremely small and isolated scale. BUT i also believe that anarchy is about activism and social reform and although we may not accomplish a revolution anytime soon we can take on the machine one issue at a time and we will accomplish the much needed reform.. ONE ISSUE AT A TIME!!
     
  4. Solidaridad

    Solidaridad Experienced Member Experienced member


    63

    0

    4

    Oct 5, 2009
     
    anarcho-syndicalist



    Just a question. Why would you break the rules here? Wouldn´t it be important to let us knowP?
     
  5. debiant

    debiant Member Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Oct 4, 2009
     
    I'm a fiscal conservative Libertarian, who believes in liberal Civil Rights. No harm no foul. I just did not want to bring my conflicting beliefs into this community. It is a staunchly anarchist community and I didn't want to open a debate.
     
  6. Solidaridad

    Solidaridad Experienced Member Experienced member


    63

    0

    4

    Oct 5, 2009
     
    Now I understand. I hope you find some interesting music here. But anarchopunk means more and is really the opposite of a free market thinking that is leading into complete social injustice.
     
  7. glossalia_101

    glossalia_101 New Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    It's interesting that people are so willing to be labelled. I think that it's a litlle naive to assume that there is a single flavour of Anarchism (whatever that really is)...Anarchism, I my humble opinion, has meant many things to many people over the years. I've always considered such broad terms as pretty meaningless - I'd be interested to hear what those people who call themselves Anarchists consider Anarchism to mean.

    I personally don't consider myself to be of any particular allegiance - although I've studied Marx, some Anarchist theories some years ago in academia. It's other's who sometimes call me an anarchist. To me it seems like a convenient label to give someone who other's don't necessary quite understand, or for whom a more specific label is absent.

    Generally, I consider polical theoris to be paradigmatic, i.e., they give you a framework with which to analyse and see the world. Truth is certainly relative - though thinkin in accordance to various frameworks teases out some of the many truths (though all knowledge is ultimately provisional).

    Apologies - I think I've gone off on one a bit.
     
  8. ghost in the void

    ghost in the void Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    uhhh... yeeesssss. i made quite a point out of this when we opened the site. glad to see people pay attention. (re: link via the sites intro & points of unity, thru to "what is anarcho punk")

    i like your post actually. my ability to tolerate others inability to research the site they write on is grating me right now. not a personal attack btw.
     
  9. ghost in the void

    ghost in the void Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    ah... no.

    read the link mentioned in my last post.

    anarchy. anarchism. anarcho-punk. three separate things. this site isn't called "anarchist-punk(dot)net". if it was, i wouldn't be here.

    in french language, apparently this is definatively linguistically different. not in english. it's a cultural thing i guess. anarchist philosophy originated in france after all. but this ain't france. it's cyberspace, viewed via an english language medium.

    i'm not gonna cut into or criticize anarchist politics right here right now. i'm pro-anarchist, as a progressive movement, not as a "locked in" orthodoxy. i am not an anarchist however.

    say (or write) what you want. we all reap what we sow here. that's why i like and support this site, often to my misfortune as has been the case. there's obvious exclusions to that first point... which is why it isn't (in literal english) anarchy or anarchist as such. it's anarcho. and punk.

    punk's criticize. and if they don't speak their piece... they ain't so punk in my tarot.
     
  10. Warsystem

    Warsystem New Member New Member


    2

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    i would say for me that i am 80% anarchist and 20% communist :)
     
  11. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    If anarchyis a utopia, it will never happen in our lifetime for sure. Unless of course they learn how to preserve people's heads in jars like in Futurama. Then again, they will only preserve "important" individuals' heads. And also, there may be anarchy in our lifetime if the planet is completely decimated somehow. In which case, it would not be a utopia because it would not be something we choose, which is the whole paradox of anarchy being utopia, which I can realize.

    Me personally, I am still a whore for the state, plain and simple. Might as well admit to it, it's hard not to.
     
  12. glossalia_101

    glossalia_101 New Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    I hope you don't mind me asking, but how do you measure the percentages of your political views?
     
  13. spence

    spence Member Forum Member


    20

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I think this depiction of some high idealed utopia has caused a divisive misconception of and created a hostile reception for 'anarchism'- at least as much as all the labelling of aspects of 'it'. It has been one of the most succesful methods of discrediting such a contested notion as what would be an 'ethical society' in that the polarised opinions of it seem to hold the most sway. When people hear the word 'anarchy' they think of either 'a hippie utopia' or 'chaos on the streets'. We can thank the media for the latter half of that and maybe drugs also for the former.
    The term utopia, to me, is utterly impossible, I agree, but I've yet to hear the word used by any 'anarchist'- intellectual or otherwise. In my experience it's the orthodox commies and nazi's that think 'their way' will lead to a perfect existance. An anarchist state would need to be exceptionally efficient in order to succeed at any level- luckily the working class run everything anyway- we just don't seem to have realised that we're doing what we could be doing for ourselves! And we're paying THEM to keep US poor and blow up other workers in 'foriegn' lands, all the while. In fact the only thing the workers DON'T do is make those decisions such as declaring war, making law and fraudulently stealing generations of accumulated working class generated wealth!
    If, however, by 'utopia' you mean sitting around drinking beer, popping state meds and smoking dope all day then we'd all be starving to death in a year- luckily those who want this type of 'utopia' have the state to support them and ensure they'll never have to be independent up til the day they die of cirhossis. 'Anarchists' are the grafters, realists and truthseekers of this world, not the junkies, conspiracists and wasters.
    In answer to the original question: I suppose, despite the fact I have an unfortunate affinity with intoxicants, mainly illegal, all that makes me an anarchist of sorts. I don't believe in violent revolution as I think we'd be eaten alive by gun toting nazi's- ala post colonial nations, and emulating state tactics isn't a very promising beginning, nor am I a reformist, cos by the time you've worked through the system your beliefs are corrupted and compromised to a non-semblance of the original good intention- so I don't even know what i would propose in achieving an 'anarchist state'. I guess the best way would be through none coercive educational means. Society has the tools and technology to give every individual a say in everything- if you doubt that consider the text and e-mails for votes on reality tv shows, not to mention blogs and telly/radio talk in shows. I'd like to see things like advertising space being reserved for serious debate on pertient issues, (ie give the advert space free to charities, info broadcasts on rights, social awareness, atrocities, whatever, and up the charge for the capitalists), but these are just one persons opinions and I think we can all be fairly confident that no one person or one political party has all the answers.
    What generally winds me up about debates like this is just how prescriptive the whole idea of anarchism becomes. Do we honestly need another social elite to work out all the paradigms on our behalf? We've had too much of the 'treacle down' politics that leaves us all marginalised and generally redundant in the face of such an intellectualised and monopolised system. The truth is that the few 'up there'- the puppet masters with their working class, mercenary defenders of the realm, (i.e police and army) are nothing without the collective input and output of the masses. Hopefully there will come a collectivised understanding of this and we'll simply undermine and gradually dissolve all of the nepotist social/political/corporate/aristocratic positions that keep us oppressed and subservient.
    Whatever the case- anarchism, as it is now, can no longer exist and operate in a vacuum. For my own part I am using issues such as the recession, illegal wars, etc and associated feelings of dissent as a way of connecting with people about their true power in relation to the state. I have done this through writing political poetry and shorts that generally, but not exclusively, advocate anarchist principles. I post on mainstream internet sites and through indy zines, (I even got a poem published in a book about the recession), and also I intend to start distributing dissenting literature to workers in factories and offices-(I'm not sure how yet mind). This revolution, if it happens, will be realised through the mind, not through guns and bombs, in my opinion, but still, fuck utopia!
    I feel better now- sorry for the rant!
     
  14. rebel

    rebel Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Oct 13, 2009
     
    I am anarcho-communist. for those who don't know what it means: anarcho means against any authority of man by man (against the state, hierarchy, etc). communist means that people would work for society how much they can and society would give products to them in harmony with their needs. so, they would not be obligated to work in order to get something.
     
  15. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    Yes I agree. Fuck utopia, because there shouldn't be one to begin with. It is impossible to create any kind of utopian society for everyone; someone will always be fucked over in order for someone else to bask in their utopia. And I'm not just talking about humans either.
     
  16. glossalia_101

    glossalia_101 New Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    You seem to be in favour of dismantling the structire of the 'state' completely? Communism is a political framework / analysis from the works of Karl Marx...his writings provide a detailed breakdown of the STATE after the communist revolution. He also saw the revolution as inevitable (there are from memory 5 epocs with various means of production, primitive communism, slavery etc). How can you be against hierarcy and the state, when Marx saw the state as a necessary instrument? You seem to have a conflict in your beliefs.

    Perhaps I misunderstnd what you've posted.

    Also isn't the idea that

    is this what you really mean? Surely you don't really think that people should be entitled to all of their material requirements without the need to work. It's clear that the production of material goods / services need to be produced by someone; in the past this has funcion has been performed by slaves, serfs and wageslaves, thereby allowing a select of society to prosper and be supported. As you can tell I'm not a great fan of the something for nothing, and feel that all people can and should be productive, not necessarily for the good of society, but rather for the good of themselves.

    I personally think you have to look at Marx's work in relation to the time when it was written, i.e., early industrial period, though it nonetheless provides an interesting framework.
     
  17. spence

    spence Member Forum Member


    20

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Definitely. The history of the world has shown that most great cultures and civilisations and all mighty empires were built on the conquest, slavery and oppression of those defines inferior to themselves, (excepting the indus valley cultures whom it is thought were peaceful and cooperative had no royal figure heads or conventional rulers, though experts claim to know next to nothing about them- I'm willing to bow to greater knowledge on this though- I'm no academic). To the best of my knowledge that's at least 4000 years of bad habits to 'unlearn'- though I imagine there is a lot of 'hidden history' and forgotten events that would show that sections of the 'ordinary people' have been resistant to the ruling classes throughout.
    I think a lot of the problem with anarchism is that it's become so marginalised as a belief system, or even a mantra of ethical considerations, that we are viewed as idealists with impossibly utopian beliefs and, in truth, it is highly impractical in the face of established structures of government and control as major reform would be necessary in dismantling the beauracratic conventions and pragmatic traditions that inform our perception of what is plausible. To some it appears primitivist, to others violently egalitarian, but generlly anarchism is considered unwise and unworkable even by those sympathetic to it. In explaining anarcism, I tend to come from the point of view that the invention, industry, technological/scientific/medical advancements, etc, etc, et al, are the result of the craft and labour of the working classes. The contribution that the uper classes have made has amounted to philisophical conceptions of the masses, theology/reality, government and ethics- as they have a lot more leisure time time to think and learn and hence dominate the status quo of intellectual thought. These concepts may be useful to their contemporaries in the ruling class, but in practical terms they are next to useless, at best, and malevolant. The most useful thoughts, ideas and inventions have been bought up, usurped and stolen by the powers that be and then sold back to the collective for their profit. An individual will take their payment for their work, as it is practically impossible to live in this world without doing so- though the benefits of sharing these advancements would be far greater without the existing coersive methods of extracting payment- ie, witholding developmental benefts, such as vaccines in 'third world' nations, until payment is made.
    To my mind I believe the human species would be far more advanced than it is, if not for the state structure that undermines natural aptitudes in order for people to avoid poverty/undertake duties, etc. I often wonder how many potential einstiens, chomsky's, hawkins, darwins, etc have died on battlefields or wasted away in factories over lifetimes?
     
  18. outlaw squaw

    outlaw squaw Active Member Forum Member


    40

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    a bit of all I guess

    I am in the middle
     
  19. vermine

    vermine Member New Member


    7

    0

    0

    Oct 13, 2009
     
    against 94% of the rest of humanity too? Or you're more soft on that point?

    For myself I hate label, and what I hate most is the labeled opinion. You can't define yourself 100% as a anarchist or as a feminist, cause anyway, you have to put your own limit to your thinking. You can't also have a mathematical fun growing pourcentage about your own thinking, "oh, I'M 20% anarchist, 30 % communiste and an 100% piece of shit".`
    The thing is, you have to consider yourself as an own person, not define yourself by the thought of an old-aristocratic-ass like Bakounin. Because yes, exept for Pourdhon who had the chance to work for a publisher, all the other "oh-so-cool" philosopher you enjoy quoting, were ariscotratic,rich,lazy ass. Don't cry, that the way it is.
     
  20. Anti-System

    Anti-System Active Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Oct 3, 2009
     
    I am anarcho-communist, because i want social equality and freedom.
    Another world is posilble
     
Loading...