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. rebel

    rebel Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Oct 13, 2009
     
    I spoke in the sense of anarcho-communism not in the sense of marx framework. I am totally disagreed with marx theory about the state after revolution and abolishing of the state during the time after revolution. there is difference between anarchist communism and marxist methods to reach society without hierarchy where people are economic equal and where people decide together equally (how much they are interested for some topic). but final society is the same between anarchists and communists. of course, among anarchists there are people who wants different society for themselves, so they are free to build their commune without technology or whatever. I like eco-anarchism, green anarchism, but I don't see it as primitivism. and about eating, I don't eat only fruits which felt down from the trees. beside it, I don't like egocentric people, so I am interested for anarchism as freedom for whole society. I know there are different anarchists, so I don't stop anybody to build community or individual life like he/she needs. I speak about my needs.
    and yes, i really think that people should contribute to society how much they can, and they should get from society how much they need. needs are simply different so it is hard to make "equality of taken products" per individual or family inside of anarchist society. someone need camera, somebody don't need but need something else. therefore the only justified distribution would be as I said: contribute how much you can, get how much you need.
     
  2. outlaw squaw

    outlaw squaw Active Member Forum Member


    40

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I think you're agree with rebel actually and saying the same thing, using different words. "all people can and should be productive, not necessarily for the good of society, but rather for the good of themselves." is what he/she meant when he/she said "communist means that people would work for society how much they can <....> they would not be obligated to work in order to get something". To my opinion you both mean, that people (simply put) should paint not because they are hungry and have to sell a painting to buy food, but because they feel like painting. But what happens now is that a painter gives up on painting as it doesn't pay well, takes a shovel and goes to dig mud, meanwhile some rich guy with too much time in his hands, bored to death, and with no talent in painting, starts painting lol It's awkward and upside down.
    As you said, "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"..., But now we have tech progress and I believe that if capitalism didn't slow it down, by now all hard repetitive work could be performed by machines. So our jobs would be more or less about the controlling process of those machines. Apart from the fact that this kind of jobs gives people free time for creativity (those sitting in an office and posting on forums, when they are bored lol or also I know someone, who works in a place for mentally ill night shifts, and writes articles while working, ok it's not controlling machines but it is still this 'controlling process' ), it is also that there are people like me, who would be fine with performing those jobs, while other people devote all their time to art or science, as i think of myself as of a totally untalented person, I enjoy drawing from time to time and singing in the shower, but most of the time I enjoy looking at my cool talented friends, singing and drawing and I wish I could somehow help them to find more free time as they'd deffo create a lot of great things then and contribute enormously to our society/world.
    So it seems theoretically a society where people live contributing to it as much as they can and taking from it as much as they need is possible, but would it work really? If yes, then what will happen to the State after revolution etc? I believe we shouldn't really bother about it now. As there is noway to jump from now right into that society. But there are small changes we could do to make current society way better than it is. It doesn't have to be perfect, just a little bit better. So that all of us :anarchists, communists, buddists, idiots etc could live the way they want. After those small changes we should see how the reality will change, then wait to see how that new reality will change us, then do the next necessary changes. It's a long process. But it's the way to go.

    Most people make this mistake saying "I don't know what will happen after the revolution let's not do it then, or I don't support Marx and I am no communist- I don't care". It's not about what will be in the end and it's not about communism or Marx. It's about right now and all of us living the way we want. If some of you live your dreamlife already, its cool. But I know that a lot of people don't. I f you don't care then I guess the world will just have to wait until you die and new people who care are produced lol

    sorry if this reply seems random and wandered off, I do it often. I talk to all people most of the time rather than to an individual, to whom I address my posts. also sorry for my english if it was bad.

    I think my ramblings were forwarded to stand in defense of marxism or smthg LOL

    edit; word~ lol
     
  3. LibPornChip

    LibPornChip New Member New Member


    2

    0

    0

    Oct 15, 2009
     

    Yes, you do. :ecouteurs:


    *Ahem* excuse me. I had to do that just then.


    Anyway, without getting into the above debate but fitting with the topic of the forum, I'd say I'm a social democrat. They seem to be the most sane people on the planet. But technically I'm a Democrat (I wanted to vote for a guy in Philly's mayoral elections a few years back).

    I was a Republican, briefly. The voter registration girl was cute and she said she was a Republican so I was like, "Yeah, me too." Although I didn't her number, damn it.
     
  4. rebel

    rebel Experienced Member Experienced member


    54

    0

    0

    Oct 13, 2009
     
    well squaw, you understand better english than me:)
    I didn't understand his post/message sooo much.
    I am agreed with you that we should fight already now, although I don't think we should be satisfied with small changes. it is reformism, and people can become passive if they stop to fight for more and more changes (north europeans have 2000 euro per month, they don't care if their lovely government persecute someone/foreigners). so, as you see, better life don't bring people to fight for more, better life buy them (they sold themselves). therefore it is important to have revolutionary consciousness, although it is not necessary that all participants of rebellion or revolution have it. for some people is enough just to have some interest from it, there are people who are not interested for any ideology.
    I am glad to see that you said that people should care about others, it is rare to find people who are not egoists, capitalism developed egoism (therefore western people are more individualist anarchists, while east europeans and south americans are more social anarchists, our mentality from our culture have influence on us when we choose something).
    and I am totally agreed that privileged people today make art and art tendencies in society while poor talented youth has no chance to get access to education for art (art academies are reserved for children of riches). it is the same if someone want to make art but has no rich family, as you said your friends must spend time to run for money instead to do what they like to do. therefore we must work to destroy capitalism and the state. the state secure privileges of riches, from history till today. the state is not created by slaves than by riches (with aim to protect themselves from other rich conquerors and to exploit society easier), therefore the state was always just organization for protection of riches.

    p.s. by the way, I plan website about freelove, just first I must finish my personal websites (one flash, one css and one blog, it will be everything inter-connected because I can't include so much content in flash site). after it, I will make website about freelove, so I will see how I will make it. if I decide to make it static, it will be just texts about my anarchist standpoints about freelove (short: anarchist freedom for partner plus loving of more people), so people can meet themselves with it. if I make it interactive (that people can become members and participate in it) than it will be harder to make but it will be better. and there will be maybe even section for members, if I succeed to make it, where they can start with publishing of their erotic or porno pictures, etc. I will have to try all of it, when I finish my personal websites. against patriarchy and monogamy!patriarchy serves to the state: father is like a little state: he decide everything. it has roots from roman empire till today (in poor regions where women still depend economically from men). authorities in roman empire got idea that they can't control all people in so big empire and therefore they developed patriarchy and law which punish resist to the father. father was made equal with micro state, who resist, finish bad.
     
  5. n0iseterrorist

    n0iseterrorist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    136

    2

    34

    Oct 5, 2009
     
  6. outlaw squaw

    outlaw squaw Active Member Forum Member


    40

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     

    Yes, you do. :ecouteurs:


    lol

    let me introduce Chip

    my husband
     
  7. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian Barbarian Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    2

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    hmm.. well i have many beliefs that fall under many categories... so if i had to pick one i would consider myself a socialistic-nihilistic-libetarianist anarchist. Other than the anti-fascist, state etc. im also an anti-pacifist, i dont hate pacifists, i mean i cant, they are extremely nice! i just dont believe in the ideas. Fuck i dont really like to classify myself under anything really.
     
  8. Rathryn

    Rathryn Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    To be honest I don't know about most of these -ists anyway.
    I just don't think the monetary economic system is viable and fair in the long run.
    I don't accept everyone's orders, views and opinions as my own, unless I have good reason to do so.
    I do NOT like cops... unless they're not on-duty, as they bother me more and more over my mohawk, while I'm still waiting for the bike that got stolen 10 years ago.
    I'm somewhat anti-religion, but pro-belief.
    I do not think we live in a 'real' democracy any more in Holland, as the government will do anything even if the people object. It seems to have largely turned from 'by the people, for the people' into 'by the elite, for the wallet'.
    So yeah... if someone can tell me what kind of -ist I am, please do, but I'll always be 'me' first.
     
  9. t-bag

    t-bag Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    112

    3

    0

    Oct 24, 2009
     
    Christian Anarchist, Anarcho-Pacifist.
     
  10. B@UGHIE

    B@UGHIE Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    1

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    oppressed
     
  11. lax_punk_sneakz

    lax_punk_sneakz Active Member Forum Member


    31

    0

    0

    Sep 21, 2009
     
    i consider myself a peaceful anarchist until someone pisses me off... but i have patience for days as long as my ideals aren't threatened... just trying to live as free as i can...
     
  12. cupcaked

    cupcaked Member Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
    hahaha, i like that :)

    I consider myself a libertarian or "conservative anarchist". Communism is scary though, even though I think the US is a neo-fascist/communist/socialist state. I don't know any political term for that kind of weirdness though :(
     
  13. Extinction

    Extinction Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    245

    1

    0

    Sep 1, 2009
     
    After doing some serious soul searching, I have to now say I'm a Anarchist-Pacifist. I've been doing reading non-stop. Education really does open doors.
     
  14. Link K2B

    Link K2B Experienced Member Experienced member


    69

    0

    0

    Oct 27, 2009
     
    Anarchist.

    I do recognise limitations to anarchism, such as the need for organised force to protect against tyranny. I'm a realist and I know the chances are you'll never please anyone and any system we live by will ave certain weaknesses by which terrible atrocities and injustices may occur. I don't see my morality or politics in black and white and as such, I think the values by which we define our actions are full of pitfalls but we CAN do a lot better than what's been forced upon us. All forms of states are just different names for me not havin control over my own destiny, so I'm an anarchist.
     
  15. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisaster Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    politics in a practical sense, like religion, poison this world
    I try to remain ignorant as far as politics go
    but as much as you try to ignore the problems and get on with your life,
    things just keep getting worse...

    "I can only see a better world, built on the ashes of this one"

    Anti-Civ, Green anarchist ideals are as far as i go
    Philosophy is more my thing
     
  16. SurgeryXdisaster

    SurgeryXdisaster Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    977

    1

    4

    Oct 8, 2009
     
    Its called Democracy
     
  17. Rabbit

    Rabbit Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    203

    1

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
    [​IMG]

    Tough to describe my ideas around politics. The political thought that makes the most sense to me is anarcho-syndicalism. Libertarianism makes sense to me, except for the economic parts. Libertarian socialism is a bit better.

    By the way, the U.S. does not truthfully claim to be a "democracy." It's a democratic republic. You know, like Rome before they became an Empire. Like that could ever happen here...

    And calling it communist or socialist is fairly inaccurate. Those are both extremely dirty words in the U.S.
     
  18. Rathryn

    Rathryn Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    So where did people do the above test?
     
  19. Rabbit

    Rabbit Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    203

    1

    0

    Oct 26, 2009
     
  20. rE sIs Tanz

    rE sIs Tanz Active Member Forum Member


    31

    0

    0

    Oct 27, 2009
     
    Hi,

    Politically? I consider myself an mujahedeen and an anarchist.
    Well, for most of you, probably all of you, this sounds pretty much illogical, senseless, absurd, implausible, ridiculous and impractical. Just as much as the illusion of the realisation of true 100 % anarchy operating as a "political institution"-it is contradictional in itself to believe in establishing a "ruling sytem" without any "rules"...
    Let me explain you my interpretation of anarchy then. Please, do not accuse me for doing here Islamic propaganda or anything alike (just as no communist and socialist is not being accused of doing communist or socialist propaganda, right?) but I have to tell some facts about Islam in order to be able to convey my thoughts and belief.
    "Eshhedü enla ilahe illallah ve eshhedü enne Muhammedden abduhu ve resulullah". This is the confession of a Muslim, and actually the entire system of Islam ( submission ) is built upon this sentence and statement.
    It means "I testify there is no god but Allah and that Muhammed is the abd ( in Turkish we use the phrase kul, there is no proper translation for it into English, some kind of "slave" (working and only be in order for) and the envoy of Allah "
    What does it mean: there is no god? God is anything human can worship (this various from a statue or an ideology that can be worshipped to the god explained in the bible), anything human obeys. So, the meaning of it is: do not obey anything!
    But there is Allah.
    Allah has 99 names (definitions) according to the Quran. I won't list them all up now. Allah is the existence which came not forth by the existence of existence, and existence was not created by the existence of Allah. Allah created existence. And this continuum (process) is of a nature the human mind is just simply not able to perceive and understand, we are not equipped to understand this; how existence came into forth (how much % of our brain can we use???). The truth about this creation will be revealed to us entirely probably when we enter the realm of eternity, but it is described in many parts of the Quran also (open to any mind to read and to interprete in his/her own way).
    To bring it to the point very shortly this sentence means "do not obey anything except the creator of existence" (which means of course also *you*), so: "do not obey anything only your creator".
    Muhammed is described here not as a superior figure but mere a human being just as all "ordinary human beings" are, this sentence indicates to the fact that there is no class definition in the system of Islam, even the "prophet" has not a higher rank than any other human, or "citizen". But he is the envoy of Allah. He had been given extraordinary special features to receive the message of Allah. The use of these two sentences side by side, next to each other implies to the strictly prohibition to obey any human being, be it even the prophet, and only to see him as the envoy of Allah in duty to deliver the message of Allah, the transmission of Islam, the system of submission to Allah only.
    Each human being has been created actually with the same purpose, to be the khalif (protector of its system) of Allah on earth. Sytem means here not political system actually but all entire existence, from the mechanism of an atom to the establishment of a proper working society.
    I consider myself as a human, first of all. And this means for me, to be consisting of existence, from the earliest day of creation, I am consisting of the substance of existence itself.
    Then I consider myself as a kul of Allah. This means for me in the practical sense being a mujahedeen.
    So: "I am an anarchist!"

    Love & Peace & Anarchy! :ecouteurs:
     
Loading...