what is anarchy to you

You should post more often, because that's the smartest thing I've heard in a while.

 

Here's the thing. I admit I am adding to the drama at the moment, but ancaps are left out of the larger movement which pisses me off. I never say another anarchist isn't a true anarchist unless his ideas are highly dogmatic or oppressive. But I always have people like Jack trying to discredit my views as "not anarchist".
I would like to know what he would call me then...I believe government should not exist. But instead of believing in everyone forming collective societies I believe we should be able to form any kind of societies we want. That to me is true anarchism. The freedom to do what you want without hurting others.

Everyone talks about how the free market oppresses people. You talk about wage slavery and the such. But you're missing the point that voluntarily being submissive to a boss is not a bad thing. Being forced into this situation is what's fucked up.

Let's talk theoretically for a minute.

Let's say the government collapsed tomorrow and we all started forming our little societies, and you guys formed one that was collectivist or communist. Now in your society everyone is equal, everyone makes the decisions together, you share etc. etc. Let's say that I decided that I want a bigger house and more land than what your system is allowing me. Would it really be contradictory for me to move to another community where you have the choice to voluntarily submit to a boss? Or the choice to hire a private police force?

The problem isn't capitalism or socialism or communism, it's the idea of any of these things being forced on the masses. Autonomy is key here.

To me this is true anarchism. The ability to make all your own choices, the right to be autonomous, and living by natural law. I think that's more anarchist than any branch of anarchism we have today.

 

I'll repeat myself as well then, to me anarchy is free association.
If I want to work for a boss, fine, if I WANT to be abused by someone higher in hierarchy, fine. But if at any one point I become fed up with said boss or abuse, I should have the freedom to piss off and say screw the fucker.
And I do not oppose your views and opinion, it's simply how you express your so-called explicitly inferiority-complex by 'everyone else'. Well fuck 'everyone else' then.
You said yourself that you'd want to create your own little societies for everyone to live the way they want. Great, fine, no problem there, seriously. But stop being offended if someone comes up to you and tells you you're wrong, fuck most of us are wrong at one point or another and it's how we deal with said statement that makes us wrong or right in the end.
Not saying Jack's right and you're wrong, but hell mate, grow up a little. This is the internet, I have yet to see a guy come up to me and say the same thing right in my face. Let 'em grow the balls for that first.

 

Okk look
i have some disagreements with most of you.
Wherever you live this world is not free ,wether you like it or not.
Never will it be free.You can try and make up a little community for all poors or any anarchist whichever believes.
Do you really believe that peace will ever come.No, i wish peace would come,most people think that being a punk is dealing with violence..shooting your mom [even if you hate her fucking guts].
peace will never come.especially like a goverment like this.
Anarchy to me,is basically having my freedom,and it'll be nice for our words to be said and heard.and humans of any govermental issues will hear.but they dnt care.really they dont.wether we protest about freedom,they still owuldnt care.even if tehirs atleast a billion humans out there.they still wouldnt care.
The only shit they'll care about is their fucking money.
It does suck taht most of us are poor.
I hate working,I hate going to school.I believe its all pointless.
I mean like a kid like me who fucking cares about shit like that.
I've rather be fucking around with another couple kids.getting drunk.enjoying life,.not givong a shit about wat people care.maybe smoking a joint.whichever floats your boat.
And also,i dont understand why poeple are vegetarians.I mean yeaa.poor little animal it died and wat not.innocent life blah blah blah.it doesnt matter wat you say.thier still going to kill animals no matter waht.

 

A. That applies to all minorities who would enforce their rule on the people, so Capitalism is out because it is a minority oppressing a majority.

B. Gandhi was a racist, racists can't be anarchists. He also did shit in the long run. India was still divided, his bourgeois "socialism" was never implemented, India has fought numerous wars since independence, violence breaks out periodically between Hindus and Muslims (and did when he was alive). He did not acheive any of his goals.

C. That entire thing is a matter of opnion. There was no Anarchist movement pre 1860's, anything quasi anarchist before certainly contributed to the development, but that doesn't make them themselves anarchists.

I'm sure. I've always heard of the 18th century chaos punks vs anarcho punks, and of course the blasted crust punk peasantry of 5th century China. MC5 and Iggy Pop contributed to the development of punk much like Godwin dide to Anarchism, that doesn't mean they were punk themselves.

You have to get it through your think skull that 98% of the world's population are workers or peasants. It's not like everyone can one day start up and become a Capitalist because they don't want to be workers for the hell of it. We are proletarians and that's all we ever will be, and I could give a fuck about the feelings of the rich on the subject. They never did shit for me when I couldn't afford to pay rent (to another capitalist), or eat sufficiently. They don't shed a tear for the thousands of children who starve every day so I'm not going to shed a tear for them.

What branches? The Mutualists never had much of a movement, then they developed into the Collectivists. The Collectivists started a sharp decline when the Communist Anarchists split in 1876 (though they had existed since the 1860's), then after 1880 Collectivism stopped spreading and became quickly ebbed out by Communist Anarchism. The only place Collectivists still have a prescence are Mexico (small vs Communist) and Cuba (underground).

You're confusing equality of outcome with actual economic and social equality. We Anarchists don't want everybody to have an IQ of 100, read at the same rate, be in the same shape etc. We don't want people to be able to take advantage of others and profit off of their suffering and labor, which is why we are consistantly anti-capitalist. There's no such thing as a "voluntary" hierarchy outside of S&M, if I quit my job I will starve, if I don't pay my rent I'll be kicked out, etc.

Do you care to bring up any proof that we are "indistinguishable" from the Marxists? We also don't aim for power or run in elections, idiot, and there are no fucking libertarian senators at the national level. Congratulations, you are supporting politicians as giving validity to your "anarchism" .

It's obvious that you were never a "collectivist" if you're full of so much bullshit. If you actually beleive all the right wing bullshit of the cappies, and use said bullshit as "proof" against Anarchism..well....you never really had a grasp of it.

The only people WITHOUT freedom ARE the working class, which you somehow don't understand. As previously stated, the bourgeoisie are as free as they want because they have money. I'd like everyone to be as free as they are, but not everyone can be a millionaire.

Right there you show how reactionary you are. You claim that you would rather keep the Capitalist state instead of ZOMG DEMOCRACY! THAT MEANS EVERYONE IS EQUAL!!!11!!111!

 

But Ghandi wasn't really against the government he wanted to become the government. Which he did in the end...

 

He didn't become the government, but his Indian National Congress did.

I'm glad you accept racists as comrades, that's lovely and not at all fucked up.

 

yes lets call it trade shall we as capitalism has shown its idelogical tooth but for the most part absolutely agree

way to nitpick jack gandhi then chuck an insult, wel you've sed u might b on drugs perhaps, mite explain the contradictions earthling

 

You accept racists as Anarchists, the fuck is wrong with YOU?

 

God jesus...Jacks post alone is longer than anything I feel like reading right now, and thats not even considering all the other replies.

Let me just give my bottom line one more time:

1.Autonomy is what I strive for. The right for there to be small communities of any kind. If you want communism, you can have communism. If you want primitivism, you can have it. If you want fascism...fuck, its your choice.

2.I think your argument trying to discredit Godwin is a load of crap. But thats just my opinion...

3.I personally rather live in a free market community. That's my choice. If thats not anarchist enough for you then fine. But I still believe we shouldn't have a government...whatever you want to call me, it's fine. I far prefer the term individualist to anarcho capitalist, because capitalism is not my focus. My focus is a society where law and regulation dont exist.

4.About the whole right wing thing, I am just against assholes like Limbaugh as the next guy. I consider myself a classical liberal if anything. Besides, individualism is another part of the spectrum than conservative.

5.I'm not talking world wide here. I'm talking about what I envision for my country, state, city etc. One problem with most anarchists is that they look at things in a world view instead of a local view.


Once again, call me what you will. But your elitist attitude will do nothing for removing government. You just seem like a snarky college student at a free Mumia ralley.

Btw - If someone is against the government and a racist, i dont see a problem as long as they arent violent. If you want no government so you can have an all white/black/latino community, thats your thing. I have an obvious moral problem with racism, but its pretty harmless if the bigots all live together lol.

 

racism is inherently violent, it abuses and uses people, i've alrady sed that, its basis, is the 'other' oh and religion

i've explained why a racist cannot be an anarchist as above

no govt does not mean no organisation or rule or laws, its a nice thought but i can't see that happening, things shouldn't change that much, just change enuff to make things more free,with no govt, complettte freedom is utopia but does NOT exist but we can get a hellova lot closer in an ew millineum

 

Racism-hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Hatred/intolerance leads to violence.

 

Autonomy is another thing that we strive for, however we recognize that there is no such thing, and can be no such thing, as complete individual autonomy. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, negative actions will mean negative actions against you if they are commited against another human being. However, we're practical and recognize that the rules must serve society as a whole instead of being up to the individual to judge. For instance, if you walk across my lawn and I shoot you in the head, I'm just protecting my property in my view (actually, probably yours too). With Communism that issue will be dealt with by the community, instead of letting the family and friends of the shot person make up the punishment and shoot the perpetrator themselves, inspiring a chain reaction.

Your utopian fallacies about Anarchists being able to form communes out of capitalism is much like the idea of "lets just give the Anarchists their own island" perpetuated among a small fraction of the early 20th century American bourgeoisie (they were only half serious). The simple fact is that in order to maintain a commune we will have to own land, which is against our principles. The land will have to be purchased, something that's out of the way for us (and once again is a recognition of property rights). We will have to get said money by working for Capitalists and hopefully saving it up by going without luxuries until there's finally enough people to do it. Once there, there's no technology so basically we would have to start from square one with no outside resources, unless we participate in the capitalist marketplace. This is why the only solution is revolution and complete collectivisation over the means of production, or else Communism is impossible. It must also be noted that because thw working class produced all things considered Capital, we have a right to take charge of it as it is the product of our labor.

I'm not trying to discredit Godwin, I like some of his thoughts and most of his ideas are pretty good. However, that doesn't mean that he was an Anarchist. So there's no "discredit"ing of Godwin, especially since he never declared himself to be an Anarchist!

For starters,"free market" and "community" are contradictory terms. Anarchism is more than not wanting the state, it's an opposition to all forms of exploitation, hierarchy, and oppression.

The right includes your kind, Libertarian Partyists, conservatives, fascists, nazis, anti-communist dictatorships (Chile, Argentina, Paraguay etc), Objectivists, and all things pro "free enterprise". Just like the Left includes Anarchists, M-Ls, Trots, Left Communists, Stalinists, Hoxhaists, Luxemburgists, council communists, and all sorts of other things Socialist. We both got stuck with authoritarian assholes, just don't complain about it.

Because god forbid we care about anyone outside those we know. If people are starving, fuck them I guess, they don't live in perpinquity to me. The thing is that Anarchism is an INTERNATIONALIST proletarian movement, just as the working class is international, we must be. If anything, you can see from the lesson of Russia/Hungary/Germany that any workers revolution will be followed by native reactionaries, international invasion, etc. The difference between you and Anarchists is that while we are concerned about the entire working class, you're only concerned with your local bourgeoisie.

No, I shouldn't even have to argue this, racism is reactionary, racism is statist, racism is capitalist, racism is built on hierarchy. Racists cannot ever be Anarchists, and it sickens me that you claim they can.

 

I really shouldn't have to, and I don't give a fuck what you think about it because your opinion is irrelavent. If any fucking racist approaches me claiming he's an Anarchist, he should be shot in the fucking head.

 

This has nothng to do with anybodys nitpicking arguments but, jack, anarchsm kind of has been around forever, if by anarchism you mean the absence of government..

 

i've already explained this anxiety and Jack, if you wish to have it all, r u not imposing, i ain't wishy washy but i am against past transgressions which if u know wat anarchy is can see a mileeee off and i have seen in large and small scale the denegration of the individuals rights very quickly under mass collectivisation as humans are social animals and can be easily cajoled acording to their culture to do wat an 'individual' wants/dictatorship which is wat most people are against and so am I

I am about organisation but mass collectivisation tends to lead to draconianism and i can't see the 6 billion people in the world aggreing to that unless they are punished, dictatorship, cuba....etc etc