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. Extinction

    ExtinctionExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    246

    0

    0

    Sep 1, 2009
     
    70% Anarchist, 30% Green Anarchist.

    Always anti-facist.
     
  2. ::aka::

    ::aka::Member New Member


    8

    0

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    Social Democrat would probably come closest to my political stance
     
  3. AndersB

    AndersBActive Member Forum Member


    27

    0

    0

    Aug 27, 2009
     
    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
     
  4. WitchesHammer

    WitchesHammerMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    0

    Aug 25, 2009
     
    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.
     
  5. Spider

    SpiderExperienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    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.
     
  6. Hefty

    HeftyMember Forum Member


    13

    0

    1

    Aug 14, 2009
     
    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)
     
  7. ebbtide

    ebbtideMember Forum Member


    24

    0

    0

    Aug 31, 2009
     
    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....

    [​IMG]
     
  8. ghost in the void

    ghost in the voidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    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.
     
  9. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    Anarchism is not an utopia. It is possible and history has proven it. Kronsdradt, Makhnovtchina & Ukranian revolution, Spanish revolution, zapatistas, etc....

    Yep, we have evolved and things are different. This does not means anarchism isn't possible anymore, this just means the transition from capitalism to anarchism won't be done in 24 hours.

    This is a question we frequently see on anarchism forum, and anarchists does have a solution. The basic concept of anarchism is order without power. There won't be any laws, but anarchism have some alternatives like social contracts to prevent rapist and murderers.

    This is a very complex issue and we would debate on it for hours and hours. Like i said a libertarian society won't be built in 24 hours. Prisons won't be abolished in 24 hours neither. Especially in highly-industrialised capitalist societies like the ones we live in..

    All anarchists i fight with will agree to say there won't be any anarchist revolution unless a majority of the (non-bourgeoised) population want it. This is a basic principle. If we go against it then we become autoritharian because we impose our revolution, and it will surely fail or turn into a communist revolution.

    This is a very radical view...... but the concept of an anarchist society is determined by the people themselves..... So if a majority of peoples in a really want to live this way in their community..... Why not? They will have decided it themselves, so it's really what THEY want, and not what the person who they elected wants....

    I still think it would be a big contradiction with anarchism basis. It can be seen different ways : Computers generating a name randomly is breaking someone's liberty of naming his/her children, preventing women from having children is breaking women's liberty of doing what they want with their body and is almost as bad as anti-abortion is...
    And i'm not even talking about the authority and oppressive force that would be needed to apply a such system.... It just wouldn't be anarchism anymore.

    I think the opposite: anarchist have spent too many time on theories during the last 2 centuries and too little time on doing the revolution. This is primary why a lot of peoples think anarchism is an utopia...
     
  10. PuddaWudda

    PuddaWuddaMember Forum Member


    12

    0

    0

    Sep 5, 2009
     
    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!
     
  11. ghost in the void

    ghost in the voidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    EDIT: can't delete. see below.
     
  12. ghost in the void

    ghost in the voidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    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.
     
  13. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    You are referring to the definition of the greek term "anarkhia". Anarchists philosophers came way after greek civilization and didn't have the exact same definition.

    You can't say something that was already realized is an utopia...

    We could say communism is an utopia because it was never applied the way Marx wanted it to. But anarchism isn't the same thing...

    Yep, but anarchism is based on education, and there won't be any revolution unless there have been many many years of anarchist propaganda.

    If the spanish revolution worked, it is because of years and years of anarcho-syndicalist propaganda

    Because you keep saying anarchism is an utopia...

    A social contract is a community-based contract you volounteerly sign if you want to live in this community. Not only the ""laws"" are determined by the community itself, but also YOU choose to accept them.... Unlike the laws

    Social contract is part of anarchist theory... Is social contract are laws, then anarchist believe in laws...

    Uhhhh, yes, social classes are an invention of capitalism..... But fighting these classes, what we call CLASS WAR, is a revolutionarian and leftish invention.

    Class war is one of the greatest way of class emencipation and anti-capitalism fighting, if we are just going to ignore the social classes we will never do the revolution.

    I live in the real world. And what i can see is that system has divised peoples and some are more rich and privilegied than others. What i can see is that it's the system itself that has created the social classes, and we must destroy them, and destroy the system.

    I KNOW that you are referring to science-fiction, SO WHAT? You are using it as an argument, so i'm answering your argument.... Stop talking like if i don't understand anything of what you're trying to mean...

    Well you just said anarchists spend too much time on theories for deconstructing the current power structures..... but not enough time to rebuild a new theory.......... right?

    I said i think the anarchist spend too much time on theories to build THE FUTURE SOCIETY and not enough time on actions to deconstruct the current power structures (aka doing the revolution)

    It didn't fail because it lasted a couple of years.

    You must first study the spanish revolution if you want to understand it. First you must understand the context : it was a civil war, they were attacked by fascists and URSS at the same time, they had no alliances, they were counting only on volounteer peoples to make an autonomous army (antifascist brigades)

    It's normal that all good things have an end when you are attacked from all sides...

    Zapatists are anarcho-communism. Some of their members are marxists, others are anarchists. But they are explicitely libertarian and the concept of their society and their army is purely autonomous..... so anarchist.

    I have read many things on the zapatist history, i own a few books written by sub-commander Marcos, i have met zapatistas, and am planning to go see them in a few years.

    Here is a good quote by sub-commander Marcos that explains everything:

    "Zapatism is not a new ideology or a reheating of old ideologies. Zapatism isn't. Zapatism doesn't exist. It only serves as a bridge to help us to go from one side to another. Therefore, zapatism is big enough for everybody, for everyone who wants to go from one side to another. Everybody has it's "good and bad" side. Here there is no recipes, no line of conduit, no strategies, no tactics, no rules, no laws, no universal guidelines. There is only one dream : build a better world, therefore a new world"

    So i totally agree with this concept, even if some marxists are in their ranks... It represent even more the willing of the all peoples, and not only the will of a minority of anarchists


    This is an international forum.... peoples are supposed to understand we don't all come from the same place or speak the same language
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    If i'm correct, this is the english translation of a good french text about deviance in an anarchist society, and how to protect ourselves from rapists and murders:
    http://www.325collective.com/deviance&punishment.pdf

    More infos on the social contracts and anarchists alternatives to laws:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_ ... _contracts

    I could even go further saying our chart and the "Who are we" text on this website is a kind of social contract. You choose to accept it if you want to be part of our community, and this same text can be revised and modified by the community itself, so it represents the positions and the ideas of the same community who has to accept the text to participate on the forums...

    PS: Maybe we should start another topic on anarchism or something...
     
  15. ghost in the void

    ghost in the voidExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    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!
     
  16. xxlizzyloserxx

    xxlizzyloserxxNew Member New Member


    4

    0

    0

    Sep 5, 2009
     
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. TO)))NE

    TO)))NEMember New Member


    5

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    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.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    Great post TO)))NE, i totally agree with you.

    It will take a lot of efforts and a lot of evolution before peoples are ready for anarchism. But every autonomous initiatives which creates an alternative to the current system in place (we could call it "Temporary Autonomous Zone" -- See Hakim Bey writtings on T.A.Z. if you never heard of it) is, like you said, "a brick taken from the foundations of current authority and used to build the foundations of an anarchist future)

    Like Errico Malatesta said (one of the most famous anarchist) :
    "The objective is not to make anarchism today, tomorrow, or in 10 years. The objective is to walk forward to anarchism today, tomorrow, ALWAYS."
     
  19. arvira

    arviraNew Member New Member


    3

    0

    0

    Sep 7, 2009
     
    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.
     
  20. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    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.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Politically consider yourselfForumDate
Topeka, Kansas City Council Considers Decriminalizing Domestic Violence To Save MoneyGeneral political debatesOct 8, 2011
DEATHREAT - Consider It War - 2001 (USA)Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsJun 10, 2010
Climax (descriptive... might be considered adult lol)D.I.Y. - Creative sectionMar 28, 2010