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

what is anarchy to you

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Anxiety69, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. Jack

    JackExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    0

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    Not trying to be an ass, but is English your first language?
     
  2. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    6

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male, 44 years old
    Long Beach CA United States
    Maybe there is a pro-fascist board you'd be more at home posting stuff like this on.
     
  3. Jack

    JackExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    0

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    Are you serious? YOU ACCEPT FASCISTS AS ANARCHISTS....YET I'M THE FUCKING FASCIST?!?!
     
  4. ASA

    ASAExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    I have defended you more than once Jack, I don't agree with mass collectivisation as a whole and neither will others unless you impose which i vehemently deny

    sure you can do that in your part perse but i will always fight dictators for the most part, i don't have too necessarily be exclusive, as mass colectivisation often leads to a dictatorship, as history has shown us time and time and time again and i've seen it on a smaller scale in individual realationships, it tends to suit the one so ends up being hardly collectivised at all and tends to represent what we have now, the power in the hands of a few by its very nature, it wil always happen perse but how much
     
  5. thoreau_me_a_bone

    thoreau_me_a_boneExperienced Member Experienced member


    70

    0

    0

    Oct 29, 2009
     
    You guys are really having a tower of babel argument here. Firstly, ancap/individualism etc. is classical liberalism, not conservatism. Just because the democrats decided to lose their minds the last 100 years, doesn't mean they are the only liberals. We shouldnt define liberal and conservative by the major party examples. I am socially liberal (gay rights, anti racist, anti censorship), but I am economically conservative (no/lower taxes, anti regulation etc.).

    About the racism thing. Racism only breeds violence when they are put with races that they hate. If the government fell tomorrow, would it really be so bad if there were several communist towns, several mutualist towns, several indivdualist towns, several fascist towns etc? Whats wrong with someone wanting to live in fascism? I obviously think it's stupid, but if a bunch of rednecks want to go be all super white together in their little all white town, I don't see how it affects you and me.

    I dont like using the descriptions of ancap and individualism because it gives off the impression I don't believe there should be any other form of existence.

    I believe first and foremost in no government, and that people will gather into like minded groups after the fact.

    If you want to get into a discussion about individualism contradicting the "no gods no masters" thing, how about we remember that forcing socialism on me is just as bad as me forcing a free market on you.

    If you expect to ever convert the world (or even an entire city) to one economic/social system then you're not only misinformed but doomed for failure. The idea of democracy is not anarchist. The idea of majority over minority is not anarchist. Individuals ruling themselves is the main focus of anarchism. Its a principle. Things like capitalism or socialism are the same thing as someone imagining how they are going to decorate their new house that they dont even own yet.

    Why can't you see that we agree on the important issue? No government. People rule themselves. We havent even gotten that far, so I really dont understand why we're fighting about shit that hasnt even happened yet.

    You're attitude is what has turned a lot of ancaps into big L libertarians and such. You may not like that there are others who share some of your views without completely agreeing, but we exist. And I ask one more time, what do you plan on doing with us? Ignoring us? Killing us? Forcing us into your specific school of anarchist thought.


    And finally about William Godwin. I really dont care who calls themselves an anarchist. Examples precede definition. Did anyone call the Legendary stardust cowboy psychobilly when he was around? No, but now people see how much of a part he played in it. The term anarchist didnt even exist until a few hundred years ago, and the term mostly deveoloped in europe. All of your Bakunins and Kropotkins were born after the word was switched from an insult to a proclaimation. I'm sure if the word existed in it's current form Godwin/stirner/tucker would have called themselves that.

    American and european anarchism are two different branches of the same general idea that people should rule themselves. You need to understand that what was going on in the U.S. and what was going on in Spain/Italy/Russia were far different.

    Places like Russia were going through hell. The loudest voice was that of the peasents and workers. The U.S. at the time was a fairly well to do place at the time. It was not nearly as developed as it was today, people often lived spaced out from eachother in the country or in farm houses.

    The U.S. was also found on the idea of autonomy and freedom, and it is in many American's blood. I'm sure if I grew up in a place like 1800s Russia my main focus would be on how to help the working class. But I admit I am an egotist, and am thinking of my freedom first. The bottom line is that we are both against government. We'll never agree fully because our opinions differ on a rudimentary level. You think of anarchism on a large scale, I think of it on a personal scale. This doesnt mean I dont want it for everyone, but Im not going to spend all my time overthrowing the government when I can be building an autonomous life for myself.
     
  6. thoreau_me_a_bone

    thoreau_me_a_boneExperienced Member Experienced member


    70

    0

    0

    Oct 29, 2009
     
    I guess you should just call me a anarquismo sin adjetivos
     
  7. thoreau_me_a_bone

    thoreau_me_a_boneExperienced Member Experienced member


    70

    0

    0

    Oct 29, 2009
     
    One other thing. Pierre Proudhon (who was the first to CALL himself an anarchist) was extremely anti-semetic, anti-black, and sexist. He also supported private property and certain aspects of the free market. I'm well aware he wasnt a "capitalist" but I would definetely call him an individualist.
     
  8. ASA

    ASAExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    sure racism in that case might be fine but i don't honestly seeing that happening and why should they get a free run now, racism is ignorant and ignorant we are not and what if everybody decided we are basing each area on nationalism and we could only go to 3 town's, might as well live in a binded society like burma, theyfirst start to a draconion state and perhaps you have also not been on the other end of 'racism', racism and religion and capitalism also run the system we have now, the chips in our communication tools most likely come from some crap mine that we have little power to stop at this time, not that we can't do nada but its not my focus at mo and no not just cause i'm using a machine.

    don't say YOU guys, that sounds elitist, be specific.

    america also and maybe still does banned anarchism in law, free wat and now your an egoist, figures haha.

    i agree with you for the most part about the means, nobody turned anyone into a libertarian, they made that choice or coerecd by capitalism, no matter how much i have been frustrated by human existance/nihilism, i have never moved away from what i know to be fundamentally right and it sounds you haven't either as it lends to the rights for people to actually coexist without mass coercian(no utopia), i also won't let nationalists in the back door as it were even though that pihilosiphy has it's place 'sometimes', but they're more nutty than stalin in the end and does noteth meet my or peaceful peoples ends.

    put it in context as that is what we are fighting all the time, we don't need you to add to mainstream medias utter crap, does america even have a media haha, studs terkel

    i am all for free speech but man this just felt like talking at a religious person who thinks armageddons coming so better speed it up.
     
  9. Jack

    JackExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    0

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    I wasn't calling you a conservative. Classical liberalism is on the right nonetheless. I'm aware of the outside-US definition of "liberal", not I just wish you would understand the outside-US definition of Libertarian.

    [/quote]About the racism thing. Racism only breeds violence when they are put with races that they hate. If the government fell tomorrow, would it really be so bad if there were several communist towns, several mutualist towns, several indivdualist towns, several fascist towns etc? Whats wrong with someone wanting to live in fascism? I obviously think it's stupid, but if a bunch of rednecks want to go be all super white together in their little all white town, I don't see how it affects you and me.[/quote]
    You talk about towns choosing one economic system or another without realizing that A. Only one economic system can prevail globally, we'd have to go back to pre-globalization days to stop that. And B. Your idea of a town adopting one economic system or another is based on either mass relocations akin to the division of India and Pakistan, or democracy. If you can correct that please tell me how.

    Once again: Division of India and Pakistan. That's a perfect example of people "gathering into like minded groups after the fact" (Independence)

    It's impossible for socialism to be forced (unless you're bourgeois or a politician, in which case I don't give a shit), that's like saying a gift can be forced. You're gaining someone, feel free to reject it and go fuck off in the woods with all your modern day Boer friends, but I doubt you'd like all that hard work (it might turn you into a Socialist!).

    Today Capitalism controls the entire world...which is one economic system predominating. Democracy is the only logical route of Anarchism. There is no such thing as a "tyranny of the majority" because you have a say in what happens. If you don't want to allocate resources to the construction of a new textile mill, you can vote against it, if you don't want to expand required working hours for basic necessities you can vote against it. There are only 2 choices: democracy or dictatorship, because in any social arrangement if the majority doesn't rule than a minority rules (unless you want to live by yourself in the woods). In the workplace your boss can fire you, change your wages, do whatever the fuck he wants unless there is democracy. If you don't show up to work when your boss wants you're fired, that's not leaving descicions up to the individual that's leaving them to a single individual, thus giving one person power over another, thus a dictatorship.

    I'm glad my attitude is convincing your kind to admit their statism (fyi, a word I hate using). Actually, we plan on putting you into the gulags :lmao: .


    I never said that Godwin didn't contribute some decent ideas to Anarchism, but so have a dozen other philosophers who aren't considered Anarchists and shouldn't be. And actually, the Anarchist movement (as a movement, not an ideology nor the vague idea is was before the 19th centure) has lasted about 150 years.

    Kropotkin was born in 1842, Bakunin in 1814. Also, Stirner didn't die until the 1850's and he knew Proudhon (or at least of him). If you've ever read any of his works you'll see he bashes the shit out of him, Stirner didn't like Anarchism.

    Your coming off like an American chauvanist (which most of your kind are). Lets check something out:

    Industrial Workers of The World-100,000 members in 1907, Dock Workers' Section affiliated to the IWA. Federation of Russian Workers (Russian emigre anarchists)-10,000. Sacco and Vanzetti. Actually, I don't feel like going on. My point is that Anarchism in the US was strongessed among those who actually felt the brunt of Capitalism: immigrants, sweat shop workers, other dispossesed etc. While your "anarchist" buddies are almost all petit bourgeois, bourgeois, or at the very least middle class.

    You're thinking of the American West in the 19th century. How about we talk about the East Coast and West Coast where industry was located, so the Anarchist movement thrived. You're talking about protocapitalist development of the midwest, they wouldn't be truly developed until the 1930's.

    Wowza, talk about your Amero-centric chauvanism.I'll admit, I don't give a fuck about your freedom because you hate my freedom and you hate freedom for the working class, aka the majority. Socialism IS freedom, just because you're a product of middle class birth and part of a labor aristocracy doesn't mean supporting Capitalism is as good for everyone as it is for your kind.

    Alright, go build an "autonomous life" instead of working to overthrow the state. Go fuck off with your buddies in the wood and have your little play capitalism there, we'll stay here and try to better ourselves and our communities.
     
  10. j4v13r4o1

    j4v13r4o1Member New Member


    9

    0

    0

    Dec 2, 2009
     
    Anarchy is freedom and peace. Live and let live. To do what you want and let other people do what they want to do.
     
  11. chav000rotten

    chav000rottenMember New Member


    5

    0

    0

    Dec 1, 2009
     
    Anarchy is way of live and Fuck off any who saya its a retarted idea we are here to stay and we will fight till we acoplish it
     
  12. Wonder138

    Wonder138Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    437

    0

    0

    Dec 2, 2009
     
    i dont want to read the whole argument but this is my post towards it all as iv said before and as the pist have said
    WE GOT TO STICK AND WORK TOGETHER OR WE WILL FALL UNDER THERE CONTROL!!!!

    Anarchy to me is autonomy and real freedom working together to me its order with out control and peace.
     
  13. Shabby_Deals

    Shabby_DealsMember Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Jan 4, 2010
     
    Anarchy to me is a state of mind, Purely because there is nothing I can do as an individual to bring down the system that we all know and hate. I attend protests and illegal parties, I play in a hardcore/crust punk band and I stick it to the pigs whenever approached. At the end of the day anarchism just... is, It's there inside everyone but not everyone has or is prepared to open their eyes to it. Anarchism brings people together but also pushes them apart - For example - I have relatives that I haven't talked to since I was old enough to realise exactly what bankers and politicians do which is pretty ugly to be honest but on the other hand things like the G20 protest on april 1st are beautiful occasions that overshadow the ugliness and bring us that tiny bit closer to the fall of capitalism.
    To put it simply anarchism is the dismantlement of greed, tyranny and any other revolting capitalist actions.
    Safe
    Max
     
  14. tns20

    tns20Member New Member


    6

    0

    0

    Jan 5, 2010
     
    well you should know that anarchism has its roots more than 2000 years ago in ancient greece
     
  15. tns20

    tns20Member New Member


    6

    0

    0

    Jan 5, 2010
     
    well cant disagree with you but in the present system even beeing an anarchist for your survival you must have some of you own property
     
  16. Jack

    JackExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    119

    0

    0

    Aug 30, 2009
     
    ...

    That's retarded, where the fuck has there been an anarchist movement before 1864? Anything else is just bullshit borderline anti-authoritarian philosophy, nothing more, not anarchism.
     
  17. Carcass

    CarcassExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    1

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Wow, you really don't think that there was ever anyone in the history of the world who wanted to not live under a nation-state before the 1860s in Europe? Are you sure you're not confusing words (abstractions) with things? Does nothing exist until Europeans come up with a name for it?
     
  18. theoldpunk

    theoldpunkExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    105

    1

    7

    Sep 19, 2009
     
    Jack's fundamentally correct here. Anarchy as a political philosophy with concrete aims arose directly out of post-industrialisation class struggle.

    Of course, there were individuals, philosophers, societies etc. before this whose ideas and practices contributed to the development of anarchist thought. But their contributions shouldn't be mistaken for the actual political ideology that we call anarchism. If we fail to distiguish between the two, we risk sowing confusion among the wider working class and losing sight of our goals.
     
  19. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    Haha, of cos nothing exists until Europeans come up with a name for it! Much like America! :D
     
  20. divotfreely

    divotfreelyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    117

    2

    3

    Nov 4, 2009
     United States
    to me its a feeling of solidarity / a connection i feel when i am among like-minded CARING people. that is about as base as i can put it. and yes manners are extremely important in my opinion also (though if you shit on my initial kindness i will have the mindset to destroy you) AND i agree there is too much theft among punks (though they are obviously jocks playing dress-up) . i have never met a good person that would not give me the shit off their back (to an obvious extent).

    (B)anarchism=community to me.(B) :rock:
     
Loading...