Jump to content

Anarchism


CIPHER_one

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a pretty broad subject. Which is probably why you never got a clear answer. Anarchism is pretty much what you make of it. And that's really what it's all about. However if you are into certain schools of thought, two of my favorites are ontological anarchy and green anarchy... but there are tons of brands out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just use common sense, it's anarchisms arch enimy.

 

you have a society with no set laws and no set order. who fixes the roads? who controls traffic? who mediates when someone gets in an accident? who forces someone to pay their debt? who insures children are not used as slave labor? who insures adults are not used as slave labor? who insures that dr's. are really dr's? who stops someone from just taking everything you own at gun point? who insures that airplanes are safe? that busses and trains are safe? who funds schools? who helps kids go to college? who insures colleges are anything more than diploma mills?

 

ive yet to find a brand of anarchism that could even begin to stand up to half of those claims, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

 

anarchism is just suicide with bad haircuts and tight jeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 07:37 PM

just use common sense, it's anarchisms arch enimy.

 

you have a society with no set laws and no set order. who fixes the roads? who controls traffic? who mediates when someone gets in an accident? who forces someone to pay their debt? who insures children are not used as slave labor? who insures adults are not used as slave labor? who insures that dr's. are really dr's? who stops someone from just taking everything you own at gun point? who insures that airplanes are safe? that busses and trains are safe? who funds schools? who helps kids go to college? who insures colleges are anything more than diploma mills?

 

ive yet to find a brand of anarchism that could even begin to stand up to half of those claims, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.

 

anarchism is just suicide with bad haircuts and tight jeans.

If we were no longer a hierarchical global superpower why would anyone attack us? I mean anarchism has it's flaws, and I personally don't think the world is ready for it, is the alternative really to keep living in this

And you misspelled enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christiania seems to function pretty well.

But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.

I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM

Christiania seems to function pretty well.

But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.

I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.

exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing that people dont understand is that anarchism, socialism, and communism all have the same end. Of course its idealsitic to think that anarchism is possible right now, thats why people try socialism and communism. People right now, especially in america have a way too messed up view of the world, human nature, etc that it would never work right now. thats not to say that the goal isnt worth fighting for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest im not witty

Your Politics Are Boring As Fuck

by Nadia C.

 

Face it, your politics are boring as fuck.

You know it's true. Otherwise, why does everyone cringe when you say the word? Why has attendance at your anarcho-communist theory discussion group meetings fallen to an all—time low? Why has the oppressed proletariat not come to its senses and joined you in your fight for world liberation?

 

Perhaps, after years of struggling to educate them about their victimhood, you have come to blame them for their condition. They must want to be ground under the heel of capitalist imperialism; otherwise, why do they show no interest in your political causes? Why haven't they joined you yet in chaining yourself to mahogany furniture, chanting slogans at carefully planned and orchestrated protests, and frequenting anarchist bookshops? Why haven't they sat down and learned all the terminology necessary for a genuine understanding of the complexities of Marxist economic theory?

 

The truth is, your politics are boring to them because they really are irrelevant. They know that your antiquated styles of protest—your marches, hand held signs, and gatherings—are now powerless to effect real change because they have become such a predictable part of the status quo. They know that your post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. They know that your infighting, your splinter groups and endless quarrels over ephemeral theories can never effect any real change in the world they experience from day to day. They know that no matter who is in office, what laws are on the books, what "ism"s the intellectuals march under, the content of their lives will remain the same. They—we—know that our boredom is proof that these "politics" are not the key to any real transformation of life. For our lives are boring enough already!

 

And you know it too. For how many of you is politics a responsibility? Something you engage in because you feel you should, when in your heart of hearts there are a million things you would rather be doing? Your volunteer work—is it your most favorite pastime, or do you do it out of a sense of obligation? Why do you think it is so hard to motivate others to volunteer as you do? Could it be that it is, above all, a feeling of guilt that drives you to fulfill your "duty" to be politically active? Perhaps you spice up your "work" by trying (consciously or not) to get in trouble with the authorities, to get arrested: not because it will practically serve your cause, but to make things more exciting, to recapture a little of the romance of turbulent times now long past. Have you ever felt that you were participating in a ritual, a long-established tradition of fringe protest, that really serves only to strengthen the position of the mainstream? Have you ever secretly longed to escape from the stagnation and boredom of your political "responsibilities"?

 

It's no wonder that no one has joined you in your political endeavors. Perhaps you tell yourself that it's tough, thankless work, but somebody's got to do it. The answer is, well, NO.

 

You actually do us all a real disservice with your tiresome, tedious politics. For in fact, there is nothing more important than politics. NOT the politics of American "democracy" and law, of who is elected state legislator to sign the same bills and perpetuate the same system. Not the politics of the "I got involved with the radical left because I enjoy quibbling over trivial details and writing rhetorically about an unreachable utopia" anarchist. Not the politics of any leader or ideology that demands that you make sacrifices for "the cause." But the politics of our everyday lives. When you separate politics from the immediate, everyday experiences of individual men and women, it becomes completely irrelevant. Indeed, it becomes the private domain of wealthy, comfortable intellectuals, who can trouble themselves with such dreary, theoretical things. When you involve yourself in politics out of a sense of obligation, and make political action into a dull responsibility rather than an exciting game that is worthwhile for its own sake, you scare away people whose lives are already far too dull for any more tedium. When you make politics into a lifeless thing, a joyless thing, a dreadful responsibility, it becomes just another weight upon people, rather than a means to lift weight from people. And thus you ruin the idea of politics for the people to whom it should be most important. For everyone has a stake in considering their lives, in asking themselves what they want out of life and how they can get it. But you make politics look to them like a miserable, self-referential, pointless middle class/bohemian game, a game with no relevance to the real lives they are living out.

 

What should be political? Whether we enjoy what we do to get food and shelter. Whether we feel like our daily interactions with our friends, neighbors, and coworkers are fulfilling. Whether we have the opportunity to live each day the way we desire to. And "politics" should consist not of merely discussing these questions, but of acting directly to improve our lives in the immediate present. Acting in a way that is itself entertaining, exciting, joyous—because political action that is tedious, tiresome, and oppressive can only perpetuate tedium, fatigue, and oppression in our lives. No more time should be wasted debating over issues that will be irrelevant when we must go to work again the next day. No more predictable ritual protests that the authorities know all too well how to deal with; no more boring ritual protests which will not sound like a thrilling way to spend a Saturday afternoon to potential volunteers—clearly, those won't get us anywhere. Never again shall we "sacrifice ourselves for the cause." For we ourselves, happiness in our own lives and the lives of our fellows, must be our cause!

 

After we make politics relevant and exciting, the rest will follow. But from a dreary, merely theoretical and/or ritualized politics, nothing valuable can follow. This is not to say that we should show no interest in the welfare of humans, animals, or ecosystems that do not contact us directly in our day to day existence. But the foundation of our politics must be concrete: it must be immediate, it must be obvious to everyone why it is worth the effort, it must be fun in itself. How can we do positive things for others if we ourselves do not enjoy our own lives?

 

To make this concrete for a moment: an afternoon of collecting food from businesses that would have thrown it away and serving it to hungry people and people who are tired of working to pay for food—that is good political action, but only if you enjoy it. If you do it with your friends, if you meet new friends while you're doing it, if you fall in love or trade funny stories or just feel proud to have helped a woman by easing her financial needs, that's good political action. On the other hand, if you spend the afternoon typing an angry letter to an obscure leftist tabloid objecting to a columnist's use of the term "anarcho-syndicalist," that's not going to accomplish shit, and you know it.

 

Perhaps it is time for a new word for "politics," since you have made such a swear word out of the old one. For no one should be put off when we talk about acting together to improve our lives. And so we present to you our demands, which are non-negotiable, and must be met as soon as possible—because we're not going to live forever, are we?

 

1. Make politics relevant to our everyday experience of life again. The farther away the object of our political concern, the less it will mean to us, the less real and pressing it will seem to us, and the more wearisome politics will be.

 

2. All political activity must be joyous and exciting in itself. You cannot escape from dreariness with more dreariness.

 

3. To accomplish those first two steps, entirely new political approaches and methods must be created. The old ones are outdated, outmoded. Perhaps they were NEVER any good, and that's why our world is the way it is now.

 

4. Enjoy yourselves! There is never any excuse for being bored... or boring!

 

Join us in making the "revolution" a game; a game played for the highest stakes of all, but a joyous, carefree game nonetheless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nadia knows what's up. That has got to be one of the best criticisms of political activism I have ever read. BRAVO! BRAVO! Very good.

 

All I can say is I used to be an anarchist. ^^^^"Guilty as charged." What an enormous waste of time it was. "My life is MY responsibility." Wow, what a concept. "The working class could not care less." What a revelation! "Life is short, don't waste it on stupid theoretical nonsense."

 

There you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too familiar with anarcho-syndicalism but i do know it's pretty well established and respected.

 

That was a good article. It actually does promote anarchy by advocating grassroots, local, direct action contrary to any impressions it may give. It's just a word. A word for the same thing.

 

On the other hand. Instead of the movement seeming so marginalized, I have never felt such a singleness of purpose with what is probably more than half the population. I guess when corruption becomes this obvious it's hard for people to ignore. I don't feel like such a wacko conspiracy theorist now. It's pretty nice. I never felt so much a part of anything in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by seeking@Nov 16 2004, 11:41 AM

anarchy, atleast any version of anarchy that i've ever seen, is the biggest crock of shit in the universe.

i wish it would die.

 

I came into this thread just to see your comment,

because I could predit withing 99% exactly what you would say.

 

the use of 'crock of shit' was a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM

Christiania seems to function pretty well.

But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.

I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.

exactly exactly. i have a couple friends that live in anarchist co-op houses and it actually works quite well. those kids writing the the A in the circle(which represents unity) talking about blowing up the government give it a bad reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ckit+Nov 18 2004, 06:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ckit - Nov 18 2004, 06:44 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-villain@Nov 16 2004, 11:21 PM

Christiania seems to function pretty well.

But in all actuality I think anarchism can be applied only on a small scale. It would be much harder to manage larger areas especially when certain communities get stronger than others and become aggressive.

I think that's what anarchy is really all about though is local, grassroots power.

exactly exactly. i have a couple friends that live in anarchist co-op houses and it actually works quite well. those kids writing the the A in the circle(which represents unity) talking about blowing up the government give it a bad reputation.

[/b]

 

Yeah those co-op community houses work real nice actually. I stayed at one for a while in detroit. That Trumbullplex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this juan fuentas character is fucking annoying.

 

christania functions, but it's not a truly 'autonomous' society. it is pretty much completely dependent on the drug trade and the 'tourist' trade. not all anarchist co-op's would be so lucky. they also utilize the danish medical facilities i assume, since i dont remember noticing any hospitals when i was there.

 

when a house full of 8 like-minded people manage to co-exist, that is not an example of sucessful 'anarchism', it's 8 motherfuckers managing to get along. ever tried getting 10 people to agree on someplace for dinner, without one person just stepping up and playing dictator? it doesnt happen.

 

anarchy is gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much about getting people to agree as it is to accept peoples differences.

Hakim Bey describes "normal" society as homogenous and separated from one another.

Anarchist society as different and unified.

Not the most detailed explaination but hopefully you get what I'm saying.

And well Kabar I would say grassroot movements have been making alot of change. For instance the importance of the internet for democratic campaigns and also this current voting fraud investigations going on. We cannot expect much help from up top with all three branches of government controlled by republicans.

And in the sixties there was much social change as well. So it's not like these efforts are in vain. Difficult yes, hopeless, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Villain---

 

This is quite true, social changes in increments are possible. I wasn't interested in struggling thirty or forty years for minor changes, back in 1968. I wanted immediate and all-encompassing revolution. Fuck reform---Smash the State!

 

I can only plead the insanity of youth.

 

I also was very unhappy with the attitudes and social mores of a lot of my fellow anarchists. I was as much in love with the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish and Italian anarchists of the 1930's-WWII period as I was with anarchism itself. I especially admired the anarchist hold-outs who continued to fight well into the mid-1950's (I was about seven when Sabate was finally killed, but of course, I knew nothing about it, being a kid.) It was all so romantic and brave, sort of like a good John Ford movie.

 

But the reality is considerably less attractive. I grew sick of anarchists who bitched about the State, but lived on welfare. They were selfish, self-centered, lazy little bitches. I knew several who scorned marriage (this is part of the anarchist philosophy--they do not marry, pay taxes, serve as soldiers or police officers, vote, press criminal charges or lawsuits against others, own capital or businesses, or employ others in an exploitative economic relationship.) I had several male anarchist acquaintences who impregnated women, but who refused to support the child or it's mother, and who felt absolutely no obligation to serve as a father to the child. It was straight-up wrong, in my opinion. I knew numerous "communes" or "collectives" in which two or three people did 90% of the work, and the rest of them contributed virtually nothing, off busy being "free" while somebody else carried the load. The entire thing became an exercise in self-centered self indulgence.

 

They talked a ton of bullshit about revolution and struggle and all that crap, but not one of them could fight worth shit. They knew absolutely nothing about military tactics, strategy, organization or anything else. "Armchair revolutionaries" TO THE HILT. It was really all about getting high, having a good time and avoiding any sort of work or responsibility. As I grew older, I realized that my years as an anarchist really were a complete waste of time and effort. In fact, my years as an anti-war activist against the war in Vietnam were also a complete waste of time. I should have been in college earning a university degree, like my mother begged me to do, rather than frittering away years in self-delusion that I was making some sort of difference.

In all, I wasted about twenty years as an active revolutionary anarchist.

 

But some of the things I learned have come in very handy.

 

I became a certified arc welder. I learned to work on my own vehicles, to drive standard shift and automatic cars and trucks. I learned to operate a bulldozer and a backhoe. I learned to read blueprints and to frame houses. I learned to accurately shoot rifles, pistols and shotguns. I joined the Marine Corps and went to armory school, where I learned to repair all manner of infantry weapons. I learned about demolition and explosives. I learned to teach marksmanship, and have used that skill to instruct many people.

I went to machinist's school, and got a degree as a machinist. I went to nursing school, and became a registered nurse. I learned quite a bit about radio and electronics. I've learned a little about computers.

 

The skills I learned are valuable and satisfying. But the political tendency that started it all is way behind me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...