The biggest problem with Anarchism is...

 
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 26 Jan 2009, 15:58

    The biggest problem with Anarchism is...

    The biggest problem with Anarchism is NOT what should be done with criminals, is NOT how we'd run factories, is NOT people are stupid, is NOT hierarchies are necessary, is NOT people are slaves by nature, is NOT people would start killing people if the State dissapears. And so on and so forth. All those issues proved to be nonsensical during Spanish Revolution (or during a regular exercise of common sense).

    The biggest problem with Anarchism is IT NEEDS ANARCHISTS in order to exist. Many anarchists.

    That is a huge problem, and it's the main reason it has been barely implemented during modern History.

    An anarchist society is easy to implement IF most citizens agree with it. Unlike Capitalism or Socalism, it cannot be imposed over people. People have to choose it. Quoting George Barrett:

    "The strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves."

    Anarchism is IMPOSSIBLE if people are not free from mental slavery. Anarchism is IMPOSSIBLE if people believe in hierarchies and the fantasies of Capitalism. But Anarchism is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE if people embrace it.

    Thus two conclusions:

    - An anarchist revolution is highly unlikely these days. Spanish Revolution was made by an anarchist population. They were anarchists LONG BEFORE the time for revolution had come. They were MENTALLY prepared.

    - The best you can do as an anarchist is to spread the word. Be proud of being a libertarian and tell everyone how wonderful Anarchism is. Implement it on your own workplaces and organizations. Teach Spanish Revolution. Buy anarchist books. Buy anarchist magazines. Support threads like this one.

    Kindly yours,
    a social ecologist fellow.

    • Kobrin said...
    • User
    • 26 Jan 2009, 19:10
    The lack of anarchists is not the problem, it is the result of the problem. The real problem is the constant demonising of anarchism. Football hooliganism gets linked sooner to anarchism than community service, whilst the latter surely is a better example of what we are and what we do.
    There's ofcourse a simple reason for that. Any power tries to sustain itself as long as possible and capitalism and the State are no exceptions to that. Since they controll the media (not in the sense that it's statemedia, but in the sense that they are the only ones who can get real communiqués out in them), we get scrutinised constantly.

    Aswell as the fact that anytime a potential anarchist situation gets destroyed, they kill us all.

    Anarchism is sort of a constant struggle to rebuild after a breakdown by the State and capitalism. Everytime we fail, we are set back 50 years because a whole generation of activists disappears. Whilst other ideologies get continuum through press releases and such, we can't, and as such our foothold disappears when the people disappear.

    If it were just the lack of anarchists that bothers us, well... If we'd be on equal terms with the State in terms of propaganda and such, that lack just wouldn't exist. On the other hand, we aren't on equal terms because we are anarchists. Increasing anarchist numbers is a matter of personal approach and as such a lot slower than printing 3 million bibles and forcing it up peoples ass.

    "We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom. " - May '68
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 26 Jan 2009, 20:12
    Yeah, it's a loop. The lack of anarchists produce a lack of anarchists. You can take a look at the problem from both sides -- same issue.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 27 Jan 2009, 04:30
    That one really is the biggest problem with anarchism (today). It is also a critical point, because if we focus to much on "just getting new members", the danger is always that we turn into propaganda-machines without any real values, just as communist parties did when they forgot to help the people and fell into the trap of politics.

    Our main goal should always be making life better and creating Anarchism wherever possible, and "getting new members" should only be the means, never the goal. Education and propaganda are important, but the main actions should be about direct actions, "propaganda of the deed" (while not neccssarily terrorist acts against the authority, like it had been in the 19th and early 20th century.)

  • This is the main reason why I'm still a little bit skeptical about anarchism. It requires anarchists, which are in small numbers, because they keep getting demonised by those who oppose anarchism, and it goes in a circle. However, I think it's less about people demonizing you guys because they're opposed, so much as they think you are generally out of your freaking mind.

    They believe that anarchism can never work. They cannot wrap their minds around the concept, and I can kind of see why they feel that way. The spanish revolution was not allowed to last. If it had, there may be more answers and evidence than there is now.

    We'd know for sure whether they would have lasted, and the reason they either failed, or succeeded, depending on what would've happened. The question is not whether or not an anarchist society is possible, it is "will it last?" "will people generally agree?" Will anyone come along to bring down anarchism? How will you keep people from infighting, and refusing to get along?

    But again, the biggest question is the first: "Will it last?" That is what people want to know. That is the big question about anarchism. If you manage to get an entire country to go along with it, who's to say it won't all be undone in a matter of decades? If you can convince people beyond a doubt that it is the right way, and is the most effective way, then you'll have your anarchist society, but as it stands, the jury's still out, and people are still skeptical, as they should be.

    I'd like to agree with anarchism unquestionably, and I support what you guys represent and what you stand for, but so far, the only thing you have to back yourselves up is the spanish revolution, and until another anarchist revolution occurs, or you can actually test your theories out, and convince people that this is the right way, people are going to heavily disagree with you.

    It's very hard to convince millions of people who are used to the same old system, are used to being in an international world, and used to exploiting each other in a dog eat dog world, where they fight their way to the top, to give all that up on the off chance that they will never have to answer to anyone ever again, never have to exploit, or work harder than everyone else, to prove they are better, and hell, to not even have to BE better. Just be equal. That would be absolutely wonderful. I don't think anyone is opposed to that idea, they just don't think it's possible without sacrificing their safety and security.

    Everyone, because they are used to exploiting and being exploiting, believes that once they are completely free, someone will come along and try and exploit them anyway, without consequence, and the world will descend into chaos. It's hard to keep millions upon billions of people from killing and stealing from each other. It's like taking a tamed and housebred animal and releasing them into the wild all of a sudden.

    Not everyone is prepared for that responsibility, and many will outright refuse such a thing. You have the entire world's doubts and insecurities standing in your way, and until you can reassure them that such a thing won't occur, and that they'll truly have a better life, you're going to have some damn strong opposition on your hands. Good luck.

    • Kobrin said...
    • User
    • 27 Jan 2009, 15:17
    wall_of_yawn said:. I don't think anyone is opposed to that idea, they just don't think it's possible without sacrificing their safety and security.

    He who trades Liberty for Security shall receive neither - Abraham Lincoln.

    When it comes to anarchism, it's all about sticking your neck out. If the succeeding of the Spanish Revolution is a necessity for anarchism in current days to you, well I'm sorry to say, but that's just not how it works. Imagine anarchists in the 19th century needed such proof, then we'd still be waiting for the Spanish Revolution.

    Anarchism is in the first place a conviction. It is also a reality. There's anarchism all around us, in your family, with your buddies, in non-profit organisations, in squats, in liberated spaces, at Reclaim the Streets, ... Though the Spanish Revolution is a powerfull propaganda tool, I think these modern examples of anarchism are a better motivation for an anarchist.

    "We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom. " - May '68
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 28 Jan 2009, 10:10
    "Education and propaganda are important, but the main actions should be about direct actions"

    That's correct, and also answers some questions raised by wall_of_yawn. If our own organizations and actions are non-hierarchical and self-managed, as they are, people could start looking at Anarchism in a different way -- because they work perfectly fine.

    Argentina is the one reference. When neo-liberals ruined that country some factories started to be self-managed. Big factories, with hundreds of workers, became anarchist workplaces all of a sudden. And, guess what: everything was fine, production continued and their main problem was state repression.

    In conclusion. Anarchism can and must be implemented at small scale. Therefore, people will realize bosses are unnecessary and will become anarchists -- even if they don't call themselves that way, they will be anarchists deep inside.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 30 Jan 2009, 09:47
    Ah, Argentina. Now, this is of course another powerful propaganda weapon, even if they do not always (or let's be honest: seldom) call them anarchist. The Take (la Toma) 2004 is a movie everyone should watch at least once, and also a nice little thing to illustrate how in this modern day world anarchism or anarchist-like movements can be created, even if it's not that outspoken towards anarchism (or maybe BECAUSE it's that way.)

    • Kobrin said...
    • User
    • 30 Jan 2009, 11:13
    We have great contacts with the FORA, they have a very practical and decentralised way to look at things.

    Another experiment that does not call itself anarchist is EZLN. The Zapatistas may be a bit militaristically organised, but they are the best-working of anarchism on medium scale we have right now.

    "We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom. " - May '68
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 30 Jan 2009, 14:29
    Good movie, Wxnzxn. I also enjoyed "Fasinpat", a similar one.

    Oh, I just saw your signature, Kobrin. That's my favourite '68 quote.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 30 Jan 2009, 14:38
    esa_es_la_chica sagte:
    Good movie, Wxnzxn. I also enjoyed "Fasinpat", a similar one.


    Ah, I heard there is a documentary about FaSinPat in particular, but so far I couldn't find a subtitled version, unfortunately I don't speak spanish.

  • Kobrin said:
    wall_of_yawn said:. I don't think anyone is opposed to that idea, they just don't think it's possible without sacrificing their safety and security.

    He who trades Liberty for Security shall receive neither - Abraham Lincoln.


    That quote is all well and fine, but in America these days, I really don't see anyone shouting "give me liberty or give me death." Although I wish they would. USA citizens seem to be as sheep, following a shepherd.

    They didn't do shit when Bush was in office, they didn't do anything to stop the patriot act, they didn't do anything when their freedom was taken away, and their phones were wiretapped, so I really have my doubts that they'll do anything if say another fucked up president gets into office and takes away their rights and liberties, and now that Obama is in office, everyone's fairly at ease with the government and willing to go along with whatever plans he has in hopes that the government will fix the same problems it created in the first place. Meanwhile, the Bush administration isn't being held accountable for anything. Not a damned thing.

    I hear people talk about liberty, I don't see anyone willing to give up their comfortable convenient living to defend it. Better to be alive and comfortable than dead and free, in their minds. To me, it's the other way around.

    When it comes to anarchism, it's all about sticking your neck out.

    And like I said before: no one wants to stick their neck out. I'm not questioning anarchism on a small scale over say, a few years, I just have doubts about anarchism on a large scale, a global scale, for more than a few years, if that. That's where I have doubts.

    If the succeeding of the Spanish Revolution is a necessity for anarchism in current days to you, well I'm sorry to say, but that's just not how it works.

    But it didn't succeed, well, at least not more than a while. I'm not saying the spanish revolution needs to be a necessesity, I'm saying that proof of anarchism's effectiveness would help. People are skeptics.

    Relying on blind faith has proven to be idiocy. People will not risk it all for an anarchistic society, unless they are sure it is worth it, or if there is no other alternative. What needs to be proven is that Anarchism is worth fighting for, and to do that, you need to irradiate any and all fears and doubts that such a society would fail. If everyone believes Anarchism to be foolish and a pipedream, there will be no Anarchist revolution and we will not know whether it'd succeed.

    You need to convince people that your way is the right way. An anarchistic world will not sustain itself unless there are anarchists. You need to make every, or almost everyone into an anarchist. See what I'm saying?


    Imagine anarchists in the 19th century needed such proof, then we'd still be waiting for the Spanish Revolution.

    Anarchists in the 19th century believed, key word there, believed, faithfully that Anarchism was worth fighting for, and it was a lot better option than a fascist dictatorship. They believed they would have a more comfortable life under anarchism, and they did for a time.

    Not everyone today is under the threat of fascism and not everyone believes faithfully that anarchism is worth fighting for because the majority of people don't believe anarchism is even possible. Just because you think something is impossible, doesn't mean it is, but the majority views it so out of the scope of reality that they're not really willing to try. You need to convince them that it is the better alternative. You need to make the people of the world into anarchists.

    Anarchism is in the first place a conviction.

    The world doesn't run souly on convictions and beliefs. We are in the age of science and reason. Science and reason rule above faith and conviction. Morals and ethics are fine, blind faith/conviction, however, is useless. Unless you use something like a religion or some bullshit, or brainwash people, not everyone is going to believe in what you preach. Remember that you are combating nearly the entire world, who have been brainwashed to believe that capitalism is the be all to end all systems.

    Capitalism is a hungry giant and to take it on, Anarchism needs to become a giant as well.

    Remember that I'm not talking about a city, or a small section of country here, but the entire world. You want to completely get rid of capitalism, and convert the ENTIRE earth to anarchism: not an easy take. Converting a single country, or section of a country: much easier task, assuming that country isn't the leading world power and major advocate for capitalism, as the USA is. And assuming outside forces don't crush you and conquer you like what happened during the spanish revolution.

    It is also a reality. There's anarchism all around us, in your family, with your buddies, in non-profit organisations, in squats, in liberated spaces, at Reclaim the Streets, ... Though the Spanish Revolution is a powerfull propaganda tool, I think these modern examples of anarchism are a better motivation for an anarchist.

    I'm not questioning work places and small groups. Those groups want anarchism. What would happen if a group wanted to take over another group, or there was infighting within the group or disagreements? What if those disagreements were enough to divide everyone or incite rioting?

    I'm not suggesting this'd happen, but these are the same fear people in capitalist countries such as the USA have about alternative systems to capitalism. They're afraid of Anarchism because they believe that not everyone can handle that much freedom, power, and responsibility. They do not believe that everyone will agree with each other.

    If the world is made up of anarchists, then no problem, everyone agrees with each others ideals, but right now everyone is mostly capitalist, with a few socialists, communists, and anarchists sprinkled in here and there, and there's no guarantee that somewhere down the line someone is going to change their mind, or want to control everyone and everything, or just can't stand being wrong.

    It's the egomaniacs and power/warmongers that are a threat to anarchism. If anarchism is to work, everyone has to go along with it, everyone has to agree, and everyone has to be content with the fact that they are never going to be better than anyone else.

    Everyone essentially has to get along, and if someone disagrees, they MUST agree to disagree. If a fight breaks out, someone says "fuck you, i'm right, you're wrong, that's it, I'm kicking your ass" well then the whole system fails.

    You have to first dispell those fears, then once an anarchist society takes hold, you have to make sure that everyone gets along and behaves well and that no exploitation or manipulation takes place. You essentially have to remake all of humanity as we know it now under the capitalist system.

    Eliminate want, need, manipulation, eliminate all "i'm better than you"'s all "you suck"'s all "i can't stand not to be right"'s, all thoughts related to such things. Not easy. The reason anarchism works on a small scale is because everyone agrees and gets along, but what if everyone didn't get along?

    And that's why capitalist society doubts anarchism. Not because it's not possible, but because they don't believe it is possible, and they, like me, have doubts. I would love for anarchism to work on a large scale, but until I see proof of that, I'm just going to have to be entertained with the possibilities of anarchism on a small-to medium scale. As they say, afterall, seeing is believing. As is such for the rest of society.

    • Kobrin said...
    • User
    • 7 Feb 2009, 09:22
    There is, in my opinion, no such thing as "anarchism on grand scale" and there will never be. Grand scale, that implies centralisation. An anarchist society will not build an architectural world miracle like the Eiffel Tower or the Big Ben (atleast not before everyone is properly fed). Anarchism is a small-scale system. That's why it needs no "proof in practice" because on that small scale, it is omnipresent. The state, the capitalists and the media just ignore it.

    Next time you walk through your town, try to look at it from an anarchist perspective. Look for the painted A's. Look for the grafitti. Look for the squats. Search for infoshops, food not bombs, bike collectives, ... They may not be visible, but they are there. Anarchists are everywhere they are needed. They aren't needed on the news headlines, or in the speeches of BH Obama. They are needed siding the poor and the oppressed, and you will see that's where they are. Regardless of wether it's Bush or Obama governing, wether it's good economic times or bad one's, regardless of recognition, slander, and numbers. We will not wait till we have millions before we act. When 2 anarchists meet, they will act, hoping others will follow their example. That's why, regardless of the question wether one day autority will be abolished or not, anarchism will always exist. Even if I were to know it is a hopeless cause, I would continue fighting for it, because it is the one thing that gives my life sense in this shitworld.

    "We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom. " - May '68
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 8 Feb 2009, 04:28
    Anarchism is everywhere!

    When people are waiting in supermaket queues, Anarchism is there; they keep in line voluntarily.

    When people throw paper tissues in street bins, Anarchism is there; they could throw it anywhere without coercion whatsoever.

    When people give money to a NGO, Anarchism is there.

    When people clean their dog's shit on the street, Anarchism is there.

    When people choose to ride a bike to be ecological, Anarchism is there.

    When people leave tips, Anarchism is there.

    When people contribute to Wikipedia, Anarchism is there.


    Anarchism is everywhere. Most of the social acts we see everyday are performed without coercion -at all-. No policeman is ordering you to stop at red light -- but you do, because you are intelligent and you know you must do it.

    Try to write down how many of your daily acts are performed under coercion or threatening. I can only think of those related to job. Like Bob Black suggests, I think modern workplaces are among the most fascist structures ever created by man.

  • Kobrin said:
    There is, in my opinion, no such thing as "anarchism on grand scale" and there will never be. Grand scale, that implies centralisation. An anarchist society will not build an architectural world miracle like the Eiffel Tower or the Big Ben (atleast not before everyone is properly fed). Anarchism is a small-scale system. That's why it needs no "proof in practice" because on that small scale, it is omnipresent. The state, the capitalists and the media just ignore it.

    Next time you walk through your town, try to look at it from an anarchist perspective. Look for the painted A's. Look for the grafitti. Look for the squats. Search for infoshops, food not bombs, bike collectives, ... They may not be visible, but they are there. Anarchists are everywhere they are needed. They aren't needed on the news headlines, or in the speeches of BH Obama. They are needed siding the poor and the oppressed, and you will see that's where they are. Regardless of wether it's Bush or Obama governing, wether it's good economic times or bad one's, regardless of recognition, slander, and numbers. We will not wait till we have millions before we act. When 2 anarchists meet, they will act, hoping others will follow their example. That's why, regardless of the question wether one day autority will be abolished or not, anarchism will always exist. Even if I were to know it is a hopeless cause, I would continue fighting for it, because it is the one thing that gives my life sense in this shitworld.


    Y'know, I believe your spirit and enthusiasm alone makes me support your cause. Hey, at least you're doing good in the world, and following your own path. I wish everyone was able to govern and carry themselves as you are. Perhaps even if anarchism isn't visible, it's alive in the hearts of every person.

    The libertarian, the activist, the working class American, the reformer, the protester, the individual, the collective society, the underground, the counterculture. I see what you are getting at. In your description even people like myself are Anarchists. What you've said makes a lot sense and bears deep in my soul.

    If anything, you've made me reflect on myself and the world around. I never saw it from that point of view before. I'll have to think about this some more, but what you've just said seems to make sense to me. I'm going to stick around here a bit longer. You guys are very interesting and I'm learning quite a bit from you.

    Perhaps Anarchism is more about living one's life free of governship, than trying to make society as a whole convert to Anarchism. Now it seems more like a lifestyle, in which case even with government in place, Anarchism still exists. In that case, I would be an Anarchist because I live my own life, follow my own rules, and create my own experiences, despite the fact that the government may rule over my society and create laws for me.

    Say there are laws in place that you break because you feel they are wrong. Are you unfree because you're forbidden to do them, or are you absolutely free because no matter what, you do it anyway? There was a saying I heard once, I believe it was from Martin Luther King, tho I could be wrong, but it went something like,"tho they have locked us up, and imprisoned us, we are still free."

    As long as we say no, as long as we speak out, even if our rights are taken away, we are still free, no? Because we speak out. Because we refuse to be governed by unjust laws. That alone would be the spirit of the libertarian, the spirit of the free man, the spirit of the Anarchist. Would you agree with this statement?

    @ESA ES:

    I have never thought of it like that. Come to think of it, if I count the number of non coercive acts, they seem to outnumber the number of required acts. It's amazing how you never notice these things. They're so mundane that nobody usually pays them any mind.

    One thing I always liked about my job is that it is easy and there is little pressure on you. I work at the carnival you see. I rarely get a drug test, at most 2-3 times during the entire year. My job is generally enjoyable and doesn't require much of me. I'm skilled at it(I work in games btw) and it almost feels like a hobby to me. My employer treats me more like a friend than an employee.(hell, the guy even got me flat ass wasted on numerous occasions)

    I typically dislike following orders, but since he's more like a friend to me and takes good care of me it feels less like a job than a humble service. I can definitely agree with you on the whole workplace being very fascist type deal. That's why I definitely prefer my job to working in say, Target or someplace. I get to travel, get out a lot, meet people, and have life experiences every day. I can say with no ego that imo I have the best job ever. It definitely beats working at micky d's.

    • Kobrin said...
    • User
    • 27 Feb 2009, 15:32
    "As long as we say no, as long as we speak out, even if our rights are taken away, we are still free, no? Because we speak out. Because we refuse to be governed by unjust laws. That alone would be the spirit of the libertarian, the spirit of the free man, the spirit of the Anarchist. Would you agree with this statement?"

    I would only partially agree with this statement. Ofcourse, one cannot be an anarchist without speaking up. Any anarchist who complains about all this shit happening, but doesn't go out on the streets, doesn't protest, doesn't think about alternatives, ... is in my eyes a plain hypocrite.
    On the other hand, and here's where I don't agree, speaking up hardly ever changes anything. Would it be enough to speak up against anti-terrorist laws, in order to be free? Surely not, because these laws won't go that way, and the very fact that you oppose them makes you subject to the application of those laws on yourself.
    Basically, I go by the CrimethInc quote that: "we don't have to worry about getting in jail. We're already in. Now start thinking about how to get out!" Our current society is based on this one authoritarian principle, which is a result of history, that the starting point is dictatorship and we have to see from there what authority is undesirable and needs to be abolished. This is a fundamentally wrong thinking, because it necessairly legitimates one form of authority, being the authority that abolishes these other authorities. Thus this one authority can never be abolished if we behave by their rules.
    As an anarchist, my starting point is that there is no such thing as authority. Do I despise all authority? No, not at all. The authority of a parent to watch over a 3 year old who's about to get run over, I do agree with. But any authority must be legimitimated before it is used, and not the other way around.

    As for your other questions: is anarchism more about being free yoruself than about "converting others".

    I'm afraid there is no easy answer to that. What I notice is basically that there are two very divergent opinions on this case, though they can be merged. One is the old, classic anarchism that evolved during the Enlightments and which, just like Marxism, Hitler and others was based on the "power of the masses. This is visible today, to some extent, with anarchosyndicalists, though for as far as I can see in my own anarchosyndicalist group, the power of the number is being withered away.
    This is the stem of anarchism that leads to propaganda, talking to people, explaining our goals, ... This is more than simple conversion though, what I have learned is that anarchism cannot be 'taught'. Marxists tend to convert with the Manifesto in the hand, but for anarchism this simply does not go because our very ideas oppose it and thus it would be totally ineffective. The anarchist way of propaganda is to show the way and open the mind.

    The other strain of anarchism, which is in America being practiced by CrimethInc (and sometimes taken too far to the extreme in my opinion) is the "unpatient" strain. These people no longer really believe in a revolution, or surely don't actively work for it. Anarchism has existed for 200 years now, and only in Spain 36 have people for a short while experienced anarchism en masse. CrimethInc-type anarchists decide to wait no longer and create their own little anarchys through squatting, guerilla planting and many other things. They care not about numbers neither, because numbers are a sort of dependency, and anarchism is about independence.

    I consider myself on the borderline between both, like many contemporary anarchists. I refuse to believe in a revolution, because such a belief tends to make us lazy. It leads to delegation as in "others will make the revolution, i simply have to wait". But when I write, I do use revolutionary rhetoric, because it is a rhetoric that appals much more and that sort of displays all of the emotionality that is surely present in anarchism. But I try to engage myself also in things like guerilla planting, getting less dependant on the system, promoting anarchism in actual life. The way I see it, this is revolution aswell. A personal one.

    "We want nothing of a world in which the certainty of not dying from hunger comes in exchange for the risk of dying from boredom. " - May '68
    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 28 Feb 2009, 03:38
    Take a read at the Raoul Vaneigem's book "The revolution of everyday life". It's a source of inspiration for me. Revolution starts in your own mind and then expands outside, it doesn't work the other way around. Free your mind and everything else will follow.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 7 Mar 2009, 21:54
    Of course, anarchism always starts in your mind. But people are not equal in their points of view or expectations of an anarchist order. So it always needs organisation and of course something like direct action - for example FAU ORGANISATION with it`s workers solidary movement to annul the whole capitalist system (whenever that will be possible) - that means, people must see, that anarchism isn`t, what "democratic power structures", media or conservatives/right winged scum are telling. It`s a product, that people consume as fear. The capitalist system can`t exist without constructing fears and selling safety. So everything outside the so called democratic and capitalist consensus is a perfect product to deal with the fear of people. So the unknown (anarchist order) must be brought into the centre of the capitalist system - in a constructive and positiv way - be constructive to be destructiv;)

    (sorry for my bad english)

  • the problem is the anarchists.
    or it was your vague answer. And I don't "...know...it's the answer", but I know you think so now. You have such a narrow view from within a civilized mind set that for us to argue would be fruitless. You'll continue shaking the stick of reform, taxes, reform, etc. and I'll always advocate the destruction of all forms of civilized life from simple agrarian systems to modern post-industrial technocracies..

    "But people are not equal in their points of view or expectations of an anarchist order"


    And you make this assumption on all your vast knowledge of anarchist societies you've studied, right?
    Anarchy, isn't a system. Anarchy (NOT "Anarchism") are nothing alike. Ideologies are not to be chased after. Improving the world means getting rid of the current one.
    it takes one man to destroy this world.
    no more no less.
    none of this "lets huddle nonsense" united you fail, divide you thrive.
    So, reply, ignore, whatever.




    The dwarf says:"gender-nuetral pronouns"

    "Id rather tea bag a pot of boiling water"

    Stan: "You like paddle boats?"
    Guy: "Yes, they remind me of a simpler time when white males had ALL of the power and not just most of it."
    Stan: "I know I hate how we just have MOST of it."

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 13 Apr 2009, 06:46
    The lack of destruction of existing structures is a hinderance towards Anarchism. It is pointless bemoaning bourgeois slander or trying to convince people of this, that or the other. Action is what is called for, it doesn't matter how small or insignificant you may think it is or think it will be percieved or is percieved! FUCK THEM. Do it inspite of them.

    Here's to the revolutionary critique of space-time existing banalities.

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 13 Apr 2009, 20:06
    "The strength of the government rests not with itself, but with the people. A great tyrant may be a fool, and not a superman. His strength lies not in himself, but in the superstition of the people who think that it is right to obey him. So long as that superstition exists it is useless for some liberator to cut off the head of tyranny; the people will create another, for they have grown accustomed to rely on something outside themselves."

    • [Deleted user] said...
    • User
    • 13 Apr 2009, 21:04
    What do you propose to do with the police and army? Set-up alternative forces? Use propaganda against these institutions (and potential recruits)? Peaceful organised protest? It doesn't fucking work (or is not allowed) or get you too far. I will take a recent example: The current G20 protests in London there was a completely peaceful demonstration, 'a climate camp'. People erected tents in the city and were away from other 'militant' protests (which were not very militant, theres more trouble on saturday afternoons at the football). Despite the police saying they would not use force if the climate protest were peaceful when some hours passed and the mainstream tv went away (BBC) the police moved in in typical fashion and fucked everything up, used (state) violence. Naturally the BBC, the main news source in the UK didn't cover these later events. But they don't just hide things they run a horrible bias and gloss over the whole events. One man died during the protests shortly after being pushed over by a police man completely unprovoked and from behind. Will anything change in light of all of this, no? Why? We all know why, the existing state will not allow it, it's not in their interest is it.

Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.