In a voluntaryist society, those who were opposed to market economies would have every right to go form their own socialist paradise elsewhere. Meanwhile, most of the "true" anarchists seem to want to coerce anyone who wants to live in a capitalist society into living in their shitty commune. Anarcho-syndicalism sounds pretty much like mob rule and doesn't seem that different from statism. Mutualism is cool though.
No Walls! is a benefit project to support Anarchists Against the Wall (AATW): direct action group that was established in 2003 in response to the construction of the wall Israel is building on Palestinian land in the Occupied West Bank. The group works in cooperation with Palestinians in a joint popular struggle against the occupation.
We are searching for bands of every music genre that support the resistance of plaestinian and israeli civilans to the apartheid.
Please, send to us a WAV, AIFF or FLAC file, people can download the compilation "No Walls!" by donating what they do. Comp will be here http://nowalls.bandcamp.com/
Dead line: 14th April
Duration between 1m to 5m approximately
Money will be donated to http://www.awalls.org/
"ideologies can't be "empirically observed"" You hit the nail on the head. This is exactly why ideology for ideology's sake is stupid. I was debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of implementing anarchism as an actual political system, but it seems that the community here are only interested in ideological fantasies. Well fantasies are fine, but why take them seriously? Ideological extremism is no different to the religious dogma that I imagine so many of you despise. Returning to a quote; "that's never existed, so to claim that it's bad is dogmatic.". Well I never claimed an ideology was 'bad', but to claim it is good and let it influence your behaviour and attitude towards others in life IS dogmatic. Now I love listening to the odd bit of crust when I'm in a particularly anarchistic mood, but I don't have the audacity nor the simple-mindedness to actively support an ideology which is likely never to exist and of which any real world approximation has been utterly disastrous.
Noo-Dog doesn't know a single thing about anarchy (or reasoning). / strawman. anarchists believe anarchy to be the absence of authority (which obviously includes tyrants), not just govts. that's never existed, so to claim that it's bad is dogmatic. / empirical observation means an experiment must be controlled for variables, replicable and measurable. ideologies can't be "empirically observed".
Finally, I'd like to address the point you made that "Anarchy has to be global,it hasn't worked because something outside of the community fucked it up". I think that you're right - if anarchism was really to work in the way most anarchists hope it would, it would not only have to be global, but everyone would have to share the same views and intentions of the proponents of anarchy so as not to exploit the lack of governance to their own advantage. However, this is an incredibly utopian concept, and simply unrealistic, hence I really don't see this as a valid defence of Anarchism as a political view point. As a purely academic ideology, Anarchism sounds great. Then again, look at all the other ideas that sounded great in the past: Marxism, the Zimbabwe African National Union, Zionism along with the Palestine Mandate. I think in more recent times a good example is the Arab Spring. Already we are starting to see that things are worse in Egypt.
Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, overly-authoritarian regimes usually doom themselves to more primitive existences as well - look at what happened in Cambodia. However it seems that some degree of authoritarianism can actually encourage productivity - look at the significant advancements that both Japan and Germany made during WWII. Now I'm not saying these regimes were good, advancement vs primitivism is not the only qualitative measures of a system of governance. Though as someone who grew up in capitalistic society as you were so keen to point out, I do value advancement, and I think a system of government should at least be strong enough to encourage its citizens to cooperate with and value each other, treat others with respect and not violate human or property rights.
I did have reasoning behind my argument, and it seems that you disagree, which is fine. However, I take exception to the ad hominem attacks and statements like "Noo-Dog doesn't know a single thing about anarchy.", which is just silly, because 'Anarchism' (I use this instead of 'Anarchy' which is not the political viewpoint, just a word that means lawlessness) is a political viewpoint that, just like every other political viewpoint, thousands of people debate its interpretation and meaning every day. You might not agree with my interpretation of it but I have come across it honestly trough reading and speaking to people who are either proponents or opponents of anarchism. Furthermore, I agree that there is no absolute reason that Anarchy would necessarily lead to primitivism, but as you said growing up in a capitalistic society has allowed me to make the empirical observation that in reality the more a nation tends towards anarchism, the more primitive the lives of its inhabitants are.
No,anarcho capitalism was made up by capitalists.It's not anarchism it's psuedo bull shit.Anarchism calls for the destruction of Capitalism, Because Capitalism causes competition and greed, and provides a platform for coercive hierarchy.Noo-Dog doesn't know a single thing about anarchy.Anarchy has to be global,it hasn't worked because something outside of the community fucked it up, generally.But he is somewhat correct about not choosing the sytem.There is no plan to achieve anarchy, unlike something like Communism(Marxism).And anarchists don't consider themselves leftist.They'reessentially Jeffersonian Democrats I think.There's no reason why having no government or coercive hierarchy should automatically be considered a bad idea.Being so closed-minded and assuming life would be primitive or something is purely an expression of the effect growing up in a capitalist society has on you.Read up and THEN come back here to be an asshole,when you actually have reasoning behind your argument.
Anarcho-socialism makes just as little sense as Anarcho-capitalism. Anarchism with any qualification is a stupid contradiction - if you want anarchy, you can't choose the system anymore - sure you can make suggestions under your new powers of free speech, but that isn't guaranteeing anything. In reality you're most likely going to get a mix of socially benevolent and co-operative cliques, tribes led by warlords, reclusive profiteers, and a bunch of less resourceful/intelligent people who are forced to live a primitive existence. Not to mention all the foreign intervention and corruption. Owait isn't this Africa? Yeah lets live there guys. Hey I'm all for individualism and limiting the oppression of the state, but proclaiming that having no system is a good idea and then arguing about what system you should have with other people who have made the same proclamation makes about as much attention-seeking pseudo-leftist sense as becoming a vegan after listening to an album by the smiths.
Since I know one of these bands and since all the people of this shoutbox know a shit about politics (damn how stupid must somebody be to confuse anarchism with anarchy...) I'd assume "anarcho-punk" is totally shit...
Crass is corrupted now by Steve Ignorant who is with a band with no original members of crass and charging big money for shows! He has become commercial! Which is the exact opposite of anarchy. Dont give in to coporate shit! Like Steve Ignorant! The old crass was anarchist! But now Steve Ignorant just to make money! Its a Trick!