Let's talk about anarchy

So... go for it.
And I'm not talking about hoodlums who stir up shit at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. I'm talking about real anarchy: where people are in charge of themselves and their actions/choices. (as we all are anyway, whether we recognize it or not)
Are you an anarchist? Why, or why not?

it's just another ism, happens whenever people need a label for
their particular viewpoints... the moment they've agreed on what
opinions shall be acceptable they choose a flag and rally behind
it. frankly i'm not impressed.

Men cannot live in peace together. 5000 years of human history has shown us that.
Anarchy might as well be re-named Social Darwinism because that is what it would lead to.

>>3
Wrong.
There have been many extended eras of peace in the past 5,000 years. The wars are just more memorable.

Hello. Before i go into anarchy I will say what anarchy is not: Anarchy is not the absence of an organized society. Anarchy is not the absence of law (laws in anarchy are made by the community). Anarchy is not the absence of a market (this differs in some schools of thought).

Also i need to say that i'm not realy an anarchist as i couldn't say i completely agree with any specific school of thought. On top of this, even if i did agree with a specific version of anarchy, I still wouldn't say I'm an anarchist because I do not have set ideas. I see my thought as evolving and cannot limit it to a specific worldview.

 I do find anarchy realy fascinating as a political theory. I see it as the evolution of democracy or to be precice, I see it as THE REAL FORM OF DEMOCRACY. Where people don't vote for pepresentatives, they vote by expressing their opinions on an issue, listening to other peoples opinions and decide unanimusly(where possible). This is also called direct democracy. In this sence: Anarchist = Extreme Democrat.

Anarchists do not recognise states and borders. They are anti-statists. They see all people as equals despite sex, race, language, sexual preferences, or anything else you can name.

Personaly I would like people to have a say on issues that concearn them and affect them. I hate other people deciding what's best for me. I am not an oppressive person and I would like to see an end to human oppression and exploitation. I see the states, religion and the banks as the source of human misery. They do their best to keep us dumb, numb and poor or living on loans. I see the corporations and the power they hold as a perversion of democracy (monsanto, haliburton, BP, you name it...).

Finaly, I am not a revolutionary. I believe the best way to change the world is to think ahead of your time and render today's world old.

>>4
Funny how the era's of peace always end in wars, huh?

>>5
Right. Anarchy is the absence of laws. Try suspending laws and see how long society lasts.
If you think Anarchy can win the day just on the goodwill of men in relation to one another, then I think you are are talking about pure Communism, ya know, like living in a commune..

>>6
LOL: funny how the wars always end, and people go back to living peacefully, innit? (see what I did there?)
Also: funny how you obviously read NOTHING 5 said before you responded.

>>7
I agree about not agreeing completely with any system of thought (ha!). Kind of an anarchistic point of view, though. :)
Only thing is: I feel like the US is too big for this style: small communities seem to work better. But a loose confederation of small communities...
Nomination for best utopian anarchist book: The Dispossessed.

>>5's post is nonsense.
He talks about mob rule being the best system. Rubbish.

>>8
Try to actually read posts before you respond to them.
>>5 said nothing of the sort.

>>7
"I feel like the US is too big for this style: small communities seem to work better."

You are thinking from the top to the bottom. Try seeing it from the bottom to the top. I mean, there is no such thing as the US from an anarchist perspective - Anarchists do not recognise states and borders. There are thousands if not millions of communities around the world and instead of governing themselves democraticaly, decisions are dictated 'from above'. Same happens in the EU and the rest of the world prety much.
 I don't believe it is possible to reach anarchy by trying to overthrow a government. I think the 'wise' way to go would be to strenghthen the community, make collectives, syndicates, workers unions etc.

 Personally I'm experimenting on a business model where there are no employees, only co-owners who work together and decide on company strategies through open dialogue, reason and common sense. We are also in partnership with other collectives that form a loose network. We support each other in many ways. For example we buy and sell to each other at special rates, we exchange business links and information freely and generally we prety much control a small market from the farmers to the consumers (us that is). The nice thing is that the more people consuming, the more people you need producing. This provides employment in a market we (loosely) control internaly and it is gaining momentum. We stil have to obey state laws but building a strong community fabric gives birth to many movements. I don't deny I'm a dreamer but I have seen this work.

>>8 I am also interested in microfinancing and no-interest lending. I don't keep much money on me, I lend it on people i've come to trust, they make a profit and then they return the original capital back. The doors this has openned up has more than paid for the few times i didn't get my money back. You would be surprised by how much stuff i get for free anyway :p

>>7
PS. I haven't read the Dispossessed but i looked it up and realized it was written by ursula le guin. She's a fucking awesome writter.

PS2 Most traditional anarchists would frown at me for many reasons but mainly for my interest in bussiness models). Don't take my views as anarchistic as the DON'T represent what you would call 'Anarchy'.

The refference to >>8 is wrong. I was refering to myself but he posted first.

>>5
said "Pure Democracy" is the way to go. That's MOB RULE.

>>8 has clearly beaten you.

Yeah, >>9.
The shame you must feel must be overwhelming.

MOB RULE is ochlocracy, not anarchy (mob rule is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy ). Ochlocracy is a lawless crowd - with no organization. In ancient greek 'ochlos' and 'demos' (the root words for oclocracy and democracy) are the possitive and negative words to describe a group of people. 'Demos' is all inclussive and it suggests that all citizens patricipate equaly. 'Ochlos' is diffenent in that it suggests a large group of people and not the whole of the communty. It gets its negative hue because it suggests the lack of organized decission making, therefore as a a system it has no facilities for any kind of judicial system and therefore it is unfair and it cannot serve the interests of the community at large.

 A good example of ochlocracy was the Athens - December '08 riots. I lived it and even though we tried our best to set up councils and help organize and direct the people, we failed hard. That was because in a spontaneous revolt as it was there is no common ground. Everyone expresses their anger at each other and the state and serves their own selfish motives. Ochlocracy is bound to self destruct within a very short time frame as it completely lacks stability and justice.

 Even if you confuse this with anarchy, i never supported such a system.

>>14
But if there's organization then that means there is a government so it's not anarchy.

>>15
Are you sugesting that there is no organization without a government?

Ochlocracy sounds intriguing.  I think something like that might work quite well.  I'm not really an anarchist, though, and my ideal large scale government would be something like the Roman Republic.  A more or less parlimentary system that has no head of state and is more or less volentary -- if the parliment goes too far, you can pull out and go it alone.  I suppose that might be what we in modern times call a confederacy, though even Dixie had a head of state. 

I've never seen a large society without laws, but I think the laws should be limited.

How will you enforce the system of anarchy? What if some group becomes powerful and starts conquering other groups?

>>16
Yes.

People are going to have disagreements that can't be resolved by talking it out, even within families or between friends this is difficult. So there will be disagreements which will either escalate into violence, one party will back down during negotiation or there is a greater power that mediates between the 2 parties and has final say.

There is no way around it, this is logically airtight.

>>19
You are so black and white. What an absolutist. Your "logically airtight" argument holds no water because you cannot prove a negative.
I say it IS possible to have an organization which works without government.
So: impassse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUpcuM95t5M

>>20
It is "possible" in the same way freak occurrences at the quantum level are theoretically possible on a larger scale but only have a ridiculously low chances of happening, like 1/10^50.

After doing some risk assessment I've decided that anarchism is not a responsible course of action.

I think it is possible but not directly. I believe the problem lies within the people themselves. Most people have never even imagined what it would be like if they took control of their own lives.

I think the anarchy might prevail someday not because of the actions of the anarchist, but because of the downfall of neoliberalism. I believe the series of crises has done more to promote anarchy than anarchists could ever imagine to achieve.

I live in Greece and we have a long history of anarchist struggles. I am really surprised to see old people turn to anarchy as a means to dissaprove of the corrupt political system. I have heard really extreme views from sweet old granies who had their pentions cut in order to pay for the massive public debt.

Therefore my conclusion is that an anarchistic society - although hard to imagine - is possible because of the failure of capitalism to provide stability. I see it more as a need than a choice.

I'm sure I sound like an idiot to many Americans, but that's only because the US is the only country in the world that has had continuous growth for such a long time. Still, those Americans that had their houses and property taken away for debts, those who were fired and those living under bridges might find my words somewhat different than those who have managed to maintain their standards of life.

................................................................

In my opinion capitalism creates an imbalance that will bring it's downfall sooner or later. The rich get richer (and less in number), while the poor get even poorer(and rise in number). This imbalance is bound to make the world tip over at some point with terrible consequences. Anarchy is too far ahead for today's world. Still, the experience of today's anarchists might be really valuable in the future and in the absence of capitalism.

PS. May I return the question? Do you guys believe that capitalism and the globalized neoliberalism can provide a peacefull environment for the world to enjoy and prosper in the long run?

Since anarchy is a really misunderstood subject, I give you a link to a really good archive.

http://flag.blackened.net/

You might find the Anarchist FAQ as a good place to start, although i urge you to read some complete books. Especialy Malatesta, kropotkin, proudhon etc.

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Anarchy is nonsense.
It's retarded to think it would work.

>>25
Ok, but how retarded is it to think that capitalism is not destructive? Does representative democracy work?

 The funny thing is that the Anonymous work in a way that's even more unrestricted than anarchy. There is no central authority, no set rules, no meetings. Still they are very effective. This realy intrigues me and makes me think that there are other ways of organisation that have not been studied properly. I'm talking about the 'hive mind'.

Statist political structures are pyramid like (see dolar bill). Anarchist political structures are flat. I can imagine 'hive mind' type organizational structures as neuron networks where the re-organization of the 'cells' through constant feedback provides a usefull result in the long ran. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network)

>>26
The problem is that the hivemind only works for shits and giggles.

only reason it wouldn´t work is because even if "most people" have good intentions and are what you call good people, there will always be someone who takes advantage of the situation for personal gain.

people will figure out how to beat the system even if there is none.

>>28 "people will figure out how to beat the system even if there is none."

Now that a quote!

BUT what's the point of having a system when we're going to beat it anyway? Some form of mazochism i guess...

the only thing that needs to be said about anarchism is that their ideology revolves around the presumption that the magics of socialism make it so that there is no more conflict among the people and thus no more crime or need to police one another.
how fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that?

Against

Because normal people don't work towards the betterment of man kind, they work towards the benefit of themselves.There are alot of laws that I think are pointless & useless, but there are ones that matter. Laws such as laws that prevent companies from polluting my town with hazardous wastes to save money rather than being regulated by a governing body. Obviously also laws that protect people from stealing & committing acts of violence are important as well to the majority.

We can just say that we will leave it up to the community to protect ourselves from these things happening, but that security seems like wishful thinking to me.

>>30
I'm retarded enough to think that the way capitalism is leading the world is disasterous. I'm retarded enough to try to find an alernative before I become some banker's bitch. I'm retarded enough to have a desire to think and decide for myself. Yes, I'm very retarded. But i have a strange feeling that retards like me will be there with a plan when this system fails.

>>32
So your cure for a mildly corrupt society is some kind of kierkegaardian leap of faith to try and achieve absolute perfection? This is the political equivalent of throwing a hissy fit, it's irresponsible and won't accomplish anything, in fact it might make things worse since emotional people are easy to exploit and people who are trying to make the world a better place are less skilled at appealing to emotion than those who are in it for personal gain.

If you had done some logical impartial objective analysis you would realize capitalism is simply the state of economic autonomy, it does not cause corruption, it simply reveals it. Do you really expect Castro and his junta to quantify their wealth and allow it to be compared with the people they exploit? The problem with our evil corporations is that they get a fuckton of privileges, tax codes and subsidies in their favor, nothing to do with the free market, despite this evil corporations still do a lot of good by exploiting the 3rd world because in doing so they develop these countries economically and generate the social conditions for political liberalization.

Ironically the best course towards a stateless classless society in which the means of production are owned collectively and run for the greater good of sentient life is to fall in line behind our glorious multi-national corporations, I've seen anarchists in black shirts and red ties, I know you secretly think global capitalism would be awesome. Time to be more conformist and obedient.

>>33
I guess we are anonymous and you don't know which of the previous posts are mine. a)I'm not an anarchist (close tho) b)I don't think we can switch to anarchy just like that.

Now, capitalism is not a state of economic autonomy for the majority of the people(let alone THE state of economic autonomy). Try telling that to somebody who was fired from his job, he couldn't pay his house loan and now lives under a bridge or in a trailer park if he's lucky. You can't say that somebody is economicaly autonomous when stock markets collapse and without having done anything wrong hee ends up living on the street. That's just plain wrong.

The problem with the 'evil' corporations is that they exceed many countries in economic surface and through corruption and dirty politicians they shape world policy (GMOs, H1N1 etc.). If you look at corporations as persons (in law), they are trully fucked up people that should be behind bars, not shaping high level policy. So what we see here is that the thing that gave birth to capitalism, the nation/state is devoured by it's own child. Especialy for you americans that fought a war for independence, it should be a shame to see the freedoms you fought for (and passed to others) taken away from this globalized monster.

Finally, how can you talk about a stateless CLASSLESS society under capitalism? Is there no "rulling class" in capitalist societies? I'm sorry but I can see the exact opposite. In either case, that's not the kind of society i would like to live in. It sounds like Gattaka, matrix and 1984 all in one. Fucking scary shiT!

Those who prefer anarchy are invited to move to Somalia to put their ideas into practice.  The people there apparently prefer even brutal, repressive, medieval Sharia law to anarchy, but what do they know?

>>35 Plus it its easier to take down an armed chieftain than the fucking pentagon.

>>34
lol commie spotted. The hardship of the average man has to do with deliberate policy carried out by government to destroy the middle class and drive up prices of everything.

Niggers/mexicans don't count as they aren't americans nor even human.

>>35
And here's the typical statist with the "go live in a shitty communist ruled niggerland if you don't' like our treachery and lunacy!"

Honestly, if you look back towards history, there has never really been a large scale anarchist society that was successful, and only a few small scale anarchist societies where successful, like the Icelandic Commonwealth for example. Nearly every other type of government had something in place similar to what we would call a "mixed economy" these days.

>>38
True. But I can see experience adding up and some degree of evolution. I'm not an expert on the issue but i think that a lot has changed from the parisian commune to the zapatistas. I find this encouraging as it keeps this ideology lively and up to date in contrast to traditional communism that stil sees 3 classes (elite, middle class, workers). No disrespect to marxists, but the economy is now globalized, they need better tools. States and borders are collapsing (culturaly and economically speaking) and i think that soon we will witness new forms of govermnent - withing our lifespan that is. I mean, already, this system we have (in europe, the US and most countries) as not really representative democracy. It has degraded into something i really can't find a name for (global elitocracy maybe). G8, G20, birlderberg and other international meetings that take place behind closed doors realy bypass national (state) democracies.

 I'm not a fanatic, i'm actually open minded and open to conversation but somehow i have become the devil's advocate in this thread. Partly because I promised I'd answer questions here: http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1295523299/1-40 (37). >>38 talked about mixed economy cases. I find nothing wrong with this as a transitional state or for social experimentation. And since we live in world that evolves really fast due to the technology available, I feel we need to keep an open mind for new forms of government that will guarantee true democratic procedures - even within a state.

But even at a level lower than the state, at municipal level, direct democracy can solve a lot of problems. Partly because it involves the people in the decesion making and nobody knows their problems better than themselves. Partly because when we are involved with something we feel it as our own.

PS. Never heard of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Sounds interesting.

The problem with a "true or direct" Democracy is that you would have to scrap your countries Constitution and Bill of Rights, if your country has them.
The will of the people can infringe on the rights of others in a true democracy.
Case in point: The people of California voted by 70% to keep gay marriage banned in their state. A Federal judge overturned it with the stroke of a pen because, even though it's what the majority wanted, it was an infringement on the rights of others.

>>40 Nice point. Is the constitution in your country practiced properly? Because I come from greece and the constitution here, although fair at most points is used to give politicians immunity from prosecution. Also politicians interpret it at will and the church is not seperated from the state. So, you see, YOUR constitution in Your country may beabided by but here something needs to be done. The politicians have practicaly sold us to germany and mark my words: after the finish liquidating the country they're going to disapear to some tax heaven. Having seen this happen in a 'democratic' country, I see representative democracy as a system with fatal weaknesses to corruption (google up the siemens scandal).

I use greece as an example because this is the country where I've lived most of my life but i think you will find many similarities to other 'second world' countries. My conclusion is that strong economies (not only countries but corporations also), NEED representative democracy in developing countries in order to push their agendas but easily buying politicians. Bypartisanism (the dominance of 2 political parties that alternate in power) is a real weakness in representative democracy because if  someone controls the heads of the two major parties, he controls the country.

>>23
Most people have never even imagined what it would be like if they took control of their own lives.
This doesn't mean anything, you might as well say "if everyone would just make thew world a better place the world would be a better place".


>>24
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
People who disagree with anarchism are not going to ask you text book questions, they are going to look at the practical details and by the looks of it there are none, or they are so sparse there is no point attempting to find them.

You talk of direct democracy but it would be affected by the same corruptive forces as this democracy so essentially there is no difference, you are just another politician asking the public to trust you except one with a worthless sociology degree and no experience or credibility. If you want direct democracy why not simply become direct democrats instead of calling yourselves hardcore stalinist anarchists?

>>42
I'm not a missiorary mate. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm answering questions to the best of my knowledge and expressing my views and concearns. It's up to you and everyone else to make up your own minds.

Now, I disagree that direct democracy is as open to corruption as representative democracy. That's because there are more people in charge, so if someone wants to buy influence, it will cost him much more. Also, in direct democracy delegates are instantly recalable. This is very well expressed by the typical zapatista quote: lead by obeying. If a delegate is even thought of being corrupt, it only takes one meeting (and the majority) to replace him with another person.

In athenian democracy, there was a concept called ostracism wher eany citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. This had many uses such as to remove a dodgy person from becoming too powerfull or as a way of defusing major confrontations between rival politicians. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism ). Also, if any money was embezzled, it could be retrieved from the estates of the person in charge. For this reason, athenians prefered to elect rich people to handle money and in case they became corrupt or took advantage of public wealth, their property was made public. By the way the above are not hypothetical, they happened 2500 years ago and where forgoten until the renaisanace when ancient greek scripts where translated to latin(?) and spread fast in europe and from there to the rest of the world. I have only scrapped the surface of ancient greek politics and I'm definately not an expert on it, but it is believed that a lot of the athenian democracy experience that has been saved and translated is still usefull today. Reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy  really raised more questions than it answered.

PS. I didn't raise the issue of athenian democracy because i'm particularly interested in it. I used it because it is very well documented and translated in almost every language and because it is a political system that is still being studied and tought in modern universities.

is this just some anarcho syndicalist page? why would anarchists be against " private property" aquired by non exploitative means?

>>44
Now That's a chalenging question. Most anarchists as far as I know are not (i'm not either). Many are though, so i will attempt to explain why.

The concept of private property has been abused to the point that everything you see outside your window is private property. The planet we all share has been cut into little pieces, sold, bought, exploited. It is actually hard to find an item that is not owned by somebody. This on it's own, as bad as it may sound to some, is not the root of the problem. The actual problem arises from the distribution of private property. The injusticaes that arise from this are immense and they reach the point to exclude people from resources as important as water in some cases. Also we see the amount of public space dramticaly decrease.

 This makes some anarchists feel that the root of the problem is the private property itself. I don't share this view. I don't feel that the abolition of private property would solve many problems in today's world. Maybe in a perfect society made of god-like creature it would be fair but not for any society in today's world other than those that contain this within their culture (I think there have been property-less societies in some tribes of the pacific but i can't remember which ones. anyway, thay must have been alienated into our societies by now). I do believe there should be some control on what should be private property and what should be public, but i wouldn't trust a government to make such laws and enforce them. I would like to see such regulations arise from public assemblies after very long public discussion about what's fail and what's not. Stil i would only abide by those rules f I found them fair myself. For example i want my clothes to be my own and i wouldn't accept any authority (not even a public assembly) to force me to share them. A bit of an extreme example i guess but i used it to show that the true abolition of private property even by an anarchist assebly is totaly unrealistic. Still if I have enough I will gladly share and give things away to people in need like i always do anyway.

Therefore, although I recognize that there are massive problems that arise from private property, I don't believe it should be abolished altogether, rather that there should be regulations that limit what can and what cannot be privatised. For example I would fight with my own life against the privatisation of air (since this would be a life threatening situation anyway)but i do want my personal living space to be private.

And to answer >>44 's question directly, the vast majority of anarchists are not against private property aquired by non exploitative means but some kinds of private property like <u>owning the only source of water in a dessert is exploitative on it's own</u>. There is no distinct line to seperate these two cases. It is up to the people to decide where this line lies. Also you might want to chech you info on anarchosyndicalism again as you seem to have missunderstood what they stand for. Anarchosyndicalists are against private property only for the means of production. Meaning that they want factories and farms to be controlled by the workers. They are not against private property. Please note that anarchosyndicalism is different from collectivist anarchism and from anarcho-communism. Have a look here if you can be bothered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

>>31

But if everyone works for his own benefit, then everyone should be able to get most of what they want, correct?  If I want bread, and you want money, we negotiate and trade to get what we want.  It won't be 100% of what I want, because you really want me to just hand over my money and not give me bread, and I want you to give me the bread without my having to give you any money.  What happens in negotiations between individuals or groups is that you essentially "trade" what you have for what you want.  I might be perfectly willing to abide by your rules, provided that I get something valueable to me in return.  I obey my boss, in return I get money and health insurance and so on. 

I guess the best way to think of Anarchy is to read up on game theory.  That's about the best working model I can point to.

>>45
I appreciate the response
I personally consider myself anarchist/ left leaning libertarian and most  certainly I am not for abolition of private property
I also understand the problems inherent in these vast swaths of land " being owned" by super elite that for the most part acquired the ability to get that land via coercion( state takes it and gives it to people...or the state gives them subsidies in some manner from money stolen from the tax payer)
 much of the historical development of "capitalism" has been  in areas under mercantilist and corporatist dominance, where power elite used wealth and the state hand in hand to dominate and assimilate other economies
this is the " capitalism" that is so rightfully scorned



also thanks for the link about syndicalism, i tend to meet so many " syndicalists" that are just communist that i tend to forget the difference, which is *sigh* ignorant of me

where it is far more akin to " anarchism with social responsibility"

>>47
I have only started reading your stuff and I like PLZ more liek this!
Its liek a breath of freash air THX The repuklicans have been stinking up the place!

>>47

thanks dude

so many "pro capitalists" dont even see the destructive force behind the corporate states and gasp* FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM*

they think that shit is the " free market"
and then wonder why socialists hate " the free market"

>>47
Anarcho-syndicalists are quite rare to find - even in countries with strong anarchist movements - but they are very very effective in protecting workers' rights. A group of them helped my gfriend when her employer fired her and wasn't giving her wages that he owed her. The threat that a bunch of anarchists will block off his business and inform everyone about his practices worked really well. Especialy since he was aware that if he didn't pay up, he wouldn't mess with the (ineffective) law, but he would mess with a large group of angry anarchists that defy law.

...............................................................
I just looked up libertarianism and I find it quite interesting. It is hard to understand the small details and the differences from some schools of anarchism, but if I get it right, it is a more individualistic approach to a stateless society or a society with minimal state. I wonder what methods you guys use as individualists to fight the system. That's because in europe we tend to have a more mutualist or collectivist approach. Do you form libertarian groups to fight cooperatively or do you not organize in groups. I'm sorry to sound ignorant like this but I'm really trying to understand how individualist anarchism and libertarianism work in theory. I'm not with or against either system, i'm just putting them against each other to understand them properly.

I am not actually for the small state that many minarchists are, I rather use the word libertarian to describe being pro liberty, as well as because I relate to the American Libertarian tradition as embodied in figures liek Adams, Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Ludvidg von Mises, and my absolute favorites Murray Rothbard and Jeff Riggenbach.( Spooner, Rothbard, and Riggenbach are all Anarchists wearing suits :p  who are masters of economics)

I am individualist in that I value the sovereignty of the largest minority( the individual), but as an individual I understand that we are all in this together, and truly must work together in cohesion in order to topple the state and its corporatist/mercantilist arm. To destroy the state we must replace it it with a community effort, which I find greatly embodied in the groups you mentioned, especially the mutualists  I love those guys! Communities must be reforged, charities and social care networks born anew, and the culture must be shifted into one that respects personal and moral responsibility, as well as respects and desires to help their fellow man. ( A desire I have seen in nearly all children until it is wrung out of them by the archons, be they religious, familial, or GASP!THOUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION)

Good examples of Libertarian group efforts in America would be the Ludvig von Mises insitute( MY FAV SOURCE for Economics and History of the Man), New Hamshire's " the free state project", and the American Agorism Movment. I also know many american Agorists/ Libertarians/ Anarchists that work in the manner of the syndicalists you described, and it is  very inspiring.

 Consider this, under many forms individual anarchy, there would would be nothing barring individuals from forming voluntary collectives in the syndicalist and mutualist spirit, and in a true free market I believe that labor will be seen as more valuable and important( and quite possibly one of the most dominant currencies)

For individualist anarchism to truly be workable, it must be a group effort, but a group effort that respects the rights of its individuals. As long as it doesn't involve coercion or deception I am perfectly fine with any sort of communal or individual effort and any new experiment in community organization

I recommend giving a listen or having a read to Rothbard's " For a New Liberty" aka The Libertarian Manifesto
the text and audio book can be found over at the mises website in addition to a plethora of other free materials like books, pdfs, video lectures, blogs, articles, and  readings

"if we want freedom we are going to have to give it away" they say AMEN

There is also a highly active discussion in their forums including  mutualists, syndicalists, individualists, and anarchies of all stripes and colors. I think you would really enjoy it over there

mises.org is their website

oh and here is the link the freestate project if you want to check that out http://freestateproject.org/
we needs a branch in every country ;)

>>54

>> To destroy the State we must replace it with a COMMUNity effort

>>54 is a Communist.

TROLL DETECTED

>>55
no ur rong.
>>52 is not a troll, he is a communist.

anarcho bump

>>55
Individualist communist! That's a new one :p


twat...

>>57 lawl

>>52
I've been looking into the whole libertarian thing and I found it quite interesting. Thanks for the links. As far as i understood the differences from some forms of anarchy are miniscule.

One interesting question: I read in one of the links you gave something about the libertarians being the trird political party in the US. Is this true? How many votes did they get? Also one thing that confuses me - maybe because I'm from europe and I'm used to the european anarchist traditions - how can you participate in state elections if you are anti-state? Isn't it like recognising an institution/regime you are against?

I don't know, maybe it's me getting the point wrong, but it doesn't make sense.

>>59
American libertarians aren't against the state entirely. Their argument generally revolves around "how small should we make government". The only people around here that call for complete abolition of the state are of course, anarchists.

I'm a progressive liberal :)

>>59
Libertarianism and anarchy have NOTHING in common.
Libertarians aren't against the system, they're against the system having more power than the individual.

>>62
Oh, I got it. Thanks.

>>59
actually you have hit on a big divide within the liberty movement here in the states
many look at a vote as supporting the state, even if say, the person elected just voted no for everything except for things that would shrink government( or just no period for that matter)

others advocate a more pluralistic approach where the state my
be dismantled at all levels WHILE simultaneously being replaced with community structures that replace the structures of the state seen as "necessary" with private and community organized equilvalents. ex roads, mass transport, power generation, common law judges etc

personally I could get behind pluralism , especially on the local level, but I find national and provincial politics to be a joke and waste of time. this bullshit has to be a ground up change

libertarianism is not synonymous with the libertarian party, but there is a libertarian party here in the states
libertarians arnt even allowed to run in every state of the u.s., as us politics are controlled by the 2 parties, so the turn out is pretty pitiful.
in much of the mass the media libertarians tend to be lumped with the left by people on the right, and with with the right by people on the left, no thanks to douche faggot jingoists like sarah palin
and of course being anti war in america is SADLY frowned upon

many of its members see it as a squawk box to get out the anti governemnt ideal, but this is not a homogenous group rest assured, and many are advocates of *sigh constitutional republicanism




while it is true that many of the libertarians( possibly most, especially among the old)  want to just reboot back to the constitution, many of the younger libertarian generation are coming around to anarchy

in my opinion the logical conclusion of libertarianism IS anarchy, any many libertarians agree

>>62
I present myself as a counterpoint to you sir, as well as point to the austrian school of economics which contains many many anarchists and self labeled "libertarians"

>>62
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Libertarianism includes a diverse range of philosophies and organizations; all advocate either minimization or elimination of the state, and a goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

>>65
Wikipedia is a discredited, garbage source.
It's not even allowed to be cited in university papers as a source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS33ukkTtE

heres rothbard talking about his ideas about the party and its purpose

rothbard is famously an anarchist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ&feature=related

It looks like chomsky is expressing very well in this video something i couldn't. The term libertarian confuses me because it has a different meaning in the US than i does for the rest of the world.

*sigh
 chomsky and his ivory tower ass
yeah the "stay out of my buisness" of us libertarianism leads to tyranny pfffffffffffft

does it look like that anarcho- libertarian that posted up there supports tyranny? sounds more like adams as naom described to me

do the agorist anarchists support tyranny?
does rothbard support tyranny?

this is no different then if i said " chomsky is a socialist so he supports communism"


chomsky is the one on record supporting obamas stimulus
chomsky is the one on record supporting u.n and strengthening the federal government of the u.s.( the biggest tyrant of them all)
chomsky is the one that beleives in "anarchy" but strengthening the american welfare state


and libertarians are tyrannical?

once again chomsky confuses the " free market" for the corporate/ warfare welfare state, which is so justifiably hated

LIBERTARIANS HATE IT
THEY HATE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
THEY HATE THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE SYSTEM OF CENTRAL BANKS THAT CONTROL WORLD FINANCE
THEY HATE THE POLICE STATE GOING UP WORLD WIDE


motherfucker needs to come out of his ivory tower, maybe except some of those debates about this that he's vehemently refused time and time again

chomsky seems to confused "trannies" with "tyranny"

I am so fucking tiered of these ivory MOTHERFUCKING tower faggots.

I don't get it. Why are there so many ivory tower champagne sipping socialists like Chomsky? Is there no limit to their cognitive dissonance?

It is pretty obvious he is on the same intellectual level as Glenn Beck. I am truly amazed.

True anarchy is an utopia. Humans would need to be way more evolved mentally to practice this for of living. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course. For this days I like the idea, but it just can't be practiced, maybe one day...

>>70,72-73
Waving your arms around screaming "Federal Reserve", "Military–industrial complex", "Central Banks", "Police State", and throwing around terms like "cognitive dissonance" does not even resemble anything close to being a coherent argument.

whats worse is that people like beck and chomsky both think the free market is the same thing

a non free market dominated by mercantile states


HHHHHHHH HYPER SIGH

>>3

men cannot live together

5000 years of states abusing power and controlling slaves has proved that

THATS WHY WE NEED A STATE AMIRITE

Only on /newpol/ will you find that morons conflate Noam Chomsky, a professor from MIT with Glenn Beck, a television talking head douchebag who made millions from selling alarmist rhetorical drivel.

Stay classy /newpol/.

Gnome Chomsky is very small.

>>78
You mad? The only reason you think Chomsky is some kind of wizard with all the answers is because you have been psychologically conditioned to share his subjective tastes. If this were not the case then why do none of his arguments use logic? He's just like Glenn Beck, empty platitudes, blaming everything on boogeymen, sensationalism, everyone has to come packed with an emotion, hurr, durr, derp.

>>80
you think Chomsky is some kind of wizard with all the answers
Nice straw man, dickface. I don't remember reading anything of the sort in >>78

Wow, I never thought that mentioning chomski would have this effect! I think it is fucking stupid to discard academics like this. Whether you agree with them or not, these people spend all their lives trying to understand things and test their understanding as part of their everyday life. They can't all be right and of course we shouldn't take everything they say for granted, but at least we need to have proper arguements in a conversation rather than performing ad hominem (attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments).

>>81
Why shouldn't I compare a professor at MIT with Glenn Beck? MIT does not hire based entirely on merit, they include race, political connections and money as factors when discriminating against people, in fact the only reason they hire based on merit is to bolster the image of those who were not hired based on merit.

>>82 i think its pretty easy to discard somebody when he tells others that your beliefs support tyranny


its no different then if i were to say that all socialists support tyranny

and personally i am tired of socialist leaning individuals using " well chomsky says this about you " as their argument against libertarianism

I don't know man. He makes sense to me. Stil i can't say I have fully understood what libertarians believe in and he points out (in the video above) that the word libertarian has a different meaning in the US than it does for the rest of the world. This is something I was trying to say earlier in this conversation and I think it did make sense to link this video. Obviously I struck some kind of endo-US flame war between chomski and , well I don't undersand who else exactly. Anyway, I think the opinion of a linguist on the meaning of a word in different places of the world was not only relevant but also necassary in order to clarify things in a conversation between people from different parts of the world.

PS. This is how you substantiate an answer with proper arguements.

PS2 The previous PS was intended for people like 79 and 80, not the previous poster.

>>83
MIT does not hire based entirely on merit, they include race, political connections and money as factors when discriminating against people, in fact the only reason they hire based on merit is to bolster the image of those who were not hired based on merit.
Even if that we're true --even if you weren't entirely fucking clueless as to who MIT hires and why-- you can't possibly deny that being a professor there does require at least some merit that Glenn Beck will never have.

And hell, look at Beck's career. Do you really think that people get hired in the radio business based solely on merit?

so its more like " in the us libertarianism means tyranny, but in everywhere else it means my brand of socialism?"

or?

Ok. The only times i've heard of libertarianism in europe was in the case of libertarian communism - a.k.a. anarco-communism. I can't say I've completely understood the use of the term in the US, so I really don't have an opinion on whether it's tyranny or not. For example, libertarian communism in wiki redirects directly to 'anarchist communism'. Looking a bit further into it, I noticed that there is also 'libertarian socialism' also called 'social anarchism'. Now, looking up the term 'libertarianism' on it's own revealed that apparently there are left libertarians and right libertarians. I believe that this is where the confusion is drawn from.

Apparently, the first use if the word DID refer to anarchocommunism. The term libertarian was used to seperate anarchists from communists at the very first stages.

"The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[17][18][19] Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s.[20]"

The above passage was taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

>>83
One word: THE SUSSMAN THRED ^OVER

>>87
>And hell, look at Beck's career. Do you really think that people get hired in the radio business based solely on merit?

There are different definitions of "merit" bro - and a major component of that in the radio business would be getting (and keeping) listeners.

>>87
fucking clueless
You call me clueless yet you believe in argument from authority logical fallacies.

I would respect the opinion of a theoretical physicist on theoretical physics or the opinion of a cellular biologist on cellular biology, but because I won't respect the opinion of a linguist (which is considered by many logicians and discrete mathematicians to be a pseudo-science, much like sociology) on politics you instantly throw a hissy fit and repeating your same argument "HE'S SMART AND YOU'RE STUPID, BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TELLS YOU".

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

It's also pretty obvious you have some serious insecurities about your own intelligence.

http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_5.htm

Glenn Beck is in the same intellectual ball park as Chomsky, the far-left is the same as the far-right in it's use of appeals to emotion, appeals to authority and exploitation of neuroses and mental illness in their followers, such as projective defense mechanisms.

That's all I'm saying, I don't understand why you're getting so mad.
>>90
I don't know what you're saying. Spell it out for me.

"HE'S SMART AND YOU'RE STUPID, BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TELLS YOU".
Don't lecture me on logical fallacies when you've been pulling straw men out of your ass. If I seem upset (I'm not) or act nasty to you it's because you're coming across as nothing more than a mildly cunning troll. I'm just treating you accordingly.
Glenn Beck is in the same intellectual ball park as Chomsky, the far-left is the same as the far-right in it's use of appeals to emotion, appeals to authority
Funny, I've never seen Chomsky use Nazi imagery or pretend to cry on national television. I never said Chomsky was perfect. Nobody did. But Glenn Beck is on a completely different level.
There are different definitions of "merit" bro - and a major component of that in the radio business would be getting (and keeping) listeners.
Fair enough. But getting and keeping listeners absolutely does not make me respect someone's opinion. My point was that the media business is more corrupt than academia, which --don't get me wrong-- is corrupted in its own right.

>>93
Chomsky and Glenn Beck both intentionally create logical fallacies for propoganda purposes and redirect people's malcontent with corruption towards boogeymen, the only difference is in the subjective tastes that you have been psychologically indoctrinated to actually believe. To you Chomsky seems like an intellectual who has questioned society and has made much legitimate criticism, if you take the impartial perspective then this pattern of acknowledging facts out of necessity then creating a fallacious analysis of the facts to redirect people's attention soon becomes self-evident.

Try it.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm

>>94
I'm curious. Could you give some examples of chomsky's logical fallacies? I mean, the guy has written more that i can read, but from what I've read so far, I haven't seen any logical fallacies.

Let's talk about an-arch-y
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all good things
and all the bad things that may be

>>93
Keep up the good fight!
I think you are right on the money re: sophisticated troll.

Windows 98 GET

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7InS1EQ9RfU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7InS1EQ9RfU&feature=related

100 GET !!!

101 dalmatians GET

It's just one troll conflating Chomsky with Beck. Chomsky has written more than is healthy, about topics ranging from linguistics to politics, and Beck is a Fox News™-promoting charlatan with an extremely undeserved career in broadcast television (not that I don't feel the same towards more or less ALL television personalities for that matter), he honestly shouldn't be given an occupation higher than that of a grocery department manager.

*BUMP*

*BOOOOOM*

>>102
You don't get it. I'm not comparing Beck to Chomsky because I think Chomsky is intelligent but because I think they are both fallacy promoting charlatans.

>>105
Care to give us an example of chomsky's fallacies?

>>106
A common theme are his kierkegaardian leaps of faith and inability to choose the "lesser evil". For instance he opposes neo-liberal free trade because it allows evil corporations to use market cornering tactics to strong arm the various shitty despotic 3rd world countries across the globe into unfair deals, yet trade with these countries is often a lifeline for millions of people who would otherwise be thrown into even deeper poverty and as the evil corporations educate and train workers, build facilities, slip governors bribes so they set up power lines, dams, rails, roads, canals and ports.

>>106
Oops accidentally clicked reply. Anyway, as the evil corporations build up these countries they give them enough economic power to throw off their shackles and join the modern world. Just look at Hong Kong. Oppressed victim and colony one minute then an egalitarian 1st world democracy the next. Just ask Jackie Chan, go right ahead and send him an e-mail telling him about this thread and he will agree with me. Send one to Chomsky to.

>>108
Well, that's very arguable you see. From a political point of view, you just disagree with him and you call it a fallacy. I could give you dozens of examples why the neo-liberal agenda is catastrophic but I'm afraid I might not express things well enough and end up confusing you. If you are in the mood for some reading have a look at this (it's not too long):

http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html
http://www.raptorial.com/Zine/Marcos/Marcos0.html
(They are both the same text)

I totaly agree with marco's analysis of neo-liberalism. I think that choosing the lesser evil will get you nowhere. This way you will never have control over your own life.

Ahem. SO, bitches....

I'm not crazy, I'm not a troll. But, I love the Matrix, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher and Food Incorporated.

If any of you hate the corporations like Cargill, Perdue (if you speak french, this name is ironic) and the destruction that others like them are wreaking upon the earth and humanity in the name of profit, then I invite 4chan to expose them. Take the red pill, and the most rocking trip since time began.

If I have inadvertantly posted in the wrong board, please forgive me and direct me to another. This same message will appear again and again until Anonymous finds it and chooses to act. or not. I mean, it's up to them. But, if they've successfully targeted Scientology then American corporations and special interests ought to be a piece of cake.

Ready for the revolution?

Anarchy of the right kind is awesome, by the way. ;)