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?

>>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.