Following the thread about Communism, I'm curious to know what replies I can get
about Anarchism. So my main question is what have you always thought of Anarchy,
and what seems to be what others near you think? Is that the truth or only
prejudices?
Keep in mind that what you know about Anarchism may not be true. If you are here
to talk about chaos, you are completely wrong. Anarchy is Order. (famous quote by first self-called Anarchist
Proudhon, and yes, this is why there's an O in the A :] )
I would much more like to listen to the ones who have something interesting to
say than the ones who can only talk about emo punks. :P
now I know I'm not making much of a big introduction but I know what I know
about the movement, I want to hear you out
without going into the different types of anarchism, ill just say that. i dont
agree with it, being a marxist and all, but it is as legitimate ideology as any
other. only reason it isnt powerfull politicly is because anarcists are very
split. on methods and goals.
it was notorious as far as its begining...assasinations and murder. but is also
misunderstood. how many people have said to me "anarchist political
party...thats an oxymoron."
I wonder if the fact that no one is willing to give intelligent replies is
because the subject is indeed taboo or because I have no friends. In any case
I'll be posting bits of information to break the prejudices some may
have...
While anarchism is defined by what it is
against, anarchists also offer differing positive visions of what they believe
to be a truly free society. The word "anarchy," as anarchists use it,
does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a harmonious stateless
society.
--
Anarchists have often been portrayed as
dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts
including riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism by some communist
anarchists. Some revolutionaries of the late 19th century encouraged acts of
political violence, such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to
further anarchism. Such actions have sometimes been called 'propaganda by the
deed'. One of the more outspoken advocates of propaganda by deed was Johann
Most, who said "The existing system will be quickest and most radically
overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the
enemies of the people must be set in motion." Most's preferred method of
terrorism, dynamite, earned him the moniker
"Dynamost."
--
The use of terrorism and assassination,
however, is condemned by most anarchists. Even anarchists who see acts of
violence as justified in a context of insurrection and class war would often
view individual acts of terrorism as ineffective and counter-productive.
However, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence; Mikhail
Bakunin and Errico Malatesta saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable
force. Other anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in
nonviolence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate nonviolent resistance as the only
method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see violence as the
basis of government and coercion and argue that, as such, violence is
illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of Proudhon's French followers
even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional
socialist tactics.
Some anarchists make a distinction between
"violence" and "property destruction": they claim that
violence is when a person inflicts harm to another person, while property
destruction or property damage is not violence. Others see property destruction
as stealing the fruits of someone's labor, thus an indirect form of
slavery.
Anarchism is a nice concept to think about..
Simply put, it is a world without leaders, right?
Much as its ideals are for the better, i feel that it is not practical in the
world now. In the world now, there are many people with many different aims,
thinkings and mindsets.
With anarchy, it means that there are no laws, or more appropriately, no people
to enforce laws. Laws set cannot come into practice because there are simply no
leaders to put across the message. no leaders to punish those who break the
law..
It is sad to say that many humans cannot live in a state without a proper
political system, as humans are really too flawed. Humans are evil, greedy, and
savage by nature, and an idealistic system such as anarchism is easily
corrupted.
An anarchist is indeed an interesting concept that is worth thinking, as i
myself feel that it gives humans true freedom. Then again, total freedom may not
be a good thing. In the world today, it is quite difficult.
the reason i disagree to anarchism is not because it is a wrong concept or
anything, but it is too easily corrupted..
ah but you are wrong. Anarchy has laws and rules. Anarchy is Order (Proudhon)
True utopic Anarchism could have leaders, as long as they cannot exercise power
or authority. To lead is to be in charge or command of, to organize. It does not
necessarily involve authority.
But indeed it shall never happen, for the human soul is easily corrupted.
Allthough I will fight for any system that is the closest we can get~
scare me
sorry for my slipshod phrasing... i meant 'no people to enforce laws'.. to me to
be able to enforce laws is to have authority over others... hmmn... depends on
one's own definitions of things i suppose..
btw if any1 is intrested in an anarchist intelectuial, noam chomsky and john
pilger. they (in my opinion) are anarchists who apply the anarchist ideology to
the real world. globalisation, iraq war, ocupations...ect.
its an interesting read
Well, it's obviously misunderstood, because a lot of people associate anarchism
with violence, whereas in reality most anarchists are incredibly nonviolent, not
willing to acquiese to the use of violence by government as most people are.
Following the thread about Communism, I'm curious to know what replies I can get about Anarchism. So my main question is what have you always thought of Anarchy, and what seems to be what others near you think? Is that the truth or only prejudices?
Keep in mind that what you know about Anarchism may not be true. If you are here to talk about chaos, you are completely wrong. Anarchy is Order. (famous quote by first self-called Anarchist Proudhon, and yes, this is why there's an O in the A :] )
I would much more like to listen to the ones who have something interesting to say than the ones who can only talk about emo punks. :P
now I know I'm not making much of a big introduction but I know what I know about the movement, I want to hear you out
Interesting links if ever you want to leatn a few stuff before answering:
http://www.zmag.org/AWatch/awatch.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
ty for saying what i was gona say
without going into the different types of anarchism, ill just say that. i dont agree with it, being a marxist and all, but it is as legitimate ideology as any other. only reason it isnt powerfull politicly is because anarcists are very split. on methods and goals.
it was notorious as far as its begining...assasinations and murder. but is also misunderstood. how many people have said to me "anarchist political party...thats an oxymoron."
I wonder if the fact that no one is willing to give intelligent replies is because the subject is indeed taboo or because I have no friends. In any case I'll be posting bits of information to break the prejudices some may have...
While anarchism is defined by what it is against, anarchists also offer differing positive visions of what they believe to be a truly free society. The word "anarchy," as anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a harmonious stateless society.
--
Anarchists have often been portrayed as dangerous and violent, due mainly to a number of high-profile violent acts including riots, assassinations, insurrections, and terrorism by some communist anarchists. Some revolutionaries of the late 19th century encouraged acts of political violence, such as bombings and the assassinations of heads of state to further anarchism. Such actions have sometimes been called 'propaganda by the deed'. One of the more outspoken advocates of propaganda by deed was Johann Most, who said "The existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion." Most's preferred method of terrorism, dynamite, earned him the moniker "Dynamost."
--
The use of terrorism and assassination, however, is condemned by most anarchists. Even anarchists who see acts of violence as justified in a context of insurrection and class war would often view individual acts of terrorism as ineffective and counter-productive. However, there is no consensus on the legitimacy or utility of violence; Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta saw violence as a necessary and sometimes desirable force. Other anarchists share Leo Tolstoy's Christian anarchist belief in nonviolence. These anarcho-pacifists advocate nonviolent resistance as the only method of achieving a truly anarchist revolution. They often see violence as the basis of government and coercion and argue that, as such, violence is illegitimate, no matter who is the target. Some of Proudhon's French followers even saw strike action as coercive and refused to take part in such traditional socialist tactics.
Some anarchists make a distinction between "violence" and "property destruction": they claim that violence is when a person inflicts harm to another person, while property destruction or property damage is not violence. Others see property destruction as stealing the fruits of someone's labor, thus an indirect form of slavery.
Anarchism is a nice concept to think about..
Simply put, it is a world without leaders, right?
Much as its ideals are for the better, i feel that it is not practical in the world now. In the world now, there are many people with many different aims, thinkings and mindsets.
With anarchy, it means that there are no laws, or more appropriately, no people to enforce laws. Laws set cannot come into practice because there are simply no leaders to put across the message. no leaders to punish those who break the law..
It is sad to say that many humans cannot live in a state without a proper political system, as humans are really too flawed. Humans are evil, greedy, and savage by nature, and an idealistic system such as anarchism is easily corrupted.
An anarchist is indeed an interesting concept that is worth thinking, as i myself feel that it gives humans true freedom. Then again, total freedom may not be a good thing. In the world today, it is quite difficult.
the reason i disagree to anarchism is not because it is a wrong concept or anything, but it is too easily corrupted..
ah but you are wrong. Anarchy has laws and rules. Anarchy is Order (Proudhon)
True utopic Anarchism could have leaders, as long as they cannot exercise power or authority. To lead is to be in charge or command of, to organize. It does not necessarily involve authority.
But indeed it shall never happen, for the human soul is easily corrupted. Allthough I will fight for any system that is the closest we can get~
scare me
sorry for my slipshod phrasing... i meant 'no people to enforce laws'.. to me to be able to enforce laws is to have authority over others... hmmn... depends on one's own definitions of things i suppose..
indeed, anarchy has no police or army to enforce laws, citizens are supposed to be intelligent
btw if any1 is intrested in an anarchist intelectuial, noam chomsky and john pilger. they (in my opinion) are anarchists who apply the anarchist ideology to the real world. globalisation, iraq war, ocupations...ect.
its an interesting read
Well, it's obviously misunderstood, because a lot of people associate anarchism with violence, whereas in reality most anarchists are incredibly nonviolent, not willing to acquiese to the use of violence by government as most people are.
anarchy is living without laws, borders, limits.
you can do whatever and without authority...
and people think its linked with satanist and stuff, and it kinda is... know that satan just means offender adversary...
and anarchy is just saying life is cruel and unfair.
and all the other government structurs is the right to rule, to lead, and control
curiouslittlevixen just illustrated the misunderstood point
also life is cruel and unfair. some will live to 100 and SOME will be killed before the age of 5 through no fault of thier own.
if some one can elighten me how thats fair or not cruel please do