NationStates Jolt Archive


A New Era of Reason, A New Kind of Anarchy

Witzgall
30-01-2005, 03:47
A NEW ERA OF REASON
http://www.raisethefist.com/anarchy.jpg

By Matt Witzgall, with credits going towards CrimethInc.com and other resources.

What is freedom? Freedom is existence without coercion, exploitation, and domination. For some this means to live in a society and community with absolutely no government. For others it means creating a life without both the state and capitalism, in which human affairs are directed by all people equally. Also, As free people we can, should, and will govern ourselves through direct democratic processes in our communities and workplaces. We will organize in both the workplace and community and efforts to bring about social change. We recognize the many different kinds of anarchism and that not everyone believes in the traditional thought of bringing about revolution through violence, but rather favor other strategies for obtaining liberation. Being this, we also favor the non-violent anarchist who participate in militant direct action and disobedience, while simultaneously building non-hierarchical and self-managing organizations that will bring revolution and an end to capitalism from the bottom up rather than the top down.

What is anarchism? Anarchism is the political philosophy of people seeking a society in which all individuals have the greatest choice in the way they live their lives. Therefore, we work towards the creation of a global network of communities formed by voluntary agreements based on co-operation and respect for the freedom of others. We oppose all forms of oppression, including sexism, racism, religious intolerance, discrimination on the basis of sexuality, class structures, the governing of one person by another and any other form of authoritarianism or hierarchy that might happen along. Therefore, we support the empowerment of individuals and communities working towards freedom, we support the genuine resistance to authority. We are not the slightest bit interested in those who merely seek to replace one authoritarian system with another. Some of us like olives, some of us don't.

What is the State? The State is this organized bureaucracy. It is the police department. It is the Army, the Navy. It is the prison system, the courts, and what have you. This is the State -- it is a repressive organization. But the state -- and gee, well, you know, you've got to have the police, because if there were no police, look at what you'd be doing to yourselves -- you'd be killing each other if there were no police! But the reality is the police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who don’t.

It is important in the community that we develop organizations which, while always engaging in educational activities, also develops federations of groups which can begin to replace the current capitalist structures. These groups or collectives might begin with projects like media, alternative schools, libraries, cultural centers, and organic food production. Current examples of this approach are numerous and include Food Not Bombs, Micro-radio stations, and the numerous info shops. Such a reconstructive approach both challenges the existing system even as it brings forth a new.



Usually the word “anarchy” is associated with another word. That word is “chaos.” This is the traditional view of anarchism as a whole by the masses of people who don’t understand the ideas of the true anarchists, the men and women who fight for absolute freedom from oppression and all forms of hatred.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Life is existence when it feels worth waking up for in the morning. Life is written about in epic poetry, love songs, Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets; survival is treated in medical textbooks, urban planning reports, and ergonomics presentations. Life is glorious, heartbreaking, extravagant. Survival, without life, is ridiculous, burdensome, absurd.

Liberty is freedom from sexism, racism, religious persecution, and all ways of hatred and oppression. Liberty is written about in the United States Constitution. Liberty is happiness, a way of life, utopia. Survival, without Liberty, is pointless and suicidal at best.

Happiness is what makes you continue on with your life. It is seeing your family members, your friends. Happiness is written about in almost every novel or book you will come across in your lifetime. Survival, without Happiness, is a state of never-ending depression and let downs.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/Witzgall/anarchy1.jpg

The Dead Hand of the Past
Those who cannot forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
Remember how differently time passed when you were twelve years old? One summer was a whole lifetime, and each day passed like a month does for you now. For everything was new: each day held experiences and emotions that you had never encountered before, and by the time that summer was over you had become a different person. Perhaps you felt a wild freedom then that has since deserted you: you felt as if anything could happen, as if your life could end up being virtually anything at all. Now, deeper into that life, it doesn't seem so unpredictable. The things that were once new and transforming have long since lost their freshness and danger, and the future ahead of you seems to have already been determined by your past.

It is thus that each of us is dominated by history: the past lies upon us like a dead hand, guiding and controlling as if from the grave. At the same time as it gives the individual a conception of herself, an "identity," it piles weight upon her that she must fight to shake off if she is to remain light and free enough to continue reinventing her life and herself. It is the same for the artist: even the most challenging innovations eventually become crutches and clichs. Once an artist has come up with one good solution for a creative problem, it is hard for her to break free of it to conceive of other possible solutions. That is why most great artists can only offer a few really revolutionary ideas: they become trapped by the very systems they create, just as these systems trap those who come after. It is hard to do something entirely new when one finds oneself up against a thousand years of painting history and tradition. And this is the same for the lover, for the mathematician and the adventurer: for all, the past is an adversary to action in the present, an ever-increasing force of inertia that must be overcome. It is the same for the radical, too.

Conventional wisdom has it that a knowledge of the past is indispensable in the pursuit of freedom and social change. But today's radical thinkers and activists are no closer to changing the world for their knowledge of past philosophies and struggles; on the contrary, they seem mired in ancient methods and arguments, unable to apprehend what is needed in the present to make things happen. Their place in the tradition of struggle has trapped them in a losing battle, defending positions long useless and outmoded; their constant references to the past not only render them incomprehensible to others, but also prevent them from referencing what is going on around them. Let's consider what it is about history that makes it so paralyzing. In the case of world history, it is the exclusive, anti-subjective nature of the thing: History (with a capital "H") is purportedly seen by the objective eye of science, as if "from above;" it demands that the individual value her impressions and experiences less than the official Truth about the past. But it is not just official history that paralyzes us, it is the very idea of the past itself.

Try thinking of the world as including all past and future time as well as present space. An individual can at least hope to have some control over that part of the world which is in the future; but the past only acts on her, she can never act back upon it. If she thinks of the world [whether that "world" consists of her life, or human history] as consisting of mostly future, proportionately speaking, she will see herself as fairly free to choose her own destiny and exert her will upon the world. But if her world-view places most of the world in the past, that puts her in a position of powerlessness: not only is she unable to act upon or create most of world in which she exists, but what future does remain is already largely predetermined by the effects of events past.

Who, then, would want to be a meaningless fleck near the end of the eight thousand year history of human civilization? Conceiving of the world in such a way can only result in feelings of futility and predetermination. We must think of the world differently to escape this trap—we must instead place our selves and our present day existence where they rightfully belong, in the center of our universe, and shake off the dead weight of the past. Time may well extend before and behind us infinitely, but that is not how we experience the world, and that is not how we must visualize it either, if we want to find any meaning in it. If we dare to throw ourselves into the unknown and unpredictable, to continually seek out situations that force us to be in the present moment, we can break free of the feelings of inevitability and inertia that constrain our lives—and, in those instants, step outside of history.

What does it mean to step outside of history? It means, simply, to step into the present, to step into yourself. Time is compressed to the moment, space is concentrated to one point, and the unprecedented density of life is exhilarating. The rupture that occurs when you shake off everything that has come before is not just a break with the past—you are ripping yourself out of the past-future continuum you had built, hurling yourself into a vacuum where anything can happen and you are forced to remake yourself according to a new design. It is a sensation as terrifying as it is liberating, and nothing false or superfluous can survive it. Without such purges, life becomes so choked up with the dead and dry that it is nearly unlivable—as it is for us, today.

None of this is to say that we should condone the deliberate lies of those who would rewrite history, with the intention of trapping us even deeper in ignorance and passivity than we are now. But the solution is not to combat their supposed "objective truths" with more claims to Historical Truth—for it is not more past we need, to weigh upon us, but more attention to today. We must not allow them to make our lives and thoughts revolve only around what has been; instead we must realize that it is up to us to reveal what is true about the present and what is possible from here.


So what can we embrace in place of History? Myth, perhaps. Not the obscurest superstitions and holy lies of religion and capitalism, but the democratic myths of storytellers. Myth makes no claims to false impartiality or objective Truth, it does not purport to offer an exhaustive explanation of the cosmos. Myth belongs to everyone, as it is made and remade by everyone, so it can never be used by one group to lord itself over another. And it does not paralyze—instead of trapping people in the chains of cause and effect, myth makes them conscious of the enormous range of possibilities that their own lives have to offer; instead of making them feel hopelessly small in a vast and uncaring universe, it centers the world again on their own experiences and ambitions as represented by those of others. When we tell tales around the fire at night of heroes and heroines, of other struggles and adventures and societies, we are offering each other examples of just how much living is possible. There may be those who will threaten that the whole world will unravel if we stop concerning ourselves with the past and think only of the present. Let it unravel, then! A lot of good history has done us until now, repeating and repeating itself. Let's break out of it once and for all, before we too tread the circular path that our ancestors have worn so bare. Let's make the leap out of History, and make the moments of our daily lives the world we live in and care about—only then can we make it into a place that has meaning for us. The present belongs to those who are able to seize it, to recognize all that it is and can be!
~Text by Nadia C. of CrimethInc. Site at CrimethInc.com~

Eight Things You Can Do To Get Active

1. Pay attention to where and how you spend your money. Is your money going to support companies that don't care about you? Are they destroying the environment, killing animals, treating your friends who work for them like shit? Are they trying as hard as they can to sell you a product that gives you cancer? Are their advertisements designed to manipulate you, to make you feel insecure or make their product seem like more than it really is? You don't need to give those people your money! For that matter—do you buy many things that you don't need? Soft drinks and junk food at convenience stores, for example? Do you end up spending a lot of money whenever you want to relax and have a good time? There are a thousand things you and your friends can do that are fun, creative, and don't cost anything (having intense discussions, exploring hidden parts of your town, making music—instead of drinking at bars or going to movies and restaurants) just as there a thousand ways you can eat and live more cheaply (Food Not Bombs, building furniture instead of buying it, living in big houses with a bunch of friends). Once you experiment a bit, you'll probably find that you enjoy life a lot more when you're not always shelling out cash for it.

2. Now that you spend less, you can work less, too! Think about how much more time that gives you to do other things. Not only will it be easier to do things that help you spend less, like volunteering at Food Not Bombs (the less you work, the more time you have to make sure you don't need to), you'll also be able to do all the things you never had time for before: you can travel, exercise, spend more time with your friends and lovers. When it's sunny and beautiful outside, you can go out and enjoy it!

3. And you'll have time to do the other things you need to do to take back control of your life and your world. First, start reading. It doesn't really matter what, so long as it makes you think about things and gives you new ideas of your own. Read novels about human beings struggling against their society, like J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye or George Orwell's 1984 or Joseph Heller's Catch 22; read the beautiful, dreamers' prose of Jeanette Winterson or Henry Miller. Read history: learn about the Spanish revolution in the 1930's, where whole cities were run by the people who lived in them, rather than by governments; learn about the labor union struggle in the USA, or the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the 1960's. Read philosophy, read about environmental issues, read vegan cookbooks and underground magazines and comics and everything you can get your hands on. Here's a hint: if there's a university in your town, you can probably get a membership for about $10 a year—and most libraries include videos, too!

4. Reading isn't the only way you can expand your horizons and clarify your ideas. Talk to people about the things that interest you, arguing when you don't agree, so you'll get to know your own beliefs better. Write to the people who are doing the 'zines you like, discuss and debate things with them, ask them for directions to find out more about your interests. Try writing about your own ideas, and sharing that with people, until you feel confident doing this. Travel to different places, try to learn about other cultures and communities, so you'll have more than one perspective on the world and you can start to imagine what the world is like through other people's eyes.

5. Now you'll know what you want, and you can go about getting it. Seek out other people and groups with similar goals, and figure out how to support them or participate in what they're doing. Maybe you can copy fliers and give them out at shows; maybe you can organize benefit shows for organizations you want to support (women's shelters, radical bookshops, local groups protesting against the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal or lobbying for protection of the environment). Maybe there are public protests and demonstrations going on that you want to be part of. Try to help find ways to make these more challenging and fun than just a bunch of people holding signs; everyone's so bored with doing that that there must be a more effective and exciting way to go about it.

6. You can start your own projects, as well, you know. If there's no Food Not Bombs in
your area, get a group of people together and find some local businesses that will donate their leftover food. If there's something fucked up at your high school or college or workplace, try organizing a walkout to force the "authorities" to do something about it... and to show everyone that those "authorities" only have as much power as we let them have. If the main street of your town lacks life and excitement, try organizing an unexpected festival to take place in the middle of it one weekend. Shake up everyone's lives and expectations, shake them out of their apathy and boredom so they'll start thinking about things. Establish networks with other people who are also interested in having an effect on the world around them, so you can help each other do this.

7. Through all of this, don't stop questioning yourself and your assumptions. Try to see through all the social programming you've received throughout your life: consider how gender roles constrain the way you act, how your own relationships with people reproduce the same hierarchical order that your fighting in mainstream society. We're not going to really change anything unless we can create new ways of living and interacting, new values that show themselves in the way we treat each other. Show your friends how much you care about them. Consider doing things you never thought you should or could do: dancing, singing, admitting things that you've been taught to be ashamed of.

8. Now look to the future. How can you stay involved with these things as you get older? How can you construct your life so you will always be free to do what you want to? Talk to people older than you who haven't given up and gone back to the daily grind of eat-work-sleep-watch TV. With a little input from them and a lot of resolve on your part, you can maintain your activities and your lifestyle as long as you want to. Idealism, adventure, and resistance don't have to be reserved for youth alone. History is filled with men and women who refused to compromise or calm down, who went all out from the cradle to the grave. They are the artists, the leaders, the heroes and heroines even people from the mainstream respect. We can all have lives like theirs, if we're brave and idealistic enough.

If all of us demand control over what we do and what goes on around us, if all of us do what we can to make life exciting and fair for everyone, things are bound to change. A lot of people know that we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, but persuade themselves that it's hopeless to try to improve things because they're afraid to commit themselves, to take any risks. But it's that lack of ambition that is the biggest risk of all—for what if you do nothing, and nothing happens, and we lose our chance to make this world the paradise it should be? Don't be shy or timid—there's nothing more exciting than taking an active role in the world around you, and there's nothing more worthwhile!
this message brought to you by the CrimethInc. Special Forces
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/Witzgall/anarchy2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/Witzgall/anarchy3.jpg

What Are You Rambling About?

I expect many of you to not understand this “letter” or “booklet”. But everyone doesn’t understand something once in a while.

Viewed with one disposition, history has so far been a horrible accumulation of oppression and suffering. Viewed with another disposition, however, history has chronicled humans discovering their own finer potentials and together mounting heroic offensives to attain them -- against monarchy, feudalism, slavery, Jim Crow racism, apartheid, sexual subjugation, second class citizenship, sexism, heterosexism, dictatorship, one party rule, capitalism, and coordinatorism -- and seeking, in their place, equity, justice, and freedom.

The “New World Order” as it shall be known may not work, but perhaps it shall. And what if it does? Then peace and prosperity may actually become reality, and not some fairy tale we hear in the ads on television and in magazine.

My history teacher speaks about the Five Cultural Institutions: Government, Religion, Education, Economics, and Family. All of these institutions are necessary to have a culture, a society, that will function.

Anarchy, traditionally speaking, calls for an end of all government. But what if government could function properly, without instating the beliefs of hatred and ethnical oppression on a broad scale? If such was a possibility, society could better.

All things that go for the better eventually go for the worse. Such is a saying used by many. But, is that the truth? Sure, in some cases people screw up and things become tragedies instead of revolutions…but this isn’t everyday life.

“The End of the World”

When the world ends, white dust will fill the air like the curtain at the end of a play. A rain of desperate bodies will fall from the windows of burning buildings, drumming the concrete below. Men with splinters in their eyes will stumble through streets choked with debris; women clutching babies will pick through the rubble and tear out their hair. Our Generation will go to its grave shouting its last words into a cell phone.

Or perhaps it will arrive as a thief in the night, step by invisible step. Factories will disappear overseas and corporations will vanish into thin air, taking jobs and retirement funds with them. Cities dying from the inside out will spread like ringworm, the shrapnel spray of suburbs slicing through forest and field. Wars will reach from continent to continent and neighborhood to neighborhood - the terrorists won’t make peace against the horrorists who enforce it at any price, who keep trying to impose harmony between oppressed and oppressor with fear and firepower. Tides will rise with global warming, acid rains fall with the last of the redwoods, computer systems crash with stocks and stock markets…until one day everyone has cancer.

Or else nothing will happen at all, business will continue as usual: prison guards pace concrete tombs, psychiatrists contemplate madness, demons glare from the eyes of ministers, consumers are bought and sold in the marketplace. It’s after the end of the world, whispers the homeless man on the corner - don’t you know that yet?

Others, mysterious and knowing, who have held themselves aloof from the discussion until now, finally interject: “Which world?”

The Other Side of the Argument

So when states and governments all over the world are finally overthrown in the Great successful Revolution yet to come, people will be able to come together to create a new, free society based on anarchist principles, realising their desires. The rivers will run clear and forests will grow again without the capitalist threat. Grim and anonymous cities will become places we can actually live in. Tedious useless work would become redundant, and room made for play and productive activities we enjoy. Crime could be reduced drastically by a return to living in real communities where people look after each other.

But this is a silly utopia and anarchists are hopeless idealistic dreamers who must be totally miserable when actually confronted with reality. Ah but no. Anarchists certainly have a vision of what life could be like, and we try to live it here and now, in many different ways.

The organization of this society is quite blatantly showing its flaws. Many people here are dissatisfied with the way things are run, from ecological destruction to the misery and monotony of daily life. Sitting in front of a telly in a run-down block of council flats without any inviting green spaces to sit down and maybe finally get to know your neighbor. Many will not embrace the lies anymore and also realize the futility of voting. But a general mood of cynicism, resignation and apathy has been created.
Anarchists want to get past this, encourage to speak of our dreams and desires and provide examples of what life could be. We put our revolutionary ideas into practice in everyday life.

Creating anarchy is helping your neighbors, stealing from your workplace, growing your own food, throwing a brick at a policeman, organizing a stamp-collectors' club, baby-sitting for your friend, talking back, phoning in sick, not being what's expected of you. Anarchy is mutual aid, cooperation and not leaving your life to others to organize it.

We don't see the mythical Revolution as something that will just happen suddenly one great day after we've polished some ideology long enough. Revolution is a process of individuals and collectives gradually reclaiming what's been taken from us.
By the hundreds of thousands, peasants organized in the MST ('Movement of the landless') in Brazil are squatting land to live on and work. In the LA riots a few years ago, the poor revolted, looting and making their communities no-go areas for the police. In 1994, the Zapatistas liberated many villages in Chiapas, Mexico, and their struggle against free trade agreements which had disastrous effects on the large peasant population has become international with the Encuentros, gatherings of groups and individuals from all over the world fighting corporate powers.

But anarchy is about all the small scale resistance as well, about individuals refusing standards, ignoring authority and coming together to improve their lives. Everyday, we can experiment with and learn the ways of dealing with each other without leaders and hierarchical structures and with mutual respect, building the world we want now - in our relationships, our interactions and our resistance.

Closing Statement from Yours Truly

“A sociologist is an authority on crowds like a policeman is an authority on people.”
-Bill Buford, Among the Thugs

You know what anarchy is, I’m sure of it. But do you understand it? Knowing and understanding something are two totally different things. “I know that Germany is a Federal Republic. But what does Federal Republic mean?”

Do you believe that one person has the power to change life as we all know it? To change the structures of beliefs and values we currently possess as a world.

This paper or disk can be mass produced. However, Freedom cannot be mass produced, nor attained by merely an agreement. Freedom has to be forged, person by person, action by action, object by object if it comes to that, putting each one through the fire of reinterpretation and recreation.

We must reform. Watch as fixed facts become negotiable, as new means appear under your hands. Now go out an repeat this process with everything else.

http://www.buendnis-gegen-rechts.ch/Logos/Anarchismus/anarchism.jpg
Truitt
30-01-2005, 03:53
0_0

Nice one Witz, I'm book marking this. I like the referance to us dieing with our last words going into a cellphone.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 03:54
Thank you, I aim to please as best I can.
New Granada
30-01-2005, 03:56
This could have been stated more clearly and with a great deal more brevity as "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA"
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 03:57
This could have been stated more clearly and with a great deal more brevity as "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAA"

I'm not quite sure I understand your blatant attempt at either 1) Pissing me off; 2) Disgracing hard work; 3) Disgracing my views in real life; or possibly 4) Trying to be humourous.

But alas....whatever.
Neo-Anarchists
30-01-2005, 03:57
I like it!
G'job!
New Granada
30-01-2005, 03:58
I'm not quite sure I understand your blatant attempt at either 1) Pissing me off; 2) Disgracing hard work; 3) Disgracing my views in real life; or possibly 4) Trying to be humourous.

But alas....whatever.


3, you got it at 3.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 03:58
I like it!
G'job!

Thank you kindly.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:04
"Bump."
Trilateral Commission
30-01-2005, 04:05
Nice work.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:06
Nice work.

Thank you. :D
Trilateral Commission
30-01-2005, 04:07
This should be stickied :D
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:09
This should be stickied :D

Lol, I doubt that highly. It's just one view on the situation and belief system...no Moderator would sticky this thread.
Eichen
30-01-2005, 04:11
This is very good for your age (I checked). You even bothered to include an opposing argument for balance. Really well done.

Now when you're through with the ideology of anarchy, come join the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org). :p
Neo-Anarchists
30-01-2005, 04:11
Grr. I was going to ask if I could print it out and tag some buildings with it. Except I realized it's around 11 or 12 pages.
No chance, then.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:13
Grr. I was going to ask if I could print it out and tag some buildings with it. Except I realized it's around 11 or 12 pages.
No chance, then.

Hehe...I'm handing them out as booklets tomorrow. Print them out and make them long poster things, or go one page at a time.

My contact information won't be given out, but I will allow my email address to be used if you want...

Witzgall@Gmail.com
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:14
This is very good for your age (I checked). You even bothered to include an opposing argument for balance. Really well done.

Now when you're through with the ideology of anarchy, come join the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org). :p

Thank you very much. I tried my hardest with this one...
New Granada
30-01-2005, 04:14
This is very good for your age (I checked). You even bothered to include an opposing argument for balance. Really well done.

Now when you're through with the ideology of anarchy, come join the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org). :p


More evidence for my theory that libertarians are anarchists in business suits.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:16
More evidence for my theory that libertarians are anarchists in business suits.

Wow....do you ever stop? If you want, you can open your mind just a wee bit and read the thread completely.

And Libertarians are actually very respectable people in my mind.
Alexias
30-01-2005, 04:19
GhettoFabulous!

I must remember to re-read this.
New Granada
30-01-2005, 04:20
I read the thread completely.

I should imagine that there are alot of people who, in your mind are "perfectly respectable" and who in my mind are not.

Its because we disagree.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:21
I read the thread completely.

I should imagine that there are alot of people who, in your mind are "perfectly respectable" and who in my mind are not.

Its because we disagree.

I know we disagree. It's your opinion and mine, and that's how the world exists...
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:22
GhettoFabulous!

I must remember to re-read this.

Rrrright..."GhettoFabulous"....thanks. Lol.
Eichen
30-01-2005, 04:25
More evidence for my theory that libertarians are anarchists in business suits.
No dumbass... Those would be Anarcho-Capitalists.
Buechoria
30-01-2005, 04:26
I must be the only 13 year old in the world who finds Anarchism stupid and lacking in any common sense.

Despite the fact you did nothing to turn me towards the terrible concept of anarchy, it look like you put a good deal of work into it (unlike so many other things on NS).
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:27
I must be the only 13 year old in the world who finds Anarchism stupid and lacking in any common sense.

Despite the fact you did nothing to turn me towards the terrible concept of anarchy, it look like you put a good deal of work into it (unlike so many other things on NS).

Thanks. And I'm 15, not 13....but thanks.
Buechoria
30-01-2005, 04:29
No, I'm 13. I was referring to me.
Ashmoria
30-01-2005, 04:30
do you have any problems with the encouragment to violence contained in this booklet? just when you think anarchy makes sense. someone suggest you throw a brick at a cop.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:31
do you have any problems with the encouragment to violence contained in this booklet? just when you think anarchy makes sense. someone suggest you throw a brick at a cop.

When did I suggest someone throws a brick at a cop?
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:33
do you have any problems with the encouragment to violence contained in this booklet? just when you think anarchy makes sense. someone suggest you throw a brick at a cop.

I never suggested that, thats in "The Other Side of the Argument." As in, disproving what most people associate with anarchy...
Eichen
30-01-2005, 04:34
Since this thread is beginning to go up in flames, and you've worked too hard for that, let me return us toward the destination: good debate:

How would you handle the naysayers who would argue that in an anarchic society, the weakest individuals and groups of individuals would quickly fall prey to the stronger members and groups?
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:36
Since this thread is beginning to go up in flames, and you've worked too hard for that, let me return us toward the destination: good debate:

How would you handle the naysayers who would argue that in an anarchic society, the weakest individuals and groups of individuals would quickly fall prey to the stronger members and groups?

How would I handle them?

In an anarchic society, many people have fought for freedom of all sides, freedom of everyday persecution and the ability to pursue what they want. Everyone fights for the greater good, basically.

Anarchy is supposed to sever the worlds of Good and Evil, and create it's own. While many people may say "oh well anarchy is stupid because there's no order", such isn't the case.

Humans, believe it or not, can carry their own weight and much more.
New Stamford
30-01-2005, 04:40
Hippy.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:41
Hippy.

Ok...
Eichen
30-01-2005, 04:44
How would I handle them?

In an anarchic society, many people have fought for freedom of all sides, freedom of everyday persecution and the ability to pursue what they want. Everyone fights for the greater good, basically.

Anarchy is supposed to sever the worlds of Good and Evil, and create it's own. While many people may say "oh well anarchy is stupid because there's no order", such isn't the case.

Humans, believe it or not, can carry their own weight and much more.

I hear ya, but you either avoided the topic or I wasn't clear enough.
The biggest argument against anarchism is that people will abuse their right to assemble and form large groups of more powerful assholes.
Then you're in a worse state than you may have been under the government you overthrew.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:47
I hear ya, but you either avoided the topic or I wasn't clear enough.
The biggest argument against anarchism is that people will abuse their right to assemble and form large groups of more powerful assholes.
Then you're in a worse state than you may have been under the government you overthrew.

Yeah, I misunderstood ya.

For every action there is a reaction. In an anarchic world, people would be all happy-go-lucky....ideally.

But, with the abusing of the right to assemble, there wouldn't be much to assemble about because everyone would be equal, without oppression or hatred. However, most likely, the KKK isn't just going to disband and begin loving black people. That's a bullshit idea.

So yeah, I understand their argument that racism, sexism, etc. etc. will always exist, subconciously or otherwise, and that there is no way to cure the human gene of hatred...it's natural. I, and most anarchists alike, just want to try to "rekindle" the world and put it back into a state of peace and prosperity. It's possible, but it is unlikely...
Eichen
30-01-2005, 04:51
Yeah, I misunderstood ya.

For every action there is a reaction. In an anarchic world, people would be all happy-go-lucky....ideally.

But, with the abusing of the right to assemble, there wouldn't be much to assemble about because everyone would be equal, without oppression or hatred. However, most likely, the KKK isn't just going to disband and begin loving black people. That's a bullshit idea.

So yeah, I understand their argument that racism, sexism, etc. etc. will always exist, subconciously or otherwise, and that there is no way to cure the human gene of hatred...it's natural. I, and most anarchists alike, just want to try to "rekindle" the world and put it back into a state of peace and prosperity. It's possible, but it is unlikely...
You have an incredibly optimistic worldview for someone of your generation.
That's a good thing as we need more people like you to make the world a better place, even if your ideals are a little unrealistic.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:55
You have an incredibly optimistic worldview for someone of your generation.
That's a good thing as we need more people like you to make the world a better place, even if your ideals are a little unrealistic.

Thanks :D
Ashmoria
30-01-2005, 04:57
When did I suggest someone throws a brick at a cop?
i didnt say you suggested it. i asked if it bothered you that the pamplet recommends violence and used that as an example of how it does.

so?

does it bother you?
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 04:59
i didnt say you suggested it. i asked if it bothered you that the pamplet recommends violence and used that as an example of how it does.

so?

does it bother you?

No because it doesn't promote violence...
Ashmoria
30-01-2005, 05:22
No because it doesn't promote violence...
what does this mean then?

Creating anarchy is helping your neighbors, stealing from your workplace, growing your own food, throwing a brick at a policeman, organizing a stamp-collectors' club, baby-sitting for your friend, talking back, phoning in sick, not being what's expected of you. Anarchy is mutual aid, cooperation and not leaving your life to others to organize it.
Belem
30-01-2005, 05:30
keep trying to believe in a pipedream that goes completely against human nature.

If you want to see anarchy go back to 6th grade gym class where the biggest kid was the boss.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 05:30
what does this mean then?

Creating anarchy is helping your neighbors, stealing from your workplace, growing your own food, throwing a brick at a policeman, organizing a stamp-collectors' club, baby-sitting for your friend, talking back, phoning in sick, not being what's expected of you. Anarchy is mutual aid, cooperation and not leaving your life to others to organize it.

That is showing both sides of the argument. Notice how it follows with "organizing a stamp-collectors' club"...
Ashmoria
30-01-2005, 05:34
That is showing both sides of the argument. Notice how it follows with "organizing a stamp-collectors' club"...
so anarchy isnt any of the good parts it talked about?
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 05:42
so anarchy isnt any of the good parts it talked about?

Both sides cancel out. It's neither.
Ashmoria
30-01-2005, 05:48
Both sides cancel out. It's neither.
was it all a send up and i didnt realize it? i thought the guy was being serious. oh well its much too long to be bothered to skim through again, ill have to take your word for it.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 05:57
was it all a send up and i didnt realize it? i thought the guy was being serious. oh well its much too long to be bothered to skim through again, ill have to take your word for it.

It's a set up to disprove the views of Anarchism from today's society, yes. And don't just skim it, read it all.
Eichen
30-01-2005, 06:07
It's a set up to disprove the views of Anarchism from today's society, yes. And don't just skim it, read it all.
In that case, I take back anything positive I had to say.
Now it's just dishonest spin rhetoric.In other words, manipulative bullshit propoganda.
Try again.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 06:08
In that case, I take back anything positive I had to say.
Now it's just dishonest spin rhetoric.In other words, manipulative bullshit propoganda.
Try again.

No, no. Just that sentence...not the whole thing.
Eichen
30-01-2005, 06:18
No, no. Just that sentence...not the whole thing.
Ah, okay. I just wouldn't have been suprised knowing the lame tactics some use on NS. :p
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 06:22
Ah, okay. I just wouldn't have been suprised knowing the lame tactics some use on NS. :p

Lol, nah. That sentence just goes back and forth with comparisons.
Reconditum
30-01-2005, 07:48
That whole thing would be much easier to take seriously if it weren't so mythologized and romanticized.
New Granada
30-01-2005, 08:09
keep trying to believe in a pipedream that goes completely against human nature.

If you want to see anarchy go back to 6th grade gym class where the biggest kid was the boss.


His next thread might be about how wonderful the world would be if the Space Angels came and made it so people didnt have to eat.

Imagine that, no obesity OR starvation!

The world would just be fantastic.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 08:28
with credits going towards CrimethInc.com

some of that looked pretty familiar. have you read "days of war, nights of love" or "fighting for our lives"?
Armandian Cheese
30-01-2005, 08:31
Nice work, but completely off base. It denies utopianism, but forgets one basic fact. Government has to be there for order to be there. Now, you make a smart point about everyone having the same things, but people will steal from their neigbhour because:
1. They want more things.
2. For the hell of it. People are naturally greedy and power hungry.
Reconditum
30-01-2005, 08:33
Very true. Though that could simply be a conditioned behavior that stems from our capitalist, consumerist society.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 08:34
Nice work, but completely off base. It denies utopianism, but forgets one basic fact. Government has to be there for order to be there.

then how do you explain the existence of order before the existence of the state? and, for that matter, outside of it? arguing that pre-state societies lacked order is not going to get you very far.
Industrial Experiment
30-01-2005, 08:36
then how do you explain the existence of order before the existence of the state? and, for that matter, outside of it? arguing that pre-state societies lacked order is not going to get you very far.

The Alpha-Male mentality. The strongest will survive and lead. There's always been an imposed order of sorts, the idea of a state only formalized it.
Reconditum
30-01-2005, 08:39
then how do you explain the existence of order before the existence of the state? and, for that matter, outside of it? arguing that pre-state societies lacked order is not going to get you very far.

Say that a "state" is a organization meant to enforce/promote order. You cannot have a state without order though you may be able to have order without a state. One thing to remember though is that as a society grows the necessity of outside controls does increase. How else could you explain the birth of states in the first place? If we are wired to all get along, why don't we?
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 08:46
How else could you explain the birth of states in the first place?

the shift to large-scale agriculture created a large body of people who could no longer just run away when some guy threatened to beat them up if they didn't follow his commands and pay him "protection money". essentially, once the old methods for maintaining egalitarian relations were no longer functional, the forces of oppression got organized before new methods of preventing domination were created.
Industrial Experiment
30-01-2005, 08:49
the shift to large-scale agriculture created a large body of people who could no longer just run away when some guy threatened to beat them up if they didn't follow his commands and pay him "protection money". essentially, once the old methods for maintaining egalitarian relations were no longer functional, the forces of oppression got organized before new methods of preventing domination were created.

Hardly.

The original idea of "state" was merely an extension of the "Bigger. Faster. Stronger." idea of who gets to lead. Only with the emergence of democracy in places like Athens and Syracuse did the state ever become something resembling a protector of the little man.
Reconditum
30-01-2005, 08:51
the shift to large-scale agriculture created a large body of people who could no longer just run away when some guy threatened to beat them up if they didn't follow his commands and pay him "protection money". essentially, once the old methods for maintaining egalitarian relations were no longer functional, the forces of oppression got organized before new methods of preventing domination were created.

Okay. So what has changed? How would an anarchist deal with the person demanding "protection money" now?
New Granada
30-01-2005, 08:53
Heirarchy organization is a function of group size.

The only way for people to exist in an 'anarchist' state is as bands of hunter-gatherers.

History has proven this conclusively.
Industrial Experiment
30-01-2005, 08:58
Heirarchy organization is a function of group size.

The only way for people to exist in an 'anarchist' state is as bands of hunter-gatherers.

History has proven this conclusively.

No necessarily. A group of sufficiently "educated" (as all education on sociology is subjective) people could quite possibly live in absolute harmony together. Look at North Korea, Kim's managed to convince his people that he is God. If you were to turn this education towards a more communal mindset, then such a thing would be concievably possible.

It's why I'm a Conditional Liberatarian :)
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 08:59
Okay. So what has changed? How would an anarchist deal with the person demanding "protection money" now?

the entirety of anarchist theory is about how to once again organize to prevent the few from dominating the rest of us. it really comes down to collective organization (individuals uniting for a common goal as equals) and bottom-up federations of various types, which unites smaller organizations without putting them under the control of a central ruling elite. that's the vague thumbnail sketch. i can provide links to larger works of theory and praxis if you like.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 09:04
Heirarchy organization is a function of group size.

therefore we now have a much more strict hierarchy in our political organizations than ever occured in the days of the god-kings, where the people had at least some nominal say in things.

oh wait. that's completely backwards. hmm, there goes that hypothesis.
Reconditum
30-01-2005, 09:09
the entirety of anarchist theory is about how to once again organize to prevent the few from dominating the rest of us.
But, ideally, isn't that what "the state" wants to do as well? Hell, even capitalism wants to tap into the moral intuition that exploitation is bad. Invisible hand, anyone?
it really comes down to collective organization (individuals uniting for a common goal as equals) and bottom-up federations of various types, which unites smaller organizations without putting them under the control of a central ruling elite.
Though as an organization grows people will need to form a network to disseminate information. Whomsoever controls the information will, in effect, control the whole organization. So you're still stuck with a potential ruling elite. At least, that's how I see it.
that's the vague thumbnail sketch. i can provide links to larger works of theory and praxis if you like.
Go ahead. I'm always willing to try to learn more about other beliefs. But try not to direct me to anything along the same lines as the original post (style-wise). I do not react well to pontification.
New Granada
30-01-2005, 09:13
therefore we now have a much more strict hierarchy in our political organizations than ever occured in the days of the god-kings, where the people had at least some nominal say in things.

oh wait. that's completely backwards. hmm, there goes that hypothesis.


Thats quite a nose-dive into the rubbish heap of bogus logic.

If my hypothesis was "as population increases, people have less of a say in their government" then it would be disproven, but that wasnt my hypothesis.

Perhaps if you could name a single example of a large population which arranges its society in accordance with the ideals of anarchism which you espouse you could put some evidence up against the theory of heirarchy-as-a-function-of-population.

To perhaps prevent another such nose-dive, i'll make explicit that the relationship between population and heirarchical organization has not shown to be a direct one in the sense of "the larger the population, the more strict the heirarchy."
Deltaepsilon
30-01-2005, 09:27
Geez Witz, if what you're looking for is a pat on the back, try to be a bit more short-winded about it. Subtlety couldn't hurt either.
Remember, "Brevity is the greater part of wit."

But good job I guess. Very thoroughly researched.
Yiddnland
30-01-2005, 09:36
"Bump."
Well done you self-enlightened 14 year old almighty jr. high school student.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 21:21
But, ideally, isn't that what "the state" wants to do as well? Hell, even capitalism wants to tap into the moral intuition that exploitation is bad. Invisible hand, anyone?

in recent times, certain people have thought that the state can be made to prevent that domination. but since the state is nothing without being a hierarchal structure with commands coming from a tiny number of people at the top that must be obeyed by everybody else, then clearly we have a case of the elite dominating the rest of us. even if that elite is mainly trying to hold down a different would-be elite (the old ruling class or an up-and-coming one), it is still an example of elite rule.

and i'm not sure how the metaphor of the invisible hand relates to the moral intuition against exploitation. if there is money to be made by exploiting people, then the invisible hand pushes everything in that direction. and there is always money to be made by exploiting people even more.

Though as an organization grows people will need to form a network to disseminate information. Whomsoever controls the information will, in effect, control the whole organization. So you're still stuck with a potential ruling elite. At least, that's how I see it.

true. but oddly enough, your own choice of wording point us in the right direction. the way to solve informtion problems is to make multiple redundant paths of information flow, with no real centralized hubs, but rather multiple decentralized ones - often known as a network structure. no single node in the network is vital for the continued existence of the network as a whole, thus there is no one place where power over the flow of information can be held.

hierarchical structures actually run into a completely different information problem. when communication occurs between people who are not equals, the less powerful are very likely to tell their superiors what they think their superiors want to hear. which means that the farther removed the ultimate decision-making body is from the base, the more disinformation they have been fed and the less likely their decisions are to be at all in line with the actual facts on the ground.

Go ahead. I'm always willing to try to learn more about other beliefs. But try not to direct me to anything along the same lines as the original post (style-wise). I do not react well to pontification.

yeah, that was kind of crimethinc-y. which isn't a bad thing, but its not for everybody. the standard online text is an anarchist faq (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/). it's a huge monstrosity, but fairly easy to navigate by particular questions you might want to see an anarchist answer for. most of your questions will probably be covered somewhere in sections a, b, i, and j.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 21:35
some of that looked pretty familiar. have you read "days of war, nights of love" or "fighting for our lives"?

Yes I have.

And as for all of the questions about economy and such, there is such a program that is currently already being debated. In place of capitalism, I advocate participatory economics, or parecon.

It is for the working class. There is only one class. No rich, no poor. Total social equality. Ever heard of worker's unions? Check out the GDC. They're helping millions and millions of people who are in the working class, and they fight for these people who are stuck in what is known as the "class war".

As for the "Anarchist FAQ", I've never heard of it. And for the CrimethInc-y way of my post, it is true. I believe in CrimethInc, Infoshop, StayFree magazine, and I have browsed the Anarchist Black Cross. While many of these sites do promote bullshit propoganda, some do not. CrimethInc is written by users, not the owners of the site.

Raise the Fist was another good place to visit, but alas: the man was arrested.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 21:36
Well done you self-enlightened 14 year old almighty jr. high school student.

Whoa. Nice job trying to make fun of me. I commend you.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 21:55
Thats quite a nose-dive into the rubbish heap of bogus logic.

If my hypothesis was "as population increases, people have less of a say in their government" then it would be disproven, but that wasnt my hypothesis.

Perhaps if you could name a single example of a large population which arranges its society in accordance with the ideals of anarchism which you espouse you could put some evidence up against the theory of heirarchy-as-a-function-of-population.

To perhaps prevent another such nose-dive, i'll make explicit that the relationship between population and heirarchical organization has not shown to be a direct one in the sense of "the larger the population, the more strict the heirarchy."

pretend the year is 1680. can you show me a single example of a large population which arranges itself in accordance with democratic ideals? lack of current existence is not proof of impossibility.

and i think you are going to need to be more explicit about this alleged relation between population size and hierarchy. cause what it looks like to me is that you have small-scale societies without much hierarchy, and you have moderate sized ones living in over-grown villages like catalhoyuk without much hierarchy, and you have settlements both larger and smaller that have an immensely stratified political hierarchy, and you have enormous societies with huge populations that have both highly stratified political hierarcies and ones much less stratified than the ancient ones, and you have a couple of partially successful attempts at large-scale anarchist organization like in spain during the civil war.

we've already established that you don't believe in a linear relationship. so what sort of relationship do you envision? above x population, y amount of hierarchy is required? if so, we have no idea what the minimum y amount is - it's never been tested. so let's find out.
Free Soviets
30-01-2005, 21:58
Raise the Fist was another good place to visit, but alas: the man was arrested.

sherman is out now, though possibly still on rather harsh terms - no contact with the anarchist movement or use of a computer, iirc.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 21:59
pretend the year is 1680. can you show me a single example of a large population which arranges itself in accordance with democratic ideals? lack of current existence is not proof of impossibility.

and i think you are going to need to be more explicit about this alleged relation between population size and hierarchy. cause what it looks like to me is that you have small-scale societies without much hierarchy, and you have moderate sized ones living in over-grown villages like catalhoyuk without much hierarchy, and you have settlements both larger and smaller that have an immensely stratified political hierarchy, and you have enormous societies with huge populations that have both highly stratified political hierarcies and ones much less stratified than the ancient ones, and you have a couple of partially successful attempts at large-scale anarchist organization like in spain during the civil war.

we've already established that you don't believe in a linear relationship. so what sort of relationship do you envision? above x population, y amount of hierarchy is required? if so, we have no idea what the minimum y amount is - it's never been tested. so let's find out.


Free Soviets is a masterdebator.
Witzgall
30-01-2005, 21:59
sherman is out now, though possibly still on rather harsh terms - no contact with the anarchist movement or use of a computer, iirc.

Yeah I know he's out, but he's not really allowed contact within the anarchist movement.
New Granada
31-01-2005, 03:29
pretend the year is 1680. can you show me a single example of a large population which arranges itself in accordance with democratic ideals? lack of current existence is not proof of impossibility.

and i think you are going to need to be more explicit about this alleged relation between population size and hierarchy. cause what it looks like to me is that you have small-scale societies without much hierarchy, and you have moderate sized ones living in over-grown villages like catalhoyuk without much hierarchy, and you have settlements both larger and smaller that have an immensely stratified political hierarchy, and you have enormous societies with huge populations that have both highly stratified political hierarcies and ones much less stratified than the ancient ones, and you have a couple of partially successful attempts at large-scale anarchist organization like in spain during the civil war.

we've already established that you don't believe in a linear relationship. so what sort of relationship do you envision? above x population, y amount of hierarchy is required? if so, we have no idea what the minimum y amount is - it's never been tested. so let's find out.


As it has been shown to be, when a group takes up intensive food production and the geography allows for population expansion, heirarchical organization arises to meet certain social needs.

Among them are "dispute resolution" or "law and order" and allocation of resources. It has been demonstrated in every case that power tends to fall into the hands of a relative few, either through force of arms or by popular consent.

It is telling to realize that in the entire history of the human race, there has not been a single instance where a large population has maintained an 'anarchist collective society.' The failed experiments in anarchism such as those during the spanish civil war are more evidence against the idea that 'anarchism' is a realistic idea for social organisation.
Witzgall
31-01-2005, 03:34
As it has been shown to be, when a group takes up intensive food production and the geography allows for population expansion, heirarchical organization arises to meet certain social needs.

Among them are "dispute resolution" or "law and order" and allocation of resources. It has been demonstrated in every case that power tends to fall into the hands of a relative few, either through force of arms or by popular consent.

It is telling to realize that in the entire history of the human race, there has not been a single instance where a large population has maintained an 'anarchist collective society.' The failed experiments in anarchism such as those during the spanish civil war are more evidence against the idea that 'anarchism' is a realistic idea for social organisation.

Anarchism can be a realistic idea for a culture or social organization, it is feasable and possible.

Also in the history of mankind and the human race is the system of patriarchal society, in which men make all of the decisions for the wide population. A matriarchal society is now possible, even though they once thought it couldn't be because women were either irresponsible or were not good under power.
Letila
31-01-2005, 03:46
Great article, Witzgall. Sadly, most people are quite resistant to the truth. I've written a little about it. Maybe I should post it some time.
Witzgall
31-01-2005, 03:49
Great article, Witzgall. Sadly, most people are quite resistant to the truth. I've written a little about it. Maybe I should post it some time.

Thank you very much, Letila.
Reconditum
31-01-2005, 03:53
Great article, Witzgall. Sadly, most people are quite resistant to the truth.

That sort of attitude makes my blood boil. Who the hell do you think you are?
Buechoria
31-01-2005, 04:05
The "truth"? Are you Morpheous or something?

Edit: That really didn't make sense, I must admit.