 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 429 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614114 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What are your views on ? Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of all forms of government, in favor of a society whose members interact on a voluntary basis. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals, and the idea that communities and individuals have a say in decisions to the degree that they are affected by their outcomes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nothing would ever get done |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right now... impossible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think 90% of 'Anarchists' don't know what anarchy is. (its a little bit trendy...) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
voluntary! hahahahaha! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anarchy will always fall back out of anarchy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's totally right man. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no it isn't, its 80%. so it's totally wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't like these squatting anarchists playing crappy music on the street expecting me to pay for their cause of bringing my society down |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fascist! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any power is anarchic (since it does what it claims). those who oppose anarchy simply want to cling to their own little anarchy, and deny others theirs. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You can see in this thread alone that anarchy carries negative connotations. Anarchy is marketable, every teenager loves to be the rebel, right? But that idea of anarchy is fake anyway, a view which has been twisted and now just known as all out chaos, this 'cool' idea isn't exactly Bakunin had in mind. It wouldn't work right now but I hope it'd be a possibility in centuries to come. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's the brick through the window, but someone always comes along and replaces the smashed glass. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think its.....MAD |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Max Stirner says "All things are nothing to me." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mmmm... nihilism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I studied those sort of Russian theorists at college... its extremely interesting stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Anarchists are never there when you need them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just as all those nihilists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The problem with anarchism is you eventually run out of other people's freedom. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you not buy IDM records then? ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for most people, anarchy is just running around and smashing windows, which is fun in itself........ but no way can anything get done without organisation |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Most people are too irresponsible to be given an anarchistic state. As you say, it'd be rioting and looting. As BoxBob-K23, the ideal situation is that you have the power/freedom to be anarchistic in your actions, but that everyone else plays by the rules, to ensure you are comparatively safe and have food to eat, a house to live in, etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually that statement should be taken in context, as Stirner was an egoist - not a nihilist. "All things" are "nothing" or "empty" for Stirner because he sees himself as the creator of "all things" - at least at the subjective/existential level. Both creator and experiencer. Because he is the creator of God, morality, duty, etc. he thus has no obligations towards them. For further info, read his masterwork "The Ego and Its Own". Marx hated Stirner for good reason. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We should ask people in Somalia how anarchy is working out for them. Central government is essential for the welfare of even a small amount of people. If 100 people were dropped on a desert island there would have to be some form of government in the assigning of small essential tasks and the distribution of resources. Or the whole would suffer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i would prefer anarchism over this shite we have here.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i disagree. in my opinion, the smaller the group of people in a system like this, the more likely it is to succeed. if one hundred people were dropped in an environment sectioned off from outside influence with the intention of forming an anarchistic collective, i would give it a good chance of success. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
internationally, we are already living in anarchy... there is no "formal" world police, therefore, we watch individual states move around the globe as they see fit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for instance, during the hurricane katrina disaster, there was a group of a dozen people in new orleans who functioned essentially as an anarchist collective to great success. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because it's always easier to talk it out in a small group of people..unless you have an idiot inbetween..but then you can just 'remove' him/her.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the U.N. is obsolete - they only frown on the global atrocities, nothing more... nothing less. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
basically, yeah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If there are only a dozen or so people there is a case of having to function as a collective. But without a desision making body whose function is for the good of the whole, be that as a democracy or a government of some kind. "Dirty" jobs would not get done and highly skilled jobs would demand more reward, I can't imagine that a skilled farmer would exept the same compensation as a labourer. Thus some sord of deciding body (government) would need to mediate this sort of inevitable situation. Face it. Anarchy does not, will not and has never worked. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think anarchy is quite interesting really....game theory and cybernetics and that innit ?!? self organisation in complex systems, bird flocking...dead interesting to think about |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
An iteresing artical about Somalia's Anarchy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
interesting! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
iteresing! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Typo-tastic.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anarchy is valid. anarchy shortly after being governed isn't. It's like what happens to college guys after being under the dominion of parents; the university becomes a playground of debauchery for a year or so then they get over it and stop being (as) retarded. Maybe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Won't happen until everyone's got their share, and are satisfied with it. Reading Scifi books, where the people are dispersed over planets and galaxies, each person able to be absolutely independent from the rest of mankind, thanks to technology, then it's possible. And then, that's discounting the possibility of wise guys, pirates and the like. But in today's world, fat chance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
like scup_bucket says, the article on somalia misses the point. As if anarchy means "a period of chaos and civil war". Anarchy simply means that whosoever wants to organize, must do so wilfully and not claim jurisdiction over people other than the original signers. First of all, if you have civil war and competing "fiefdoms", you don't have anarchy, you just have various power collectives claiming territory. I'll bet my ass these warlords are actually heads of miniature governments, with henchmen (cabinet), militia (police) and subjects (people). They are government-wannabes. In fact, a "fiefdom" is just a form of federalist management. They call Somalia "a state", but it's nothing of the sort. It's a place where various states co-exist and wage war at one another. There can be no "general will" (socialism) or "citizen's voice" (republic); that's just a load of nonsense. It becomes true when you say "yes, I agree you deserve to rule over me". There is no real "representative government" if they simply give you a chance to write down a number, or a name, on a piece of paper every now and then ("democracy"). It's just tyranny, however diluted. I happen to strongly disagree with Hobbes, Rousseau and their ilk, due to the fact that they were - especially Hobbes - players in the long tradition of self-loathing and body-loathing that goes with Xtian "civilization". But without being utopistic, I can at least urge people not to go around preaching statism in other people's name. It's elitism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's correct |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here's something interesting from wikipedia: Anarcho-primitivists assert that, similar to Locke's ideas, for the longest period before recorded history, human society was organized on anarchist principles. They point to the egalitarian structure of hunter-gatherer bands, to the lack of division of labour and accumulated wealth, non-hierarchal political organization, and the lack of decreed law, as indicators of such indigenous anarchist systems. Examples of indigenous societies with Anarchist political systems include the Nuer of East Africa, the Iroquois (and by some accounts most native people) in North America. The first use of the term anarchy to mean anti-statism was by Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan in his Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale, (1703), where he described the indigenous American society, which had no state, laws, prisons, priests, or private property, as being in anarchy [2]. Russell Means, a leader in the American Indian Movement, has repeatedly stated that he is "an anarchist, and so are all [his] ancestors." Thomas Jefferson said the native American Indians "never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government. Their only controls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling in every man, makes a part of his nature..." and "I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government, enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments" (Notes on Virginia and Letter to Colonel Carrington). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You guys know nothing of anarchy, I listen to Rage Against the Machine and System of a Down so there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and the internet is the first installment of that old non-hierarchical social system re-hashed. Sort of lol@clintwhatthefuckwasthatmovieaboutimeanwtflol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As a libertarian I believe that all you is a free market, a stable currency, and a few good, simple laws that stop people from killing/raping/stealing from each other. I mean, the price of commodities organises things anyway. Everyone in London tomorrow morning will get up and eat breakfast. Why? Because Ken Livingstone set up a "greater London Breakfast executive body". No. Because capitalism and the market will provide goods, and motivate people to access them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
anarchy is idiotic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ummmmmmm... it has a lot of Masonic imagery in it, and is representative of the 5 levels of Freemasonry, or something, each floor representing a different one... I could tell you what it means, but I'm not sure I really know what it means. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ohhhhh, I guess I wasn't really very prepared to watch it considering I have almost no knowledge of freemasonry except for the Simpson’s parody |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
